NEW DATA SHOWS TROUBLING TREND IN VACCINATED
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | April 21, 2022
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | April 21, 2022
Elon Musk’s attempt to buy the social media giant Twitter has sent shockwaves through the mainstream media. Why are they so threatened by free speech?
ELON MUSK BUYING TWITTER
You’ve probably heard that billionaire Tesla-founder Elon Musk is putting together a financial package to become the sole proprietor of Twitter. Having already purchased 10% of the social media giant’s shares, Musk turned down a seat on the board of directors and decided to just buy the whole place.
To be clear, we don’t much like Musk and trust him less. The whole story is likely just another non-issue for people to squabble over.
… that said, you’d have to be made of stone not to take some bitter pleasure in watching the squirming of “liberal” pundits who are suddenly having their own sophistry turned against them.
Remember how those of us concerned about corporate censorship have always been told that “private companies can do what they want” and “if you don’t like, go make your own platform”? Well, apparently those arguments no longer apply.
In fact, according to Robert Reich in the Guardian, “going to another platform” is not an option. Funny that.
Mehdi Hasan rants about Musk’s “problematic free speech escapade” in his latest show, setting up a strawman so large he could burn it and guarantee a bountiful harvest.
The Conversation hosts an article that argues allowing everyone equal room to express themselves is actually bad for free speech because it doesn’t protect “the vulnerable” from harassment.
But the prize for the most-revealing reaction goes to Max Boot of the Washington Post, who said on twitter:
It’s delightful. From the refusal to acknowledge that the paper he works for was only just recently purchased by Jeff Bezos, the second richest man in the world, to the coy euphemism for censorship, all good stuff.
But why is all this happening? And where is it all going?
There are a few ways this could go. For one, the government might step in and stop Musk from buying the company. Protecting social media from becoming a “monopoly”, scoring some points with the “left” for “standing up to billionaires”, and setting a precedent for state interference in private business.
It could be that Musk does buy twitter, and scraps any limitations in line with his “free speech absolutist” claims… but then nation-states will be “forced” to make new rules limiting speech since “irresponsible tech companies refuse to act to stop hate speech” or something along those lines.
Whatever happens, its easy to see how this could further the war on free speech, one way or another. Or maybe nothing will happen at all, and it’s just fun and games.
Anatomy of a Bogus “Disinformation” Smear
Justin Ling, the fearsome Freelance Investigative Journalist
By Michael Tracey | April 23, 2022
Foreign Policy is a publication that specializes in Serious essays about all manner of Serious topics in the realm of foreign policy. If you’ve ever touted your professional credentials as a Serious Foreign Policy Thinker, or if you one day aspire to a Senior Fellow sinecure in Serious Foreign Policy Studies — there’s a good chance you’re a subscriber.
I only just found out that on April 12, this highly prestigious journal ran an article that accuses me of participating in a “Russian disinformation operation.” (Gee, never could have guessed that’d be the accusation. How unexpected.) It took awhile for me to learn of this article’s existence, because I wasn’t contacted ahead of time for any sort of comment or given any chance to reply — apparently a journalistic convention that’s fallen out of favor. Oh well.
The journalist who wrote the article is someone named Justin Ling. I had only ever vaguely heard of this person, but after some modest inquiry, now understand that he self-identifies as a “freelance investigative journalist.” In this capacity, Ling claims to specialize in issues of “misinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremism.” Those who pompously declare themselves to be big media experts in such topics all tend to fit a certain obnoxious mold. Glenn Greenwald has remarked that this newly-concocted journalistic “beat” generally consists of “an unholy mix of junior high hall-monitor tattling and Stasi-like citizen surveillance.” NBC News in particular employs a whole dedicated fleet of these people, who — as Greenwald put it — “devote the bulk of their ‘journalism’ to searching for online spaces where they believe speech and conduct rules are being violated, flagging them, and then pleading that punitive action be taken (banning, censorship, content regulation, after-school detention).”
Justin Ling belongs squarely to this pretentious media clique — he even claims to have been one of its pioneers. And his latest foray into “freelance investigative journalism” apparently entailed scrolling through my Twitter feed. Which you may notice often seems like the main activity of this new breed of journalist; the ones who, like Ling, hold themselves out as seasoned, world-wise “misinformation” debunkers. They really love sitting around on Twitter, waiting to exclaim that a harmful new “conspiracy theory” has emerged. Conveniently, they’ve preemptively endowed themselves with the divine right to adjudicate what does and does not constitute a “conspiracy theory.” Precisely when “information that journalists happen to personally disagree with, or be offended by” magically becomes “disinformation” still remains a mysterious puzzle. Those like Ling who parade around in this fashion can be frequently observed snidely dismissing concerns about online censorship — even as they piously warn how very dangerous it is that uncensored “content” is allowed to proliferate on the internet.
Naturally, Ling also now claims to specialize in Ukraine, and since the invasion has diligently worked to DEBUNK all manner of Ukraine-related disinformation. While the definition is always in flux depending on this media cohort’s latest political imperatives, “disinformation” in April 2022 seems to largely be defined as any information which may run counter to the interests of the Ukraine Government or its patrons, such as the US and Canada — the latter of which Ling is a proud resident.
So when people on the internet started rudely discussing the statement by Victoria Nuland last month that US-funded biological laboratories exist in Ukraine, Ling deployed his amazing investigative skills to purportedly unearth where this “conspiracy theory” had originated. And you won’t believe what he discovered: the whole thing supposedly started with a random account on Twitter. Ling doesn’t actually prove that this “conspiracy theory” originated with the tweet he says he found — he just asserts that it did, and excitedly adds that the account in question had also expressed some belief in QAnon nonsense. Even though Ling presents no tangible proof for his foundational contention, that’s totally fine with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which aired his little segment attributing the whole “biolabs” story — get ready for this shocker — to a nefarious Russian/right-wing “disinformation” network. Ling managed to valiantly map out the network by screenshotting tweets.
To demonstrate that any misgivings about the “biolabs” were reprehensible “disinformation,” Ling conducted a friendly chat with a Pentagon official, Robert Pope, who denied that there was anything untoward going on. This was the extent of Ling’s investigative journalism on the issue; in the segment, Ling is shown doing nothing other than presumptively accept the Pentagon official’s explanation.
Despite airing on the Canadian government’s TV channel, the segment has that annoyingly familiar feel of choreographed and branded “edginess” — reminiscent of VICE, where Ling also once worked. Amidst the sonic backdrop of weird, thumping ambient music, the viewer is for some reason made to follow along with Ling as he adventurously travels throughout Virginia highways and airports.
The CBC’s description of the segment reads: “Investigative reporter Justin Ling exposes how a QAnon conspiracy theory about US-funded ‘biolabs’ in Ukraine morphed into mainstream disinformation.” Which is strange, because a high-ranking US State Department official, Victoria Nuland, is the one who confirmed the existence of the US-funded biolabs — in public Congressional testimony. Given her well-documented history of intimate “meddling” in Ukraine, and her membership in one of the most prominent neoconservative familial dynasties in the US, Nuland’s comment understandably sparked widespread interest. Nonetheless, Ling and the CBC seemed satisfied that they had settled the issue, and successfully pinned the entire thing on the usual nexus of the Kremlin and Fox News.
This is far from Ling’s first battle on the frontlines of the information war. A biography on his Talent Bureau page states: “He is also investigating Russian meddling in Canadian politics, a project that has taken him from inside the headquarters of the Department of National Defence to a NATO training base in Latvia.” Man, I’d love to know how much it costs for a custom Ling speech on that fascinating topic.
Ling identifies as a “queer journalist,” whatever that means exactly, and part of his coverage of the war in Ukraine has been to convene a “panel of queer Ukrainians.” During that panel, Ling said: “I’ve spent a little time in Kiev myself. I’m looking forward to going back someday soon. I have to confess, Kiev has maybe some of the most fierce drag queens I’ve ever seen in my life.” So that’s some background on Ling.
Which brings us to his latest groundbreaking Foreign Policy investigation. Ling again decided to boldly tackle the most taboo of subjects: bad stuff Russia is alleged to have done. Daring to “go there” requires immense bravery on Ling’s part, and he deserves real credit. In the Foreign Policy article, Ling sets his sights on the allegations earlier this month that Russia was guilty of committing horrendous crimes against Ukrainian civilians in the town of Bucha. Based on evidence he saw online, including “radio chatter,” Ling announced his opinion that “it’s not hard to conclude that it was Russian forces who massacred Ukrainian civilians.” Anyone who might be inclined to seek an independent, impartial investigation before reaching firm conclusions about such a grave question — which happens to be the stated position of obscure, inconsequential countries like India and China — had merely fallen victim to “the constellation of disinformation channels” organized by Russia, according to Ling’s thesis. Despite what he calls a “preponderance of the evidence” that instantly showed Russia was 100% culpable, Ling decries:
That is apparently not enough for recently reelected Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who was criticized by his allies in Poland for refusing to accept that Russia perpetrated the killings.
Despite Russia’s flimsy defense, some Westerners have nevertheless chosen to believe it. Writer Michael Tracey tweeted to his 240,000 followers that the photos were “war propaganda” and cast doubt on their authenticity. Conspiracy site Infowars ran breathless coverage touting information, largely cribbed from those pro-Russian Telegram channels, that “exposes the truth” of what happened in Bucha.
Note that I’m sandwiched right between Viktor Orban and Infowars, which basically makes me an ideological Satan for the average Foreign Policy reader. However, you may be shocked to learn that Ling drastically misrepresents what I actually said, and conveniently doesn’t even bother to include a link or full quote so people can judge for themselves.
Contrary to Ling’s bogus assertion, the only thing I “cast doubt” on in the tweet he uncovered was the propriety of mindlessly disseminating a warring party’s propaganda — which journalists and “experts” of all stripes have shown zero reservations about doing since the outset of this conflict. So long as it’s the warring party to which they’re politically and emotionally committed, they’re more than happy to present the propaganda as verified fact. It seems self-evidently ludicrous, for instance, that CBS would simply take PR material directly from Zelensky and blast it out on air with no corroboration — but that’s exactly what they’re doing. And that’s the practice I was “casting doubt” upon. You’d think this would almost be a banal point — with many journalists at least in theory claiming to be cognizant of how the “fog of war” distorts the news-gathering process. But that the point has become so intensely controversial speaks to how normal standards of rational thought have been thoroughly obliterated over the past two months.
Ling further accuses me of “believing” the Russian government, which is just straightforwardly stupid. He cites no evidence for this accusation — Foreign Policy editors obviously don’t care whether anything he blurts out has even the slightest hint of corroboration behind it. For the record: not on the day of the tweet in question, nor at any point since the war started, have I ever expressed uncritical “belief” in anything a Russian government official has said. Again, Ling has absolutely nothing to back up his malignant accusation. As far as that one tweet supposedly at issue, I didn’t need the Russian government or anyone else to tell me what should’ve been plain as day to anyone who cares to maintain some semblance of critical faculties. What I was calling “war propaganda” were materials that had been directly propagated by Ukraine government officials, on Twitter and other social media channels:
This stuff was literally coming straight from the Ukraine Ministry of Defense — the PR wing of a foreign military in the middle of waging war. While it was also furiously lobbying the US and other governments to provide heavier armaments for use in that war. How is this not the textbook definition of “war propaganda”? What would be the definition of “war propaganda” — if not this? Sure enough, the government-disseminated propaganda materials were immediately cited by journalists to demand outright US/NATO military intervention in Ukraine. I had linked to one example in the very tweet that Ling claims was evidence of my participation in a “Russian disinformation operation”:
It’s understandable that these concepts might be confusing for Ling. Because around the same time as he was carefully monitoring my Twitter feed for incriminating signs of “disinformation” offenses, take a wild guess at what Ling was also doing. Go ahead. If you guessed “uncritically disseminating the propaganda of a warring party” — you would be correct. Here’s the intrepid investigative journalist in action, dutifully amplifying a call from one of Zelensky’s official advisors for provision of more US/NATO weaponry:
Here’s Ling applying his indefatigable freelance investigative journalism skills by simply reposting images that had been published directly by Zelensky:
Here’s Ling disseminating the totally uncorroborated claims of a full-fledged spy agency, the UK’s GCHQ. It’s unclear if Ling would regard this practice — simply repeating the claims of unvarnished spymasters whose very job is to manipulate public opinion — as “disinformation.”
Maybe he’s of the belief that “Western” spy agencies are definitionally incapable of perpetuating disinformation, and only hated enemy states such as Russia are capable of such a thing. I asked him to explain, but strangely he’s not returning my messages at the moment, despite having previously been so eager to accuse me of heinous affronts. None of this I take personally, though. Given his track record, it makes sense that Justin Ling would have severe difficulty comprehending what “war propaganda” means.
This is of much less significance, but also notice that Ling intentionally does not refer to me as a “journalist” in his petty gibe, and instead merely as a “writer.” Which is fine — I honestly don’t care one way or another what this Ling creature chooses to call me — but it’s a perfect example of the little passive-aggressive sniping tactics that journalists constantly use to police the boundaries of their snotty social club. I’m more than happy to call Ling a “journalist” — because to my mind, the word “journalist” doesn’t connote any kind of moral rectitude, or even competence. Being a journalist is very much consistent with being a self-righteous sleaze-peddler, so Ling can certainly fit the bill.
Another severe difficulty of Ling’s, which raises fundamental questions about his ability to cover his declared beat, is recognizing what “disinformation” even is. Maybe Ling missed it, but earlier this month Ken Dilanian of NBC News — one of the most faithful mouthpieces of the US national security state — went on air and openly revealed that the US Government is mounting a full-fledged “information warfare” campaign related to Ukraine. A key component of which is feeding fake information to the media. Dilanian cited one particular fake story that had been deliberately planted to journalists by intelligence officials — despite those officials knowing it was fake. Weirdly though, all the newly emboldened, “disinformation” debunking journalists like Ling don’t seem to regard that campaign of unconcealed information warfare as within their job’s purview.
Ling also appears to have missed a recent revelation reported at CNN of all places, in which an anonymous “Western” official is quoted saying this about the current PR activities of Ukraine government officials: “It’s a war — everything they do and say publicly is designed to help them win the war. Every public statement is an information operation, every interview, every Zelensky appearance broadcast is an information operation.” And yet despite the admitted existence of this “information operation,” Ling is gleeful to participate in it, by giddily spreading around the Ukraine officials’ photos, videos, and claims without a shred of independent corroboration — all under the veneer of Ling’s tough, adversarial journalism. Russia is obviously engaged in its own “information operation,” but so too is Ukraine. Will Ling report on himself next as a “disinformation” culprit?
Of course he won’t, because despite his bogus pretensions, Ling has made it perfectly clear that he has no problem at all with “disinformation” as such. In fact, he actively supports disinformation tactics when it’s in service of his desired political objectives. He publicly demanded that the “intelligence service” of his own government, Canada, ought to be “doing a lot more” to proactively counter Russia by utilizing more robust information warfare techniques. So that’s Justin Ling for you: a “disinformation” reporter who loves disinformation.
If you want to understand why there is so little deviation today from the burgeoning pro-war consensus, it’s got a lot to do with media functionaries like Ling. Most journalists would be utterly mortified to be accused, in a “Serious” outlet like Foreign Policy, of abetting a “Russian disinformation operation.” And their fear would probably be rational: this could genuinely be a career-killer, particularly in the current war-fevered climate. All bets are off in terms of what retribution tactics are potentially on the table. They could be socially shunned, professionally ostracized, and have their material well-being seriously imperiled. The self-appointed “disinformation” pontificators such as Ling, posturing as these tenacious public-spirited watchdogs, really could destroy them.
Ling is an especially blatant joke and fraud, but the media industry is increasingly dominated by creeps like him. Fortunately, they can’t do much to me — except to provide occasional amusement at how pathetic they are.
Russia says it destroyed weapons delivered by US and EU to Ukraine
Samizdat | April 23, 2022
Russian forces have destroyed a logistics terminal in Odessa that held a large batch of foreign weapons, Moscow said on Saturday amid its ongoing military offensive in Ukraine. However, the city’s authorities claimed that its air defense group destroyed two missiles but that another four hit a military target and residential buildings, leading to victims. It was not immediately clear if the civilian buildings were hit as a result of attempts by Ukrainian forces to strike down the missiles initially aimed at a military target.
According to Russian military spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov, in the afternoon, “high-precision long-range air-launched missiles” hit a logistics terminal located on a military airfield near Odessa, where “a large batch of foreign weapons received from the United States and European countries was stored.”
Russia has repeatedly warned NATO against sending arms to Ukraine and stated that it would consider arms convoys to be legitimate military targets.
Odessa regional emergency services earlier said that “as a result of an enemy shelling,” a sixteen-story residential building caught fire, which was put out in about two and a half hours.
“At this point it is known that 6 people died, including one child, and 18 people were injured. Two people were rescued from the rubble, 86 people were evacuated,” the authorities said in a statement.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, speaking later at a press conference in Kiev, elaborated on these claims.
“At this very moment eight people have died. Eighteen or twenty have been injured. A three-month old child died. A three-month old child was killed. When the war started, this child was just one month old. Can you imagine this?” Zelensky said.
According to the press office of Ukraine’s South Air Command, on Saturday the air defense group destroyed two cruise missiles, allegedly launched by Russian TU-95 strategic aircraft from the Caspian Sea, and two operational-tactical level UAVs, which “presumably corrected the flight of cruise missiles and placed active obstacles to air defenses.”
“Unfortunately, 2 missiles hit a military facility and 2 {hit} residential buildings,” the Ukrainian military claimed.
Why We Sued to Overturn the Federal Travel Mask Mandate — And Why We Won
By Leslie Manookian | The Defender | April 22, 2022
In America, the ends don’t justify the means. There are legal guardrails in place to protect our basic liberties and rights — even during a pandemic.
That was the message in the decision handed down Monday by a federal judge in our lawsuit to overturn the federal travel mask mandate.
Since early 2021, anyone traveling on a plane, bus or train, or anyone who used a shared ride service — or even walked into an airport or train station — was compelled to wear a face covering, often for hours at a time.
President Biden, on his first full day in office, signed an executive order on mandatory masking.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), citing a public health emergency, promulgated the order just eight days later.
The CDC circumvented a required notice and comment period and issued no scientific justifications for the specifics of the order.
Americans were supposed to take the government’s word for it, put on our masks and ask no questions.
But when flight attendants announced — repeatedly on each flight — that compliance is required “by federal law,” did you ever wonder: what federal law?
I did. And it led us at the Health Freedom Defense Fund to file suit against the mandate in federal court.
With assistance from our lawyers at the Davillier Law Group, we learned there is no “federal law” compelling masks for travel.
The CDC does not have the statutory authority to issue a sweeping mandate requiring masking. Nor does the agency have the authority to penalize Americans for non-compliance.
The Biden administration claimed its mask mandate was rooted in authority granted under the Public Health Service Act.
However, a careful reading of that law shows Congress never intended to grant such sweeping powers. In fact, the law is limited and specific, as the court pointed out in its decision.
One of the bigger red flags for the court was the CDC’s claim it could bypass a period of public notice and comment.
The CDC cited the pandemic “emergency” as justification for bypassing notice and comment.
Yet, as we all recall, by early 2021, the pandemic had been wreaking its havoc for nearly a year, yet the agency had proposed no such travel mask mandate.
It is hard to justify requiring emergency powers and circumventing all citizen comments when the CDC was marking time on masks for more than a year.
Indeed, if a mask mandate was key to the pandemic battle, Congress could have enacted such a bill, with debate, transparency and accountability. It did not.
In fact, public comment is at the core of credible and transparent regulatory policy because it allows for flaws and pitfalls to be cited and hopefully corrected.
Despite telling us all for years to “follow the science,” the CDC cited no scientific research to justify the mandate, nor did it offer justification for choosing the age of 2 for its exemption — clearly indicating the agency arbitrarily chose that age.
An abundance of research in major medical and scientific publications, including in the Journal of the American Medical Association, details the negative effects of prolonged mask-wearing, including among medical professionals and the military.
The CDC also ignored the serious, and medically verified, concerns voiced by Americans about how mask-wearing creates severe anxiety, as the two individual plaintiffs in our case detailed.
Clearly the federal government simply brushed away bona fide questions about mask efficacy and risk, and chose not to cite rationale of its own.
The government’s rationale is what we parents say often when our children question our demands: “Because I said so.”
That approach usually doesn’t work well with kids — and it sure falls short in setting policy for hundreds of millions of Americans.
As our lawsuit pointed out, never has a president entered an executive order mandating that every American citizen be required to don a type of garment or device, whether when traveling or otherwise, for any reason whatsoever.
And the U.S. Constitution certainly doesn’t grant the president power to enact nationwide edicts just because Congress failed to pass legislation he deems needed.
So now that you can choose to fly or ride mask-free, remember: Even in response to a pandemic, your government cannot do what it wants, when it wants and to whom it wants.
We are governed by laws, not the preferences of elites, and the Constitution is not suspended in an emergency.
Leslie Manookian is president and founder of Health Freedom Defense Fund, a nonprofit which seeks to rectify health injustice through education, advocacy and legal challenges to unjust mandates, laws and policies that undermine our health freedoms and human rights.
© 2022 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.
How to lie with statistics – Vaccine efficacy edition
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | April 23, 2022
Just a quick post to show another method of how to increase vaccine efficacy. This time looking at data from Switzerland and Liechtenstein (S&L).
By mid December 2021, S&L were at the peak of their third wave. It was ok though because 67% of the country had been fully vaccinated, 17% with a booster. 32% of selfish people had still not been vaccinated however.
As the vaccines stop people from going to hospital this would show up in the stats.
Yes, as predicted, there was a slight increase in hospitalisations for fully vaccinated citizens (Moderna – red line, Pfizer – light blue line) but a massive spike in hospitalisations for those pesky unvaccinated (dark blue line).
Job done, vaccine efficacy proven.
But hold on a second, there is another category. “Vaccine unknown, fully vaccinated”. Let’s add this to the graph.
They don’t really want you to see this line so have made it a faint grey colour. However much they would like to pretend it wasn’t there, it is. And it shows a lot of fully vaccinated people going to hospital, and continuing to go to hospital, until March 2022, well after the peak for unvaccinated individuals.
Lot’s of fully vaccinated people going into hospital who have forgotten which vaccines they had. Did they forget or were they too ill? Is this an admin issue or are these people who had a combination of vaccines and so couldn’t be put in one category?
Either way, this grey lined category shifts a lot of people out of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinated categories. It makes vaccine efficacy look much better than it actually is by saying only this many Pfizer or Moderna vaccinees were hospitalised.
Another great example of how to lie with statistics.
EU commission sued over Covid-19 vaccine secrecy
Samizdat | April 23, 2022
Five Green MEPs are suing the European Commission over its ultra-secretive vaccine contracts, arguing that the heavily redacted versions released by the EC “made it impossible to understand the content of the agreements,” in a statement published Friday.
“Secrecy is a breeding ground for distrust and skepticism, and it has no place in public agreements with pharmaceutical companies,” Margrete Auken, a Danish MEP involved in the suit, declared, adding that “the European Commission’s refusal to provide transparency on its vaccine contracts affects the public’s confidence in the EU’s ability to obtain the best possible outcome for its citizens.”
The MEPs are demanding the details of the contracts the EC signed with vaccine-makers BioNTech, Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax, including price per dose, advance payments, conditions for vaccine donations, liability, and indemnification matters.
“Purchases made with public money should come with public information, definitely in matters of health,” Dutch MEP and party to the lawsuit Kim van Sparrentak said in the group’s statement, noting that “confidentiality under the guise of trade secrets only fuels uncertainty and fear.”
In addition to Auken and van Sparrentak, the MEPs signing on to the suit are Tilly Metz (Luxembourg), Jutta Paulus (Germany), and Michele Rivasi (France), the chair of the parliament’s committee on Covid-19.
The lawsuit, filed in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, comes as EC President Ursula von der Leyen revealed that every EU member state would be required to adopt EU Digital Covid Certificates, a digital health passport issued to those with proof of vaccination, a negative PCR test, or proof of recovery from Covid-19. While the validity period for such certificates was due to lapse at the end of June, the EC is not only renewing it another year, but making it mandatory for all 27 EU countries from July 1. Only 15 are currently using it, according to von der Leyen.
The move comes despite many EU states winding down their Covid-19 restrictions, moving away from some of the stricter measures imposed in the first 18 months of the pandemic. Germany, which had initially sought to require all citizens over the age of 60 to receive a Covid-19 vaccine, has been forced to axe those plans after they were voted down in the Bundestag, though the country’s health minister has warned that the government may reimpose mask mandates, as he expects infections to increase in the fall.
In response to the lawsuit, the EC has insisted it cannot reveal the contracts it signed with the vaccine-makers back in 2020, claiming “the commission is in the business of respecting contracts.” At the time, EU lawmakers who wanted to see the contracts were prohibited from taking notes and forced to sign non-disclosure agreements.
Much of the world seemed to be headed for mandatory Covid-19 vaccination six months ago. However, the realization that despite their manufacturers’ initial promises, the vaccines were no magic bullet – not only incapable of stopping the spread, but incapable of preventing further infection – has cooled public fervor for mandates. Health concerns and complaints of discrimination against the unvaccinated have also contributed to the backlash. However, the manufacturers, as well as most officials, continue to insist that the vaccines are “safe and effective.”
Bavaria to introduce ‘eco-token’ to reward ‘environmentally conscious behavior’
Free West Media | April 22, 2022
MUNICH – In Bavaria, in the course of the creeping establishment of a climate dictatorship, climate-friendly good behavior will soon be rewarded with an “eco-token”. It is nothing more than a points system to indirectly punish unruly citizens.
This new control system is to be introduced later this year. This is a project that was first described in the Bavarian “Climate Protection Offensive” of 2019, has been in preparation for a long time and is designed to “promote sustainable behavior in everyday life by rewarding environmentally conscious action”.
Specifically, a documentation system is to be developed in which users can collect bonus points for “environmentally conscious behavior” in the form of sustainability tokens. These can then be redeemed at swimming pools or theaters, for example. For better implementation, a state office and a financial service provider are involved.
Unstoppable
Even if these are only the first steps of a model that can be expanded – and is intended to be expanded – it will not be long before even more companies, cultural and leisure facilities and ultimately government agencies will grant privileges for “climate protectors” (or supporters of coercive state measures). At a certain point, social “privileges” will inevitably be those things which are now taken for granted.
The Corona crisis, as the perfect blueprint for this development, has already ensured through 2G/3G apartheid rules or compulsory masks that fundamental rights and even bodily autonomy can easily be suspended by the state and Corona profiteers.
Similar programs are being implemented not only at EU level, but also within the member states: In Austria, the “ID Austria” app was introduced, which records driving licenses, passports and one’s own car. The entire identity is linked to the smartphone as is the “pilot project” of a “Smart Citizen Wallet” in Bologna, Italy.
“Operation Thermostat”: Energy rationing & the pivot from Ukraine to climate?
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | April 22, 2022
Italy is officially becoming the first country to start rationing energy after cutting their supply of Russian gas and oil.
From next month, until at least March 2023, public buildings across the nation will be banned from running air conditioning at lower than 25 degrees, or heating higher than 19 degrees.
The plan, termed “Operation Thermostat” in the press, is being sold as a way for ordinary people to show “solidarity” with the people of Ukraine, with Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi saying:
Do we want to have peace or do we want to have the air conditioning on?”
I’m not exactly sure how adjusting your thermostat is going to achieve ‘peace’, but hey we’re living in the age of sentimental manipulation over reason, so – just believe.
For example, the Guardian is illustrating the story with pro-peace artwork allegedly done by Italian schoolchildren (in English, for some reason).
There’s no talk yet of this kind of energy-rationing rule extending to private businesses or homes, but a marker has been set down. Expect other nations to follow suit.
After that of course will come the opinion pieces asking questions like “we rationed gas to fight Putin, why not climate change?”, and headlines saying that “Europe-wide gas rationing was good for the planet” or something similar.
… Oh wait, it’s already happening.
Honestly, when I originally wrote the above paragraph I had no idea the Wall Street Journal had published this opinion piece for Earth Day, headlined:
This Earth Day, We Could Be Helping the Environment—and Ukraine”
It argues that rationing energy to fight Putin is just like digging for victory to fight Hitler, and – just as I predicted – would also be good for the planet:
During the Second World War, victory demanded more oil […] In the wars dominating the globe today — Putin’s land grab in Ukraine, and the global land grab caused by rising sea levels and spreading deserts — victory demands getting off fossil fuels as fast as we possibly can.
It even hints at a quasi-lockdown – this time for the sake of beating Putin and combating climate change:
Everyone who can work from home could continue to do so, at least on, say, Mondays, knocking a day off the national commute. Carpools could be organized, taking special advantage of the fact that there are now two million electric cars on the road. More bike paths could be made available, and, when air-conditioning season begins, Americans could turn their thermostats up a degree.
Remember lockdowns were marketed as planet-saving almost from the moment they were put in place, despite it making almost zero sense. The agenda was pretty obvious right from the start.
It’s interesting that “operation thermostat” should be announced on April 22nd – Earth Day – despite having zero to do with climate change. It’s also noteworthy that climate protests groups have piggy-backed on the idea to call for an EU-wide boycott of Russia’s fossil fuels.
We already know they planned a “pivot from covid to climate”, and moves like this mean they can easily “pivot from Ukraine to climate” too.
Has Le Pen paved the way for more Macron?
By Richard Ings | TCW Defending Freedom | April 23, 2022
TOMORROW the French go to the polls to finish the job begun two weeks ago and choose their next elected monarch; if opinion polls can be trusted (with their manipulative influence on voting having become a major discussion point in France over the last few weeks) it looks as if Emmanuel Macron will be returned to the throne for another five years.
If Marine Le Pen, who has never been closer to power, falls at the final fence, she will not be blameless in her failure to take advantage of the seething resentment against the present incumbent. In the traditional head-to-head television debate four days before polls open, with the chance to voice the anger felt towards Macron by her potential supporters, she chose the route of trying to out-technocrat the technocrat. The result was that the smirking, supercilious bean-counter was invited to play on his home turf, within minutes deflecting the discussion away from his record in power to Le Pen’s record in opposition. The opportunity for a reckoning on Macron’s use of state forces against his own people, his enthusiastic embrace of digital IDs to coerce people into taking a novel medical intervention and his contempt for health workers who declined it, was squandered. At the end of the confrontation, he praised the fact that it had been much more ‘controlled’ than their previous meeting in 2017. It was clear to most who had been in control throughout.
Le Pen clearly also has only herself to blame for her political programme. Having once supported lockdowns and the huge accumulation of debt associated with them, she is largely joined at the hip with Macron in her plan to borrow and spend France’s way out of a problem caused by astronomical government borrowing and spending. Her flagship policy of reducing VAT on 100 ‘essential products’ is no match for Macron’s policy of continuing to send people cheques to bail them out, both a pitiful response to the enormous economic problems his decisions have created. Meanwhile, her desire to ban the wearing of the Muslim headscarf in public spaces as a puny symbol of the fight against Islamism essentially codifies the state’s right to decide what you are permitted to wear in public (indeed, Le Pen defended its enforceability in law by pointing out that Macron had found a way of policing his mask mandates).
Her own shortcomings aside, however, Le Pen is handicapped by the fact that, although she mobilised more than 8million people to vote for her, no one is allowed to say publicly that they support her without choosing the path of ostracism. In Britain by 2019 we had become painfully aware of the phenomenon of the ‘shy Brexiteer’, unable to ‘come out’ among friends and family without attracting a torrent of insults which often included the word ‘Nazi’. That’s been the norm in France for Le Pen voters for a long, long time.
However, something not widely reported happened ten days ago when a panellist on a major television show, former Miss France Delphine Wespiser, ‘came out’ in front of millions and said she understood why people might vote for Marine, suggesting she was like ‘France’s mum’. Did she realise what a pile-on would happen in saying that? She got a taste from her colleagues in the studio, but over the next few days found herself threatened on social media for daring to ‘contribute to the normalisation of the far Right’.
Removed from the show under byzantine French rules to do with ‘political balance’, she had to come back as an unpaid guest to report how her accidentally courageous opinion had seen her receive thousands of threats, as well as the call for her to be stripped of other sources of income, such as her featured role on the TV show Fort Boyard. Not being able to make a living for having expressed a view deemed unacceptable by the media (and not even an unpopular view) was, she said, ‘the price of my freedom’, adding defiantly: ‘I’m the spokeswoman for all those unhappy about what has happened over the last five years.’
Wespiser’s small, principled stand for freedom of speech and conscience is a marker of a very positive development. Dissenters are beginning to abandon their natural reticence and defend the right to have a different ‘non-mainstream’ point of view in the public square. The form that seems to be taking at the moment is voting for Marine Le Pen. Whatever her political shortcomings, Le Pen represents the dissident point of view. Crudely expressed, she is the biggest middle finger French people can currently give to the system which has crushed and oppressed many of them over the last few years.
And if not Le Pen, who? Macron has not ruled out a return to mandatory masking, and vaccine passports remain in place for access to hospitals. Le Pen has said she will scrap the system, has called vaccinating children against Covid ‘a kind of child abuse’, and will reinstate the health-workers ‘kicked out like scum’ for refusing to take the vaccine. Macron set up an undemocratic ‘citizens’ convention’ on the environment (only to ignore it) while touring the country in what he called his ‘great debate’ during which he lectured an invited audience for several hours. He’s committed to continuing to bore on if re-elected. Le Pen, on the other hand, has proposed a ‘Citizen’s choice referendum’ which, while it may struggle to get passed into law, holds out the promise of a new avenue for political change.
Take her at face value or not, Le Pen has put the word ‘freedom’ front and centre of her campaign. She is making commitments that will, in however limited a way, expand the power of ordinary people to influence what happens in their country. This promise to extend and defend liberty and democracy would be hard to break in circumstances where (unlike Boris Johnson and his smug party-loyal 80-seat majority) she would have to work hard to maintain the trust of those who lent her their vote.
Moreover, the prospect of her coming to power has so spooked the European establishment that they have taken the unprecedented step of calling for the French not to vote for her in what used to be called ‘interference in national elections’ but is now, it seems, just seen as doing the morally correct thing.
With all this in mind, the French now need to consider how much of a defiant middle finger they are brave enough to give to the established order when even today’s poster-boy of ‘democracy’ Volodymyr Zelensky says he is rooting for Macron. Will they stand up to conventional opinion and take the kind of risk Delphine Wespiser, or a nation of Brexiteers, were willing to take? The door to more freedom is definitely ajar. Dare they step through it?
Top Prosecutor Drops Out of Whitmer Kidnapping Case
By Jonathan Turley | April 20, 2022
We recently discussed the collapse of the Whitmer kidnapping case after a jury acquitted defendants in Michigan. Now, one of the lead prosecutors is leaving the case, according to a motion filed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Roth. That adds questions about how the case will move forward after the earlier loss.
Shortly before the 2020 election, Gov. Whitmer stood before cameras describing her narrow escape from being kidnapped and murdered by “domestic terrorists.” Despite the fact that the Justice Department in the Trump Administration made these arrests, Whitmer blamed former president Donald Trump. President Biden agreed that Trump was fostering a “civil war.”
The media went into a frenzy, declaring that the case proved that “Trump’s rhetoric and policies have unleashed a second pandemic in the form of far-right domestic terrorism.”
The problem is that the case — and the narrative — quickly fell apart after the election. A Michigan jury recently acquitted Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta and hanged on the verdicts against Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr. Fox is portrayed as a ringleader of the group and leader of the conspiracy.
While Fox and Croft can be retried, the acquittal raises an additional challenge. Harris and Caserta may feel fewer inhibitions in testifying. With the exception of perjury, they can safely take the stand to discuss their actions — and more importantly, the actions of the government.
The Michigan case stands as one of the most chilling examples of entrapment techniques used by the FBI. While Whitmer declared Trump “complicit” in her planned execution, the FBI increasingly appeared more “complicit” in the creation of a government-inspired, government-funded, and largely government-staffed plot.
The problem was that these guys seemed at points more interested in partying than conspiring. The FBI, therefore, decided to take control and get them serious about some major crimes. An informant known as “Big Dan” was paid over $50,000 to get the conspiracy going, including paying for the defendants to travel to Wisconsin to “train.”
Special Agent Jayson Chambers pushed Big Dan to get the men to take violent acts against Whitmer. The defendants reportedly resisted those entreaties. Dan pushed the alleged leader to fire a round into the window of Whitmer’s home and mail the casing to the news media. On Sept. 5, 2020, Chambers texted to remind Dan “Mission is to kill the governor specifically.“
The Whitmer conspiracy was a production written, funded, and largely populated by FBI agents and informants. At every point, FBI literally drove the conspirators and controlled their actions. In the end, a majority of the “conspirators” were actually FBI agents or informants.
As discussed earlier, various key FBI agents and informants were removed from the case due to their own legal problems.
Now, Roth is pulling out. That will create a vacuum in the second trial. Retrials often allow prosecutors to better prepare for defense arguments. Yet, it has lost the one prosecutor most experienced in the case.
Politically, it would be highly damaging for both Biden and Whitmer to have the case dropped. The question is whether the reduction of the defendants and the change in the prosecution team will change the prospect for convictions. It could work for the defense if the two acquitted parties are more active in the case. Conversely, focusing on the alleged leader could strengthen the optics for the jury by eliminating marginal figures.
There could also be a more generous plea deal offered to the defense to avoid the threat of acquittal. It is notable to see a lead prosecutor bow out in such a high-profile case. Whether this indicates other significant changes in the case will likely become clear in the coming days.
TSA mask mandate
By Vinay Prasad | April 20, 2022
Just imagine we had a competent CDC who ran a cluster Random Controlled Trial of cloth masking mandate in airplanes and measured spread. It could even be factorial design and test different ventilation filters. Imagine the trial was negative– a judge would not need to strike down the mandate. It would have fallen by scientific consensus.
Imagine now it were positive. We could have a discussion about the effect size, if it varies by case rate at the flight origin city or traveller origin cities. We could discuss when the tradeoff might be worth it, and when it might be not worth it.
Imagine the trial was large. It could be powered for interaction by age. Do cloth masks protect babies or is it a false reassurance? Does it protect immunocompromised? Or again, false reassurance?
Imagine the trial had arms for different rules. An ok to snack arm or a no snacking arm. Does it work with a rule modification?
We ran zero such trials. The CDC ran no studies. No one knows the answer to these questions, despite their bluster. The truth is it seems highly implausible that wearing a mask on one ear lobe, while eating pretzels for an hour works.
The CDC failed it’s social contract. It implemented a policy and never generated evidence. This turned a scientific question into a political one. Naturally battle lines were drawn.
Finally a judge comes in and throws out the mandate. Many people are upset with the judge. But the judge didn’t fail you. The CDC failed you. It never ran a trial. It never generated knowledge. It kept us in the dark. It should be no surprise that it lost it’s power and legitimacy. It proved it does not deserve the power it was was entrusted by the people. It failed to use science to reduce uncertainty. We should be ashamed of the organization. I certainly am.
Featured Video
Deep Dive Intel Briefing 6/20/2026 Lt Col Daniel Davis
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Because no animal reservoir has been found for SARS-CoV-2, it cannot properly be termed a zoonosis.* Should we call it a labnosis? And what does that mean?
By Meryl Nass, MD | July 12, 2021
After a year and a half of seeking but not finding SARS-2 in any wildlife anywhere (apart from domesticated or zoo animals that appear to have caught it from humans) is it time to say, yes, it didn’t just escape from a lab. It was created, built, assembled in a lab. Or many labs
Coronavirus scientists have been constructing new viruses out of bits and pieces of other viruses for a long time.
Why did they do it? … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The Story the Media — and the Government — Don’t Want You to Hear
- Deep Dive Intel Briefing 6/20/2026 Lt Col Daniel Davis
- The Targeted Assassination of Studies Showing Vaccines Cause Injury
- BMJ Probe Into Excess Mortality Study Drags On for Two Years With No Resolution
- Securing Peace with Iran Compels Trump to Divorce Israel
- Old Iraq war architects rise up to wag finger at Trump’s Iran deal
- Strait of Hormuz closed over Israeli aggression on Lebanon
- Keir Starmer arson mysteries multiply
- IRAN WAR “ON PAUSE” – w/ Prof. Glenn Diesen
- Zelensky threatens to attack Belarus
- If Americans Knew
- Israelis Invaded Lebanon And Then Cried Victim When Their Soldiers Got Killed
- FARA Docs: Israel is Spying On Millions Of Christian Americans In Their Churches
- Why US presidents from both parties end up cursing Benjamin Netanyahu
- Israel Asked Facebook to Censor Iran War Content, Internal Documents Show
- Deaths in Gaza undercounted, possibly by 100s of thousands; “Psychopath” Ben-Gvir talks trash – Daily Update
- UNICEF: “Trauma is woven into the very fabric of childhood in Gaza”
- 15 articles a day: The extent of the Israeli army’s media interference
- Greek Orthodox Patriarchate denounces Israeli seizure of church land in Jerusalem
- How Hillel International uses antisemitism training and ‘campus climate’ concerns to attack Palestine solidarity
- Old Iraq war architects rise up against Trump’s Iran deal
- No Tricks Zone
- German Wind Turbines Face Regulatory Shutdown Due To Excessive Noise
- New Study: Chile’s Relative Sea Level Was 3.2 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Beyond The Pitch: Why FIFA’s World Cup Is One Of Humanity’s Best Investments
- Climate Alarmists Now Using Natural Phenomena To Support Their Claims
- New Study: Significant CO2 Fluxes From Non-Volcanic Sources Are Largely Neglected In Carbon Budgets
- Women Climate Scientists Being Harassed, Insulted By Skeptics, Claims Berkeley Earth Researcher
- Germany’s Longterm Spring Climate Data Show “No Climate Trend”
- New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time
- Germany’s Die Welt: “Too Much Is Too Much” … Green Energies Are Cannabalizing Each Other!
- Germany’s Ecological Holocaust… Once Fairy Tale Forests Getting Cleared For Wind Turbines
Aletho News 