Aletho News


Is Instagram afraid of truth?

By Rachel Kennedy | American Thinker | February 24, 2022

The censorship saga continues, with tech giant Instagram targeting the CO2 Coalition, thereby preventing the organization from creating an account within their platform.

This is the most recent in a slew of harassment and shadowbanning attempts beginning in 2020 by Instagram’s wicked stepsisters: Facebook and LinkedIn. In the Facebook realm, shadow-banning — the inability to advertise or “boost” posts and the addition of warning labels — are all commonplace for CO2 Coalition content.  For LinkedIn, not only is the removal of posts frequent but so is also banning accounts. CO2 Coalition executive director Gregory Wrightstone’s personal account was banned. His final post predicted that he would be banned and de-platformed soon. That post was deemed “false and misleading” — and then he was banned and de-platformed!

Fast-forward to today. A clean slate and a glimmer of hope for the possibility of creating an account on Instagram — a “diverse, global community” committed to fostering a safe and supportive community for everyone to “bring the world closer together.”  Sounds like an open and inviting platform for connection, right?

Everyone knows how to sign up for a social media site — with just an email, password, and username. Following the input of this information into the system, I received a message indicating that the account must go through an evaluation that should take no more than 24 hours. “Fine,” I thought. Perhaps this is something new they are implementing to keep their site free from hazardous bots? Perhaps my username is already taken?

Following the evaluation period, I attempted to log in again. Failed. This time, the message said: “Error: Your account has been disabled for violating our terms. Learn how you may be able to restore your account.” Clicking the “Learn More” tab wasn’t very helpful: we were not following their terms, which included “artificially collecting likes, followers or shares, posting repetitive content or repeatedly contacting people for commercial purposes without their consent.”

How is it possible to be in violation of Instagram’s terms and conditions without even being able to log into the platform? Being cited for criminal behavior without even being part of Instagram’s open and diverse echo chamber?

All this raises the question: what are they afraid of?

If it weren’t for you, the consumer, they would not have a successful business. If it weren’t for you, the questioning and discerning human, theirs would be the only viewpoint. The fact of the matter is, if it weren’t for discussion, dialogue, and those elements that truly make us human, Big Tech would be far more powerful than they are now.

At the CO2 Coalition, our group of 80+ researchers understands the importance of discussion and dialogue. With a roster of atmospheric physicists, ecologists, statisticians, climatologists, and energy experts, it is encouraged to look at climate from many points of view. It is what makes the scientific method the scientific method.

It appears that a free-thinking society is Instagram’s worst nightmare, and the CO2 Coalition just might be a perpetual thorn in the side of Big Tech. But more importantly, a support for those who have the courage to question and a need to discover the truth.

March 6, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Keep taking the vaccines – and your GP will keep taking the cash

By Mark Newman | TCW Defending Freedom | March 7, 2022

I WAS bemoaning to a friend the response of GPs to Covid when she said something simple yet profound. Something that is not talked about, yet which is a huge part of the reason why family doctors have failed the nation during this pandemic: they face no competition.

After I sent my old GP the recent bombshell Pfizer documentation made public as part of a court-ordered release schedule stemming from an expedited Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT), showing (by my calculation) that they knew there were 1,291 types of jab side-effects, he replied: ‘I personally think the vaccine/roll-out was probably the most successful measure of all, despite the obvious collateral damage that it caused to the unlucky few, as highlighted by this work.’

In another encounter with a GP who is manager of four practices, I asked about early treatments. He said: ‘They don’t exist. I’ve got a patient from Eastern Europe who told me about drug XYZ for this purpose. I looked into it and it made things worse.’

So I told him about the cheap, safe and effective treatments that work prophylactically and early on which have saved hundreds of millions of lives globally. I quoted the stats, provided docs and offered relevant websites. He listened, but then said: ‘To be honest I’m too exhausted to do any research. I just want it to be over.’

This led to voicing my frustration to my friend that GPs haven’t done any research of their own. Her response? ‘I have to keep on top of things for my job . . . so should they!’

And that, right there, is the nub of it all. GPs don’t need to keep on top of their jobs like the rest of us. They don’t need to be up with the latest thinking, the changes in practices, the forced evolution imposed on them by the company down the road.

They just sit there, prescribe the drugs they’ve been told to by Nice, and get paid six-figure salaries – more in a ‘pandemic’. No sweat, no fuss.

I doubt whether more than 2 per cent of GPs in this country have done due diligence on treatments or jabs in the past two years. The profession has deteriorated into an apathetic state of lethargy, spoon feeding, box ticking and cheque cashing.

That has led directly to the deaths of acquaintances, colleagues, friends and family members. GPs of the UK – you had a chance to show that you cared about your patients by doing something that is simply routine in all other industries. You failed. And people died.

March 6, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | 2 Comments

Imran Khan hits out at West for treating Pakistanis like ‘slaves’

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan in Moscow, February 24, 2022 © Mikhail Klimentyev / Sputnik
RT | March 7, 2022

Prime Minister Imran Khan lashed out at foreign diplomats who pressured Pakistan to join a UN resolution condemning Russia over its military attack on Ukraine, accusing the envoys of treating Pakistan like “slaves.”

At a rally on Sunday, Khan shot back at a March 1 letter from diplomats representing 22 missions, including countries in the European Union along with Japan, Switzerland, Canada, the UK, and Australia, which called on Pakistan to drop its neutrality and join them in condemning Moscow.

“What do you think of us? Are we your slaves… that whatever you say, we will do?” questioned Khan, before asking EU ambassadors whether they wrote “such a letter to India,” which also remains neutral.

Khan claimed that Pakistan had suffered for previously supporting NATO’s military action in Afghanistan and declared, “We are friends with Russia, and we are also friends with America; we are friends with China and with Europe; we are not in any camp.”

Pakistan, along with 34 other countries, abstained from voting on the UN’s resolution condemning Russian “aggression against Ukraine” last week. Pakistan’s neighbors India, Bangladesh, China, Iran, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan also abstained.

Khan met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin on February 24, the day Moscow launched its military operation in Ukraine, to discuss bilateral ties and regional issues.

Moscow maintains that the attack was launched with the purpose of “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine, and that it was the only possible option left to protect the people of eastern Ukraine following years of a grueling blockade that claimed thousands of lives. Kiev insists the invasion was unprovoked, saying it had no plans to retake the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk republics by force.

March 6, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Burning Globalist Structures to Save the Globalist ‘Liberal Order’

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 6, 2022

In its triple strike of sanctions on Russia, the EU initially was not looking to collapse the Russian financial system. Far from it: Its first instinct was to find the means to continue purchasing its energy needs (made all there more vital by the state of the European gas reserves hovering close to zero). Purchases of energy, special metals, rare earths (all needed for high tech manufacture) and agricultural products were to be exempted. In short, at first brush, the sinews of the global financial system were intended to remain intact.

The main target rather, was to block the core to the Russian financial system’s ability to raise capital – supplemented by specific sanctions on Alrosa, a major player in the diamond market, and Sovcomflot, a tanker fleet operator.

Then, last Saturday morning (26 February) everything changed. It became a blitzkrieg: “We’re waging an all-out economic and financial war on Russia. We will cause the collapse of the Russian economy”, said the French Finance Minister, Le Maire (words, he later said, he regretted).

That Saturday, the EU, the U.S. and some allies acted to freeze the Russian Central Bank’s foreign exchange reserves held overseas. And certain Russian banks (in the end seven) were to be expelled from SWIFT financial messaging service. The intent was openly admitted in an unattributable U.S. briefing: It was to trigger a ‘bear raid’ (ie. an orchestrated mass selling) of the Rouble on the following Monday that would collapse the value of the currency.

The purpose to freezing the Central Bank’s reserves was two-fold: First, to prevent the Bank from supporting the Rouble. And secondly, to create a commercial bank liquidity scarcity inside Russia to feed into a concerted campaign over that weekend to scare Russians into believing that some domestic banks might fail – thus prompting a rush at the ATMs, and start a bank-run, in other words.

More than two decades ago, in August 1998, Russia defaulted on its debt and devalued the Rouble, sparking a political crisis that culminated with Vladimir Putin replacing Boris Yeltsin. In 2014, there was a similar U.S. attempt to crash the Rouble through sanctions and by engineering (with Saudi Arabian help) a 41% drop in oil prices by January 2015.

Plainly, last Saturday morning when Ursula von der Leyen announced that ‘selected’ Russian banks would be expelled from SWIFT and the international financial messaging system; and spelled out the near unprecedented Russian Central Bank reserve freeze, we were witnessing the repeat of 1998. The collapse of the economy (as Le Maire said), a run on the domestic banks and the prospect of soaring inflation. This combination was expected to conflate into a political crisis – albeit one intended, this time, to see Putin replaced, vice Yeltsin – aka regime change in Russia, as a senior U.S. think-tanker proposed this week.

In the end, the Rouble fell, but it did not collapse. The Russian currency rather, after an initial drop, recovered about half its early fall. Russians did queue at their ATMs on Monday, but a full run on the retail banks did not materialise. It was ‘managed’ by Moscow.

What occurred on that Saturday which prompted the EU switch from moderate sanctions to become a full participant in a financial war à outrance on Russia is not clear: It may have resulted from intense U.S. pressure, or it came from within, as Germany seized an opportune alibi to put itself back on the path of militarisation for the third time in the past several decades: To re-configure Germany as a major military power, a forceful participant in global politics.

And that – very simply – could not have been possible without tacit U.S. encouragement.

Ambassador Bhadrakumar notes that the underlying shifts made manifest by von der Leyen on Saturday “herald a profound shift in European politics. It is tempting, but ultimately futile, to contextually place this shift as a reaction to the Russian decision to launch military operations in Ukraine. The pretext only provides the alibi, whilst the shift is anchored on power play and has a dynamic of its own”. He continues,

“Without doubt, the three developments — Germany’s decision to step up its militarisation [spending an additional euro100 billion]; the EU decision to finance arms supplies to Ukraine, and Germany’s historic decision to reverse its policy not to supply weapons to conflict zones — mark a radical departure in European politics since World War II. The thinking toward a military build-up, the need for Germany to be a “forceful” participant in global politics and the jettisoning of its guilt complex and get “combat ready” — all these by far predate the current situation around Ukraine”.

The von der Leyen intervention may have been opportunism, driven by a resurgence of SPD German ambition (and perhaps by her own animus towards Russia, stemming from her family connection to the SS German capture of Kiev), yet its consequences are likely profound.

Just to be clear, on one Saturday, von der Leyen pulled the switch to turn off principal parts to Global financial functioning: blocking interbank messaging, confiscating foreign exchange reserves and the cutting the sinews of trade. Ostensibly this ‘burning’ of global structures is being done (like the burning of villages in Vietnam) to ‘save’ the liberal Order.

However, this must be taken in tandem with Germany’s and the EU decision to supply weapons (to not just any old ‘conflict zone’) but specifically to forces fighting Russian troops in Ukraine. The ‘Kick Ass’ parts to those Ukrainian forces ‘resisting’ Russia are neo-Nazi forces with a long history of committing atrocities against the Russian-speaking Ukrainian peoples. Germany will be joining with the U.S. in training these Nazi elements in Poland. The CIA has been doing such since 2015. (So, as Russia tries to de-Nazify Ukraine, Germany and the EU are encouraging European volunteers to join in a U.S.-led effort to use Nazi elements to resist Russia, just as in the way Jihadists were trained to resist Russia in Syria).

What a paradox! Effectively von der Leyen is overseeing the building of an EU ‘Berlin Wall’ – albeit with its purpose inverted now – to separate the EU from Russia. And to complete the parallel, she even announced that Russia Today and Sputnik broadcasts would be banned across the EU. Europeans can be allowed only to hear authorised EU messaging – (however, a week into the Russian invasion, cracks are appearing in this tightly-controlled western narrative – Putin is NOT crazy and the Russian invasion is NOT failing”, warns a leading U.S. military analyst in the Daily MailSimply “[b]elieving Russia’s assault is going poorly may make us feel better but is at odds with the facts”, Roggio writes. “We cannot help Ukraine if we cannot be honest about its predicament”).

So Biden, finally, has his foreign policy ‘success’: Europe is walling itself off from Russia, China, and the emerging integrated Asian market. It has sanctioned itself from ‘dependency’ on Russian natural gas (without prospect of any immediate alternatives) and it has thrown itself in with the Biden project. Next up, the EU pivot to sanctioning China?

Will this last? It seems improbable. German industry has a long history for staging its own mercantile interests before wider geo-pollical ambitions – before, even, EU interests. And in Germany, the business class effectively is the political class and needs competitively-priced energy.

Whilst the rest of the world shows little or no enthusiasm to join with sanctions on Russia (China has ruled out sanctions on Russia), Europe is in hysteria. This will not fade quickly. The new ‘Iron Curtain’ erected in Brussels may last years.

But what of the unintended consequences to last Saturday’s ‘sanctions Blitzkrieg’: the ‘unknowable unknowns’ in Rumsfeld’s famous mantra? The unprecedented switch-off affecting a key part of the Globalist system did not download into a neutral, inert context – It developed into an emotionally hyper-charged atmosphere of Russophobia.

Whereas EU states had hoped to spare Russian energy shipments, they did not take account of the frenzy raised against Russia. The oil market has gone on strike, acting as if energy were already in the frame for Western sanctions: Oil tankers had already started to avoid Russian ports because of sanctions fears, and rates for oil tankers on Russian crude routes have exploded as much as nine-fold in the past few days. But now, amid growing fears of falling foul of complex restrictions in different jurisdictions, refiners and banks are balking at purchasing any Russian oil at all, traders and others involved in the market say. Market players fear too that measures that target oil exports directly could be imposed, should fighting in Ukraine intensify.

Commodity markets have been in turmoil since the Special Military Operation began. European natural gas jumped as much as 60% on Wednesday, as buyers, traders and shippers avoid Russian gas. A combination of sanctions and commercial decisions by shippers and insurers to steer clear has cut that contribution to global supplies sharply over the last week. A default cascade by western companies is perfectly possible. And Supply line disruption is inevitable.

Many will be affected by the commodity turmoil, but with Russia providing 25% of global wheat supplies, the 21% hike in wheat and 16% rise in corn prices since 1 January will represent a disaster for many states in the Middle East among others.

All this disruption to markets comes even before Moscow responds with its own countermeasures. They have been silent so far – but what if Moscow demands that future payments for energy are to be made in Yuan?

In sum, the changes set out by von der Leyen and the EU, with surging crude oil costs, could potentially tip global markets into crisis, and set off spiralling inflation. Cost inflation created by energy costs spiralling higher and food disruptions are not so easily susceptible to monetary remedies. If the daily drama of the war in Ukraine starts to fade from public view, and inflation persists, the political cost of von der Leyen’s Saturday drama is likely to be European-wide recession.

“Since well before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Europeans have been struggling under the weight of runaway energy bills”, notes. In Germany, for some, one month’s energy costs the same as they used to pay for a whole year; in the UK the government has raised the price cap for energy bills by a whopping 54%, and in Italy a recent 40% domestic energy cost hike could now nearly double.

The New York Times describes this impact on local businesses and industries as nothing short of “frightening”, as all kinds of small businesses across Europe (prior to last week’s events) have been forced to cease their operations as energy costs outweigh profits. Large industries have not been immune to sticker shock either. “Almost two-thirds of the 28,000 companies surveyed by the Association of German Chambers of Commerce and Industry this month rated energy prices as one of their biggest business risks … For those in the industrial sector, the figure was as high as 85 percent.”

One recalls that old prediction from the Middle East, that western values would turn against the West itself, and ultimately devour it.

March 6, 2022 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | 1 Comment


The Highwire with Del Bigtree | March 3, 2022

After nearly two years of fact-checkers promising mRNA Covid shots do not alter the human genome, new research is coming out to possibly contradict this point. Since no genotoxicity investigations were required or done prior to the Covid shot rollout, the public is left to wonder where the truth lies.



Thanks to ICAN attorney Aaron Siri working on behalf of Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, the public will now have the documents Pfizer provided to the FDA for approval as regular releases will now be coming available. The HighWire begins its first investigation into the files.

March 6, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

US gives NATO countries ‘green light’ to provide fighter jets to Ukraine

RT | March 6, 2022

US Secretary of State Tony Blinken told CBS News on Sunday that Washington has given a “green light” to NATO members to supply Ukraine with fighter jets, and that the US would work to replace any jets sent to Kiev. Blinken spoke after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urged US lawmakers to intervene in the ongoing conflict with Russia.

Asked whether NATO members could begin sending planes to Ukraine, Blinken said “that gets a green light.” The US’ top diplomat then said that Washington was already working with Polish officials to “backfill” any aircraft they send to Ukraine – meaning the US would replace every Polish aircraft given to Kiev with an American one.

Supporting the delivery of jets to Ukraine occupies a middle ground for the US between active intervention in Ukraine and purely economic retaliation against Moscow. The government in Kiev has made no secret of its desire for the US to intervene militarily, with President Zelensky urging American lawmakers on Saturday to enforce a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine. Such a measure would see the US and any willing NATO allies commit to shooting down Russian aircraft, something Moscow has explicitly said it would perceive as an act of war.

The US and NATO have ruled out a no-fly zone, and repeatedly stated that they would not send troops to Ukraine.

However, delivering fighter jets to the Ukrainians has not proven simple thus far. The European Union pledged warplanes to Ukraine late last month, but faced two significant hurdles: first finding jets that Ukrainian pilots could fly, and then finding countries willing to deliver them from their airports.

The Ukrainian Air Force uses Soviet-designed MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-24, Su-25, and Su-27 jets in combat roles, and with the Su-25 used by Bulgaria and the MiG-29 used by Poland, Bulgaria and Slovakia, the jets would need to be sourced from these countries.

Shortly after the EU’s announcement, Poland stated that it wouldn’t send jets to Ukraine nor allow its airports to be used for deliveries. Bulgaria and Slovakia then stated that they wouldn’t take part in any deal, effectively killing off the EU’s arms supply plans.

However, Blinken’s statement on Sunday suggests that the plan may have been revived, but by the US and Poland rather than the EU. Blinken did not give any indication how soon Polish planes could be on their way to Ukraine, but said that discussions between Washington and Warsaw were “active.”

March 6, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

Russia claims Ukraine destroying evidence of US-funded bioweapons program

Bacteriological laboratory at the Lvov Regional Laboratory Centre in Lvov, Ukraine, November 9, 2020 © Getty Images / Markiian Lyseiko
RT | March 6, 2022

As Russian troops entered Ukraine, the government in Kiev ordered the“emergency destruction” of pathogens including plague and anthrax at US-funded laboratories near the Russian border, the Ministry of Defense in Moscow claimed on Sunday. Earlier rumors that the Russian military was targeting US-run biolabs were written off as conspiracy theories, but the ministry has promised to back up its claims with documents.

“We have received documentation from employees of Ukrainian biolaboratories on the emergency destruction on February 24 of especially dangerous pathogens of plague, anthrax, tularemia, cholera and other deadly diseases,” read a statement from the ministry.

The statement accused the “Kiev regime” of conducting an “emergency cleansing” to hide evidence of the supposed biological weapons program, which the ministry claimed was funded by the US, and involved the production of “biological weapons components” at at least two laboratories in the cities of Poltava and Kharkov, both of which have seen intense fighting between Russian and Ukrainian forces in recent days.

The documents published by the ministry purportedly include an order from the Ukrainian Ministry of Health to destroy the pathogens, and lists of the germs in question.

RT can not independently verify the authenticity of these documents. Russia’s Defense Ministry said that they are currently being analyzed by radiation, chemical and biological protection specialists.

“In the near future we will present the results of the analysis,” the ministry said, adding that it believes the documents will prove that Ukraine and the US were violating Article 1 of the UN Biological Weapons Convention. The US, Ukraine and Russia are among more than 180 parties to this treaty, and under Article 1 of the agreement, all parties agree “never under any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile, acquire, or retain” biological weapons.

As of the moment of this article’s publication, Washington has not commented on the ministry’s claims, and neither has Kiev.

In the initial days of Russia’s military offensive last month, claims circulated online that Russia was targeting western-funded biolabs with missile strikes. These allegations were never verified and were derided by western sources as conspiracy theories, although the Pentagon has publicly stated that it works with the Ukrainian government to “consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern in Ukrainian government facilities,” for “peaceful research and vaccine development,” according to the US embassy in Kiev.

March 6, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | 7 Comments

Majority Supremes Uphold Wrongful Conviction and Capital Punishment

By Stephen Lendman | March 6, 2022

In April 2013, Dzhokkar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev were framed as patsies for what was called the Boston Marathon bombing.

Local police lethally shot brother Tamerlan near Watertown, MA.

Dzhokhar was arrested, falsely charged, convicted and sentenced to death.

Neither brother was involved with the incident, a state-sponsored false flag.

Like many times before in the US, innocent patsies were wrongfully punished, innocence not enough to save them.

At the time, Dzhokhar’s father, Anzor, said his sons had nothing to do with the bombings.

US “special services went after them because my sons are Muslims, and don’t have anyone in America to protect them.”

“I’m sure about my children, in their purity. I don’t know what happened or who did this… I fear for my son, for his life.”

Neither son was trained or had knowledge of explosives or firearms.

Their mother, Zubeidat, said both sons were set up.

FBI operatives followed them for years.

Her eldest son Tamerlan “was controlled by the FBI, like for three, five years,” she said.

“They knew what (he) was doing.”

“They knew what actions were and what sites on the Internet he was (accessing).”

“They used to come (to our) home.”

“They used to talk to me.”

‘They were telling me that (Tamerlan) was really an extremist leader and that they were afraid of him.”

“They told me whatever information he is getting, he gets from these extremist sites.”

“They were controlling him.”

“They were controlling his every step (and) now they say that this is a terrorist act.”

“Never ever is this true. My sons are innocent.”

Asked if they had secret aspirations and dark secrets, she said:

“That’s impossible. My sons would never keep a secret.”

In July 2020, US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit panel unanimously overturned Dzhokhar’s death sentence, saying:

The trial judge failed to adequately question jurors about their exposure to pretrial publicity about the incident.

Weeks later, Trump regime AG William Barr vowed to “do whatever’s necessary” to appeal the decision and “pursue the death penalty” against Dzhokhar.

In October 2020, the (In)justice Department filed a petition for writ of certiorari, seeking Supreme Court intervention in the case.

On Friday, the Supremes reinstated the death penalty against wrongfully convicted Dzhokhar by a 6 – 3 majority ruling.

He had nothing to do with placing one of two so-called “pressure cooker” bombs near the April 2013 Boston Marathon’s finish line — killing three, injuring around 260 others.

Writing for the Court’s majority, Clarence Thomas falsely said the following:

“Dzhokhar Tsarnaev committed heinous crimes (sic).”

“The Sixth Amendment nonetheless guaranteed him a fair trial before an impartial jury (sic).”

“He received one (sic).”

“The judgment of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is reversed.”

Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett allied with Thomas to reverse the First Circuit’s ruling.

Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor dissented.

Dzhokhar is serving a life sentence at Colorado’s ADX Florence prison — the sole federal supermax facility.

According to the DOJ’s National Institute of Corrections, supermax confinement is in “special housing unit(s), maxi-maxi, maximum control facilit(ies), secured housing unit(s), intensive management unit(s), and administrative maximum penitentiar(ies.).”

They’re “highly restrictive, high-custody housing units within a secure facility.”

They “isolate inmates from the general prison population and from each other due to grievous crimes, repetitive assaultive or violent institutional behavior, the threat of escape or actual escape from high-custody facility(s), or inciting or threatening to incite disturbances in a correctional institution.”

In a 1999 report titled, “Supermax Prisons: Overview and General Considerations,” the DOJ said the following:

“Although “concentration, dispersal, and isolation are not new, the development of ‘supermax’ prisons is a relatively recent trend.”

“Prisons always had “prisons within the prison” for their worst inmates (usually called administrative segregation), and most states operate one or more facilities for their most threatening inmates.”

They’re for society’s “worst of the worst.”

Alcatraz was the prototype until closed in 1963.

Prison wardens aware of cruel and unusual punishment in supermax confinement call it a fate “worse than death.”

Prisoners are confined to windowless single cells about 7 by 12 feet for up to 23 hours a day, with a shower and concrete bed.

Inmates have few if any programs.

Little constructive activity is offered.

Few visits are allowed, almost no direct contact ones.

There’s very little human contact overall.

Most inmates are incarcerated for life. For others, sentences are determinate.

Imagine being isolated in less than 100 square feet of windowless space with nearly no human contact for the rest of your life — especially if young, like Dzhokhar, when confined.

A fate worse than death indeed.

A Final Comment

Longterm isolated confinement crushes the mind and spirit, along with taking a horrendous physical toll — over time causing:

severe anxiety

panic attacks





irrational anger, at times uncontrollable


social withdrawal

memory loss

appetite loss

delusions and hallucinations


profound despair and hopelessness

suicidal thoughts;


For many, a totally dysfunctional state and inability ever to live normally outside of confinement.

Prisoner anecdotes describe the experience:

“People come in with a few problems and leave as sociopaths.

You’re like a “caged animal. I’ve seen people just crack and either scream for hours on end or cry.”

Isolation “creates monsters (who) want revenge on society.”

We “have a sense of hopelessness. Plus my anger (is) a silent rage…I am beginning to really hate people.”

“They…try to break a person down mentally (and) mental abuse leaves no evidence behind (like) physical abuse.”

Others say isolation is like being buried alive in a tomb.

When longterm, it often causes irreversible psychological trauma and harm, a condition no society should inflict on anyone, nor should lawmakers allow it.

Yet thousands in the US are irreversibly harmed this way, including wrongfully convicted victims of injustice like Dzhokkar.

March 6, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, False Flag Terrorism, Subjugation - Torture | , | 3 Comments

Why Biden needs new policy advisers on Russia

By Scott Ritter | RT | February 7, 2022

Joe Biden’s current crop of senior policy aides, led by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, have helped create one of the most significant foreign policy crises in modern history. It’s time for a new slate of advisers.

Despite having served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for decades, US President Joe Biden is not an expert on Russia. His Senate experience, which includes providing critical support for NATO expansion, when combined with the leading role he played in managing Ukraine policy under the administration of President Barack Obama, have slanted Biden’s world view of Russia, married as it is to the very policies that Moscow is currently challenging. Biden shared a worldview with fellow Senate hawk John McCain, who once quipped that “Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country,” clearly not understanding just how important a gas station is to economies dependent upon fossil fuels for their very survival. Biden has called Putin a “killer,” showing little regard for either fact or diplomatic norms.

But perhaps the most egregious display of the lack of fundamental appreciation Biden has regarding Russia and its role in global geopolitics is comments made by the US president to the press following his June 17, 2021 meeting with Putin in Geneva. He was asked if he had taken away anything from his talks with the Russian president that indicated, as the reporter put it, “that Mr. Putin has decided to move away from his fundamental role as a disrupter, particularly a disrupter of NATO and the United States?” Biden responded with an answer that underscores just how little he understands of Russia, Russian policy, and the geopolitical realities of the present day.

“I think that the last thing he [Putin] wants now is a Cold War. Without quoting him – which I don’t think is appropriate – let me ask a rhetorical question: You got a multi-thousand-mile border with China. China is moving ahead, hellbent on election, as they say, seeking to be the most powerful economy in the world and the largest and the most powerful military in the world. You’re in a situation where your economy is struggling, you need to move it in a more aggressive way, in terms of growing it. And you – I don’t think he’s looking for a Cold War with the United States,” Biden said.

Less than eight months later, it is the United States that stands accused of pursuing a “Cold War” agenda, one that has brought Beijing and Moscow together in unprecedented fashion, united by the perceived threat posed by the US and its allies. In a comprehensive joint statement issued following the meeting between Putin and Xi Jinping in Beijing on Friday, Russia and China called on all states “to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order” as opposed to the “rules-based international order” being promulgated by the Biden administration. This is a shot across the bow of the US and its allies, informing them that their continued efforts to breathe relevance into archaic structures imposed on the world in the aftermath of the Second World War will not go unchallenged.

President Biden is facing a new policy debacle, one that has massive geopolitical consequences. The US cannot afford to emerge from the current situation having had its bluff called by both Russia and China; nor can it prevail by going all in, initiating a conflict where neither it nor its allies are positioned to prevail. As the principal architects of the “rules-based international order” posture that dominates US foreign policy today, neither Biden nor his two principle foreign policy advisers, Blinken and Sullivan, are either ideologically or intellectually capable of changing course, preferring to run the ship of state aground in defense of their so-called “principles.”

All three individuals have had their global vision vis-a-vis the US and Russia shaped by a collective of ersatz Russian experts, led by the likes of Michael McFaul, Anne Applebaum, Susan Glasser, Masha Gessen, Steven Hall, John Sipher, and their ilk – people whose ignorance of the reality of Russia is only surpassed by their singular focus on the person of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, as the personification of evil. Any influence such individuals – former diplomats, academics, intellectuals, and spies – have on current policy formulation and implementation, however, is indirect; none of them have a seat in the rarified air of policy formulation and implementation as directed from within the White House.

If the US is to have any hope of being able to emerge from its current policy journey with an outcome that differs from the fate enjoyed by the Titanic, it will need a cohort of genuine Russian experts who have the access necessary to advise the president at a time and place that makes such advice a part of the deliberations that occur before policy is acted on. Any such counsel, if previously offered, was disregarded in favor of the “rules-based international order” focus being marketed by Biden, Blinken, and Sullivan. At some point, however, Joe Biden as the chief executive must realize he is promulgating failed concepts. While it might be too much of an ask to have him cashier the architects of this policy debacle, the president would do well to raise the stature, so to speak, of the few voices of reason that are part of his inner circle.

For anyone hoping that the US military establishment would rise to the occasion, guess again. There was a time when US general officers were schooled in the art of combined arms warfare as practiced in Europe against a Soviet-style enemy; those days are gone. The current crop of generals, led by Mark Milley, have made a career out of fighting (and losing) low-intensity conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in the process, overseeing the transformation of the US military from a world-class fighting force to a bloated edifice unable to meaningfully project power into anything other than permissive counterinsurgency conflicts. Milley’s “feel” for large-scale conventional conflict is purely theoretical, as reflected in his recent briefing to Congress about his assessment of alleged Russian invasion plans regarding Ukraine.

There was a time when the US military produced the finest Russian Foreign Area Officers (FAOs) imaginable, experts on Russian language and culture who were able to provide sound advice to senior policy makers, military and civilian alike. These officers were well-grounded in the realities of what war with Russia (back then, the Soviet Union) could entail, having served several tours in combat and combat support units that were focused on just that task. The training was more than just academic – these officers went on to serve in utilization tours that put them on the frontline of the Cold War, either at the US Military Liaison Mission in Potsdam, East Germany, where they kept close tabs of the Soviet Group of Forces, Germany, or as military attaches in Moscow or other Warsaw Pact capital cities. The pinnacle of the FAO experience was to be assigned as the defense attache in Moscow. Here, one oversaw intelligence collection in support of national security objectives and provided direct advice to the US ambassador, the joint chiefs of staff, and the White House.

Today, the Russian-Eurasian Foreign Area Officer program is but a shadow of its former self, producing officers who are more political than military. Alexander Vindman, an Army Eurasian FAO who testified during the first impeachment hearings against then-President Donald Trump, is an example. So, too, is Brittany Stewart, the military attache to the US Embassy in Kiev who, during a tour of the Donbass region, was photographed wearing a patch bearing the “Ukraine or Death” skull insignia of a Ukrainian brigade. So shallow is the field of available expertise that the current defense attache to Moscow, Rear Admiral Philip Yu, is a China FAO with virtually no experience in US-Russian military affairs.

Contrast this with the defense attache assigned to Moscow during the August 1991 coup, Army Brigadier General Gregory Govan. He had served two tours of duty in Potsdam, and three total tours of duty in Moscow as an attache. When either the US ambassador or senior policy makers in Washington, DC had questions about the Soviet military, they picked up the phone and called a genuine expert. Moreover, Govan was no ideologue – his article on the “Spirit of Torgau” captured his deep appreciation of history and culture which made his advice more powerful.

Defense attaches are but one part of a larger diplomatic presence run out of the US Embassy in Moscow that is overseen by the ambassador. During Govan’s tenure, the US ambassador was Jack Matlock, a career diplomat and one of the most experienced and knowledgeable Russian experts in the State Department.

Admiral Yu, by contrast, reports to John Sullivan, a political appointee under Donald Trump with significant government experience, primarily as a lawyer, but no real expertise on Russia. In short, at one of the critical moments in US-Russian history, Washington has a politically appointed lawyer as ambassador, advised by a naval officer whose specialty is China. Recognizing the political role played by ambassadors, the State Department backstops them with career foreign service officers who serve as the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM). Jack Matlock’s DCM was James Collins, like Matlock a top-level Russian expert. Sullivan’s DCM is Bartle Gorman, whose background is diplomatic security.

With the US Embassy in Moscow unable to provide anything more substantive than a current events update, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, secretary of state, and national security adviser trapped in their own ideological prison, the burden of providing genuine expertise on matters pertaining to Russia falls on the shoulders of three individuals – Victoria Nuland, the undersecretary for political affairs; Eric Green, the special assistant to the president and senior director for Russia and Central Asia on the National Security Council; and William Burns, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

While Nuland’s credentials are not to be scoffed at – she has served as a diplomat for more than three decades, during which she acquired solid expertise in European, NATO, and Russian affairs – her role in the 2014 Maidan revolution has limited her utility as someone able to interface with her Russian counterparts effectively and, as such, diminishes her functionality as an adviser. Moreover, Nuland is cut from the same ideological cloth as Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan. Her utility in terms of being able to guide Joe Biden away from a potential conflict with Russia is, at best, indirect – because she so closely mimics the policy positions of Blinken and Sullivan, her advice is muted.

One source of potential policy dissent is Eric Green, a career foreign service officer possessing considerable experience in Russian affairs, including as the State Department’s director, Office of Russian Affairs, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, and the minister-counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Moscow. Green already has the ear of the president, having sat in on every phone call between Biden and Putin, as well as being present during the June 2021 Geneva Summit. Ostensibly Jake Sullivan’s subordinate, Green’s ability to provide advice about potential diplomatic off-ramps regarding the current crisis is real, as is the balance he can provide given the non-political nature of his service history.

The person with the greatest potential to alter the course of the Biden administration’s suicidal Russia policy is, titularly speaking, the least qualified: William Burns, the director of the CIA. However, Burns possesses a resume that is more conducive to back-channel diplomacy than covert operations. Indeed, the title of his 2019 memoir as a diplomat, ‘The Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal’, is self-explanatory in this regard. Biden has already made use of Burns’ service, dispatching the CIA director to Moscow in November 2021 to help dampen down tension between the two nations.

Confronted with a looming policy disaster which threatens to undermine US relations with NATO, Europe, and the world at a time when his administration seeks to assert the perception, if not reality, of leadership, it is likely that President Biden will be turning more and more to William Burns to fix the problems created by the incompetence of his secretary of state and national security adviser. Burns may very well find that he is ably backstopped at the National Security Council by Eric Green, whose expertise should supplant the ideological approach taken to date by Jake Sullivan.

Whether Joe Biden will avail himself of the expertise of Burns and Green is yet to be seen. One thing is certain – the journey on which the US is being taken on the advice of Blinken and Sullivan can only lead to embarrassment and ruin. Hopefully President Biden is wise enough to recognize this and bring in those who can help find a diplomatic path towards peace.

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, served in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991 to 1998 served as a chief weapons inspector with the UN in Iraq. Mr Ritter currently writes on issues pertaining to international security, military affairs, Russia, and the Middle East, as well as arms control and nonproliferation.

March 6, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

The silent majority

Global health and early life course scholars were too quiet during Covid, showing the broken incentives in academics

By Vinay Prasad | March 5, 2022

Of course, some academics were notably vocal during COVID19, taking the thesis position– lockdown, school closure, masking, temperature checks– or the antithesis– that these interventions don’t work or did more harm than good. But notably most academics were silent.

I understand why laboratory scientists might have stayed out of it, but two groups puzzle me: global health advocates and early life course/ disparities researchers who were quiet.

Lockdowns might ultimately be the single most destabilizing event in the last 25 years globally. Leading to famine and extreme poverty like we have never seen in modern times. Oxfam warned last summer that 11 people die each minute from hunger, outpacing covid.

A generation of kids have lost their future. UNICEF reported in March 2021 that 168 million kids lost a year of school, and many lost more.

India faced some of the longest closures, mortgaging the future of tens of millions of kids, leading to catastrophic educational losses.

School closures in the USA were disproportionately in liberal strongholds and attitudes were temporaly linked to Trump’s advocacy. Closing school for more than a year is the greatest domestic policy failure of the last 25 years. As a lifelong Democrat/ progressive, I know with confidence that my team is responsible for this.

Yet, throughout this pandemic, notice how many global health scholars were totally silent on lockdowns. How many global health researchers said nothing as India sacrificed the future of a generation with school closures? How many US based disparity researchers or early childhood advocates were silent on school closure? I believe most were quiet!


The answer is simple: they are more committed to their career than they are to the cause. It is a professional liability to take a strong stand on a controversial issue. It can lead to professional repercussions. Being silent is safe. At the same time, the single most consequential decision of one’s lifetime was taking place on topics these people supposedly care about, but they were silent. Instead, they continued their, by perspective, trivial work.

This criticism is particularly relevant for global health reseachers. For years, I have felt that some spend their lives flying to Europe to attend cocktail parties and lavish conferences, praising themselves for their virtue, while the globe stagnates in economic hegemony, and the average person’s health in a low or middle income nation is unchanged. It feels like empty rhetoric, and this was on full display with COVID. Most were totally silent on lockdowns.

Part of the barrier is the Academy, which is meant to promote vibrant thought, has become a monoculture of groupthink. Everyone cares about diversity, but on school closures– a form of structural racism– they were all silent. Everyone cares about the poor, but is happy to put their own child in a school pod, while poor kids get a zoom education. Perhaps some of these people lacked professional support or protection to speak against the (perceived) mob, but others may have merely lacked courage, or as is human nature, chosen selfishness.

At the end of the day, covid policy was dominated by idiots, people lacking a self preservation instinct, and a few courageous souls. Sometimes, however, it was hard to tell who was who. But most of all we missed the voices that should have been active. They were silent. They let me down, but also a few hundred million children. I hope they enjoy their promotions.

March 6, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

17 reasons why it is irrational to trust the medical community regarding the covid vaccines

Public health policies over the past two years have failed to curb covid at all but wrought unmitigated societal devastation. What exactly have they done right?

Ashmedai | February 3, 2022

One of the most intractable impediments to convincing people of straightforward facts relating to the covid vaccines is their instinctive and unshakeable trust of the mainstream medical community, and especially their personal doctor/s.

To that end, here a series of arguments or reasons why it is not just imprudent but irrational to have faith in the mainstream medical community and everyone who relies on them as a primary source of covid vaccine information.

Another objective is to empower people to articulate their clear and reliable intuition that the medical community lacks institutional credibility and objectivity rather than doubt their own intellectual ability.

It is necessary to preface that when I refer to the medical community or establishment, I am not referring to any of the heroic doctors and other professionals who do think and act independently of the mainstream medical community. In fact, you can pretty much apply to them the inverse of all the arguments enumerated below.

Another critical point to keep in mind is that even though most of the arguments below only directly apply to part – or even a select few individuals – of the mainstream medical community, they are nevertheless an indictment of the entire medical community. It is a tightly interwoven, interconnected and insular group that shares information widely through a variety of channels and feedback mechanisms. Information deriving from a corrupted source anywhere in the medical community thus infects the entire medical community. Its insular nature regarding what they consider to be acceptable sources for scientific or medical information means that they largely lack a mechanism for allowing correction of faulty information from an external source.

For the most part, I restricted the arguments presented to those that can be made from premises that are objectively true regardless of where one falls regarding the covid vaccines.

One final point is that the contention that it is irrational to trust the medical community regarding the vaccines is derived from the totality of the evidence. In other words, when there are a dozen major red flags, it is prudent to assume that there is something systematically rotten about the whole system; in this case it that means it would be irrational to regard them as a reliable source of information for anything to do with the covid vaccines.

For the following reasons, the medical establishment is unequivocally untrustworthy regarding the vaccines:

  1. The mother of all biases: The medical community bet every ounce of credibility and authority they had on the vaccines being safe and effective, so they cannot afford to ever admit they were wrong should the vaccines ultimately turn out to have real safety issues
  2. The politicization of the medical community
  3. The insistence on a “One Size Fits All” contrary to fundamental medical practice
  4. The lack of consistent evidentiary standards
  5. Few medical professionals including those involved in making policy or opining on the vaccines have any idea how the vaccines work
  6. They got pretty much everything about covid wrong before the vaccines
  7. The failure to treat covid
  8. The lack of critical or independent thinking by anyone in the mainstream medical community
  9. The medical community failed to convey basic risk stratification
  10. Public health officials used wrong information and spurious data to construct pandemic policies
  11. The medical community never admitted that they made serious mistakes
  12. The denial of natural immunity
  13. Censorship and Fraud
  14. They don’t denounce useless and harmful practices derived from their policies and statements
  15. The medical establishment is riddled with massive financial conflicts of interest
  16. Every specific claim made regarding the vaccines so far has ultimately proven to be false
  17. A significant % of the medical community are genuinely evil people

1. The mother of all biases: The medical community bet every ounce of credibility and authority they had on the vaccines being safe and effective, so they cannot afford to ever admit they were wrong should the vaccines ultimately turn out to have real safety issues

Never in recent memory has there been such a powerful bias afflicting the medical community or public health officials. They have loudly and daily proclaimed in the most definitive ways imaginable that the covid vaccines are absolutely safe and effective, to the point of advocating that people be compelled by various means to get vaccinated. Billions of people followed their advice, and billions more succumbed to their pressure.

If the truth is that these vaccines are not quite as safe as they say, that would mean that potentially millions people died, and perhaps tens or even hundreds of millions suffered all sorts of horrible injuries because of them, or contracted covid despite vaccination because they were lulled into a false sense of security that the vaccines are essentially impervious and subsequently contracted severe covid disease or even died.

Their credibility would be absolutely blown to pieces. After all, they were as definitive as possible. And they attacked with unrestrained zealotry anyone who dared to even voice a little skepticism. They have publicly humiliated, attacked, defamed, castigated, chastised, mocked and scorned those who refused to accept their proclamations of functionally impervious vaccine safety.

The inherent human impulse to preserve one’s sense of integrity, morality, and righteousness is severely threatened by the prospect of conning the world into a hastily rushed intervention that proved to be the deadliest therapeutic ever released and foisted upon the public.

Another powerful innate human impulse is to preserve oneself from facing accountability for enormously consequential rank negligence – if the vaccines are anywhere near as dangerous and lethal as a growing mountain of data and studies now indicate, “rank negligence” doesn’t even begin to describe the depth of culpability here.

And let’s not forget that not only is their expertise is on the line, but so is the essence of their professional identity. If the medical community got this wrong and people figure it out, the medical community will become a pejorative to many if not most people, an institution completely denuded of credibility and thought of as a modern cult.

This is true as much for the small community doctors as it is for Fauci, for they too are complicit in convincing people that the vaccines were “safe and effective”, albeit on a smaller scale.

In Short: It is not rational to expect that the medical community can be remotely objective about the issues pertaining to the covid vaccines, let alone be willing to admit that the vaccines are not safe, when they are so heavily and intractably invested in the vaccines being as safe as they promised they would be. This is especially true now that they took a significant hit on the efficacy claims as Omicron publicly humiliated them when it shredded any notion that the vaccines could stop transmission, a critical and prominent early claim of vaccine proponents.

2. Politicization of the Medical Community

The medical community has become extremely politicized. Consider the following:

  • JAMA sacked their President because he had the temerity to defend doctors as not intrinsically racist
  • the AMA declared that racism is a not only a public health crisis, but is the #1 PH crisis (!)
  • the inclusion of race in itself as a “risk factor” used for triaging scarce covid treatments
  • the sudden and radical switch from “a 10-person outdoor funeral was too unsafe to allow” to “27 million people mass protesting George Floyd was somehow not only safe but necessary to address the aforementioned “public health crisis” of systemic racism”
  • The CDC’s prior advocacy for gun control, calling gun ownership a public health crisis

These are but a few of the numerous and ubiquitous instances of clear political entanglement with what are supposed to be non-partisan medical institutions, showing that political considerations clearly supersede scientific considerations in the most high-profile and impactful sorts of decisions and policies.

And this corruption of scientific standards extends into published literature. Consider the study Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research, where we are duly informed in the abstract:

Just what the devil are “human-ice interactions”?? This sounds more like pseudo-religious mysticism than anything remotely scientific.

And their conclusion opens with the following declaration:

“Ice is not just ice. The dominant way Western societies understand it through the science of glaciology is not a neutral representation of nature.”

Scientifically, ice is indeed just ice. Apparently, however, scientists understanding a topic solely via the scientific method is “not a neutral representation of nature”.

This used to be my cardinal example of politics conquering the scientific journals, but that was before I came across the study On Having Whiteness:

Ask yourself: just how rotten does the culture in academia have to be for an actual journal to publish the rabid deranged rantings of an unhinged lunatic? (Just imagine if someone tried to publish this sort of vile screed about “Jewishness” or “Blackness”…)

And lest you think that this paper is somehow a one-off exception, here are many more.

To cap it off, here is an example specifically related to the covid pandemic response: Approaching the COVID-19 Pandemic Response With a Health Equity Lens: A Framework for Academic Health Systems. Title says it all.

In Short: The medical establishment is openly and blatantly political, and has a history of acting against science for political reasons; this means that they are willing to put politics over science.

3. The insistence on a “One Size Fits All” contrary to fundamental medical practice that patients are unique individuals with unique health profiles

One of the cardinal rules of medicine is that every patient is a unique individual with unique medical characteristics that therefore requires individualized treatment. There is certainly no such thing as a treatment that is magically the optimal choice for every one of the hundreds of millions of people in the country.

As the few intrepid inquisitive people who bother to actually read granular scientific literature about the vaccines know, there is considerable variation between types of individuals regarding the vaccine and how best to administer it.

It is axiomatic that different people have different risks from different medical interventions. Or at least it used to be. The myopically focused hyper-aggressive campaign that quite literally every adult and child, man and woman, get vaccinated is contraindicated by all of medical history, and suggests that the medical community literally sees the vaccine as some sort of magical unicorn, something that would be seen in a cult but out of place in the practice of medicine.

The manic obsession to vaccinate even those with so-called “natural immunity” – ie immunity from having been infected with the covid virus – stands as ironclad proof of the morally unhinged and the firmly anti-science character of the medical community’s agenda to vaccinate every living human on the planet.

In Short: The aggressive, unrelenting insistence on the biggest one-size-fits-all in history that everyone get vaccinated is contrary to all prior medical standards and practice; this means that they are at minimum acting and thinking more like cult members than doctors. This also means that they are not treating patients as unique individuals in the same way they used to.

4. The lack of consistent evidentiary standards

It goes without saying that objective, unchanging standards for evaluating evidence is the very definition of scientific research and inquiry.

The utter lack of any standards used for anything Covid related stands as a starkly visible sign of the decidedly unscientific character of the medical community throughout Covid.

Lockdowns were implemented on the basis of a fringe lunatic’s crackpot model. I say “fringe lunatic” because he has a long history of delusional epidemiological predictions of viruses becoming mass-casualty pandemics where the magnitude that he was off by was itself considerably larger than the total actual deaths from the prognosticated pandemic super-killer:

[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. (Sheep genocide!!) He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths.

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. (And then he said maybe 200,000,000!) In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

And Ferguson is still going strong:

Mask usage and mandates were adopted suddenly and unexpectedly without any sort of scientific rationale whatsoever, at least that was documented in any scientific literature.

Remdesivir was given its EUA on the basis of one trial conducted by its manufacturer, and whose primary endpoint was changed midway (which is something that typically constitutes scientific fraud) when the preselected primary endpoint failed to show that Remdesivir had any efficacy, namely that there was no reduction in mortality or hospitalization. The same story repeated itself for every pharma drug granted approval for a covid indication.

On the other hand, HCQ was demonized despite having hundreds of trials showing very convincingly that it was effective as a prophylaxis and early treatment.

Ivermectin was similarly demonized despite having dozens of RCT’s showing a clear and consistent benefit in all stages of covid.

The same goes for most of the other drugs/treatments used by thousands of doctors worldwide, such as those found in the FLCCC’s protocols – numerous studies showing a clear and consistent significant benefit, and all ignored by the medical establishment and government agencies.

The vaccine trials that provided the “robust” data for the FDA’s approval were a colossal joke. This article is long enough so I’ll avoid going through the details here, but suffice it to say that the Pfizer kids trial simply lied about paralyzing one of the kids in the trial – Maddie de Garay (along with an inhuman ordeal of excruciating agony and mental/emotional trauma). All of the treatment options on the FLCCC protocols have far more robust evidence than any of the vaccines hurriedly rushed out on the skimpiest data imaginable.

In Short: The medical establishment simply cast aside all evidentiary standards (in favor of a particular political agenda); this means that the medical establishment’s culture is against objectivity in science, and lacks the necessary mechanisms or guardrails critical to conducting objective scientific inquiry.

5. Few medical professionals including those involved in making policy or opining on the vaccines have any idea how the vaccines work

Doctors, surgeons, GP’s, infectious disease specialists, OBGYN’s, etc, etc, etc haven’t the foggiest idea of how the covid vaccines work. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and ask your local [fill in the blank] specialist/doctor to explain codon optimization, the proline swaps in the vaccine’s spike protein, self-assembling lipids, the chemical alterations to switch the positive charge of cationic lipids to neutral in a neutral PH, spike biodistribution, lipid biodistribution, and so on.

And it’s not only the vaccines themselves that are ridiculously intricate and complicated. The immune system itself is massive, twisted maze of different types of cells, molecules, pathways, and chemistry that involves the entire human anatomy. Even an experienced immunologist could not possibly predict in advance how the different and truly novel vaccine products would interact with the various human anatomical biomes.

Expert opinion is considered the lowest form of “evidence,” because when it comes to predictions, experts are almost always wrong. Were scientists’ inability to conceive of a plausible mechanism for speculative harms a viable standard to adjudicate safety concerns, the FDA could be largely retired, what with little need for the robust testing regiment all novel therapies and biological agents are subjected to in the face of staunch expert claims of lack of plausibility for unexpected adverse effects to occur. Regrettably, experts seldom recognize the limits of their expertise, and vis-à-vis covid seem unaware that any exist altogether.

In Short: The bottom line is that none of the “experts” and none of the ‘local doctors’ who are telling people the vaccines are safe and effective have any idea of the actual technical underlying science. This means that they cannot possibly provide any scientific insight, credibility, or authority regarding the vaccines.

6. They got pretty much everything about covid wrong before the vaccines

If a particular methodology consistently yields wrong answers, than it can be reasonably assumed that it will continue to do so. It is irrational to trust the same people who got masks, lockdowns, distancing, asymptomatic spread, risk stratification, seasonality, children’s risks from and spreading covid, testing, case data, hospitalization data, mortality rate, etc., etc., etc. dead wrong to suddenly know what they’re talking about when it comes to the vaccines.

And as we will get to later, pretty much every specific statement made about the vaccine that we can test against real-world results has been proven to be dead wrong.

In Short: They were wrong about everything else before the vaccines, and there is no compelling reason to think that they will do better regarding the vaccines.

7. The failure to treat covid

The failure to treat what was allegedly the worst plague in modern times is possibly the greatest medical failure of modern times. This is without considering the war they waged on effective cheap repurposed FDA-approved drugs – simply their failure to ever really treat covid is itself astounding. Quite literally the whole point of doctors is to treat medical maladies and diseases. Never in human history have doctors systematically decided not to even try and treat something, never mind the most pressing existential medical crisis in a century.

Contrast the failure of the medical establishment to treat covid with the amazing success of the thousands of heroic doctors and nurses around the world in treating covid. All that this small minority of doctors did was to simply practice the art of medicine using the tools available to them. In the words of Dr. Brian Tyson, one of the most prolific doctors who treats covid:

If you see inflammation, use anti-inflammatories
If you see blood clots, treat blood clots
If you see pneumonia, treat pneumonia
If you see hypoxemia, treat hypoxemia
If you know it’s viral, use antivirals
If you do nothing, quit practicing!!!

This isn’t complicated. The failure to treat covid is a failure to treat covid.

In Short: The medical community has failed – by choice – to treat covid, allegedly the worst plague in a hundred years; this means that something has replaced their Hippocratic culture and healer mindset as their guiding principle/s.

8. The lack of critical or independent thinking by anyone in the mainstream medical community

Consulting an expert is only meaningful if the expert will apply his or her expertise and judgement to analyze the issue presented. On the flip side, experts who uncritically go along with whatever those atop the medical community’s hierarchy promulgate not only cannot be considered as “expert opinion”, but also indicate that the free-flowing debate that is the lifeblood of scientific inquiry has clotted as though it was invaded by hordes of marauding spike proteins.

One of the more glaringly obvious characteristics of the pandemic is the shocking, Borg-like unanimity among the medical establishment. Pretty much every mainstream doctor on the establishment side is in 100% agreement with 100% of what the establishment says or does 100% of the time.

Exhibit A: Covid treatment. After two years of covid, how many prestigious hospital systems or universities have developed their own covid treatment protocol? Outpatient treatment? Prophylaxis regiment? The answer – again quite shockingly – is ZERO. Every major hospital and academic center has simply just went along with the NIH panel’s recommendations.

And no, that isn’t because they tried and just couldn’t come up with anything. How many medical conferences have been held where frontline doctors got together to share notes and compare clinical experiences, or where the world’s preeminent researchers and protocol designers swapped theoretical possibilities to study? Zero. Is there even an official online platform or portal in either the government or in academia where doctors and clinicians can network in the aforementioned manner? Nope.

So they never bothered to even take the most basic and rudimentary steps to try and develop any treatment protocols for covid.

We’ll get to the censorship and crusading against any dissenters later, but let’s state for now that the medical community literally censoring dissent within their own ranks is also indicative of a lack of independent or critical thinking by the establishment medical community.

In Short: The medical establishment’s members do not think critically or independently of the medical organizations and government agencies; this means that firstly the doctors/medical professionals not in positions of significant authority are not exercising any personal judgement, and second, that the few people in charge of the medical community are not engaging in the sort of rigorous debate that is the basic diligence for scientific analysis as they simply never face any dissenting views when making decisions.

9. The medical community failed to convey basic risk stratification

One of the most basic if not the most foundational axioms in Public Health is to figure out who, and to what degree, is at risk.

So first off, the med community failed to notice the severe age and comorbidity stratification of covid risk. This was obvious immediately as covid set in from the earliest analysis of covid deaths in Italy and from the Diamond Princess cruise ship, to pick 2 prominent examples.

They subsequently compounded this indefensible negligence by failing to communicate this to the public when the medical literature, and more importantly worldwide clinical experience, decisively proved this to be the case.

In order for an individual to make personal health decisions regarding covid, they obviously need to know what the risks and benefits are for them specifically from covid. The failure of the medical community to communicate the most basic risk breakdowns is flat-out dishonest manipulation with the aim to deceive the people into believing that they were at substantially higher risk than they actually were (and they largely succeeded too, as polling showed that in the US for instance on average respondents thought that already midway through 2020 9% of the US population had died from covid, and younger people perceived their personal risk from covid as 1000x (or more) than what it was in reality). That their intent was (allegedly) to prevent covid transmission is not a justification whatsoever; indeed, such arguments are ubiquitous amongst aspiring dictators looking for a superficial façade to grant themselves unlimited emergency powers.

The medical community has even admitted outright to lying to the public. The media (eventually) asked Fauci to explain his original stance advising against public masking in light of his current position that facemasks were the single most important and impactful public health measure in reducing covid transmission. That the media even asked such a question is a testament to the profoundly troubling and seemingly impossible contradiction between his flip-flopping from an unequivocal no on masks to masks being the most powerful policy tool in the arsenal. Completely nonplussed by what should have been a humbling recognition of the very real limits of human expertise, Fauci comfortably explained that he had lied in order to protect what were at that time scarce supplies of PPE for healthcare workers.

Fauci would subsequently go on to admit to moving the goalposts on what percentage of the population needed to be vaccinated in order to reach the critical threshold that would end the pandemic spread of covid based on his sense of the mood and sensibilities of the public.

The failure of the medical community to communicate even elementary risk stratification is also at its core base authoritarian paternalism, devoid of compassion or regard for people as individuals.

In Short: Public health officials and doctors are supposed to keep people apprised of the reality of what is going on so that they can make informed and rational personal health decisions, and also to prevent masses of people from seeking medical information from crackpots which inevitably occurs when the medical establishment is clearly not acting in good faith or honestly. That they deliberately failed to do so means that the medical establishment routinely lies to the public, and that it also has an unmistakably elitist & paternalistic culture that looks down derisively upon the ‘peasants’.

10. Public health officials used wrong information and spurious data to construct pandemic policies

The medical community literally used the wrong metrics, information, and data. Imagine if Fauci said that we’re locking down because of the astrological alignment of the North Star relative to the position of Saturn – the position of the North Star in the sky relative to Saturn has nothing whatsoever to do with the pandemic. Same idea here – the medical establishment relied on similarly irrelevant data or information to decide pandemic policy.

And the examples are legion. From models to death data, it was all garbage. Models, especially models written by known fraudulent quacks like Mr. Ferguson, do not provide any sort of reliable information; what they do provide is many ways to imagine a worst-case scenario playing out without a shred of evidence to back it up.

Then there are the various covid metrics. From cases to deaths and everything inbetween, all the metrics were defined so ineptly (and corruptly) that they were rendered meaningless (and numerous radical and novel assumptions were made without any evidence and contrary to all previous conventional medical wisdom and data). Covid deaths due to gunshots and alcohol poisoning. Covid hospitalizations from physical trauma. Covid cases of bits of viral debris or bits of random nucleotide junk amplified by asinine PCR parameters. Test positivity %’s that didn’t account for covid-recovering individual testing multiple times to test out of quarantine. Case counts that didn’t account for increased testing. And so on.

The flip side of this coin is the failure of any government or academic agency/institution – especially the CDC, whose primary raison d’etre is to conduct research on contagious diseases – to even attempt to curate high-quality and granular data on covid.

For instance, the CDC has still two years into the pandemic failed to conduct even once a random antibody seroprevalence sampling for the US. How can you hope to deal with a pandemic virus if you don’t know how many people were infected is a mystery to everyone (at least those of us who aren’t not in public health). This suggests that the CDC and the public health establishment have ulterior motives leading them to prefer ignorance over rigorous data (that might prove highly embarrassing to the medical community…).

(The CDC has also failed to perform even a single autopsy for any reported deaths tied to the vaccines, which suggests that the CDC similarly thinks that ignorance is indeed bliss regarding vaccine injuries and deaths.)

The failure to curate rigorously defined proper metrics was the wholesale rejection of science. Scientific inquiry and analysis requires accuracy and precision. The blasé nonchalant dismissal of proper metrics is a searing indictment that the medical establishment does not practice science as defined by the scientific method.

In Short: The medical community knowingly curated and used corrupted and irrelevant metrics and data to characterize the epidemiology of covid; this means that they ignored the scientific method.

11. The medical community never admitted that they made serious mistakes

The medical establishment, despite their innumerable ‘errors’ that were incredibly destructive to literally hundreds of millions of people across the world, has never admitted that they were wrong to have done what they did about anything. The only exception to this is that once their mistakes and missteps started becoming so obvious that it was impossible to deny them anymore, the medical establishments go-to explanation has been that “science is always evolving and we did the best we could do with the limited data we had”.

The notion that the medical community couldn’t or shouldn’t have done better than they did is sheer lunacy. And their failure to be able to admit that they have even the slightest degree of culpability in the societal devastation wreaked by their policies (more on that later) is, frankly, despicable.

In Short: The medical community refuses to admit that they made any substantial mistakes at any point; this means that they are at minimum detached from reality and unable to learn from past mistakes, ie that they will continue to make the same “mistakes” going forward, including regarding the vaccines. This also is indicative of a powerful “us-vs-them” mentality of the medical community, where they emotionally cannot tolerate the cognitive dissonance of admitting that they (“us”) were wrong and the ‘conspiracy theorists’ (“them”) were right.

12. The denial of natural immunity

The denial that natural immunity provides robust protection against not just reinfection but even from severe disease stands as one of the most blatant and illiterate contentions of the entire pandemic. Immunity following recovery from an infection or disease is as basic and standard Bio101 as it gets. It’s called the immune system.

Now, it is possible to have exceptions. But it is completely illogical and unprecedented to just assert the most radical hypothesis and adopt it as the default without any evidence whatsoever. Furthermore, as the pandemic wore on, the glaring lack of documented reinfection phenomena – anywhere in the world – surely proved the inadequacy of this nonsensical theory. If natural immunity didn’t work, then where were the second waves in nursing homes? They are the most vulnerable to covid, and have the weakest immune systems generally, so surely at least some nursing homes should have experienced subsequent outbreaks of reinfected residents?

Even more indicting, there was clinical evidence that immune specific cells were still circulating in individuals from the 1918 Spanish Flu. And there was also documented clinical evidence of robust SARS-CoV-1 immunity documented 17 years later. So why should SARS-CoV-2 be different with >80% shared genome with SARS1? What exactly was so “novel” about SARS-CoV-2 that the immune system was suddenly and obviously inadequate??

Furthermore, there were a number of studies that documented this thing called “cross-reactive immunity”, whereby immune specific cells acquired from infections mostly with other coronaviruses (that are responsible now for common colds) were able to help out with SARS-CoV-2. So let’s try a basic syllogism:

  1. Immunity from other coronaviruses demonstrated significant neutralizing activity against the other coronaviruses and even against covid.
  2. The immune system produces immune-specific cells against infection by SARS-CoV-2.
  3. The logical conclusion: Immune specific cells generated against covid are effective at neutralizing covid, consistent with historical observation and the fundamental tenets of immunology.
  4. The conclusion of the medical community: Immune specific cells generated against covid don’t work because they are inferior than less-specific immunity from other somewhat related coronaviruses.

I have no idea how the logic works according to the esteemed experts over at the CDC and NIH. I’m pretty sure that they don’t either.

At any rate, this anti-science flat-Earth “immunity-denier” stance by the medical community became even more egregious when the vaccines were rolled out. Now, they had to get us to believe that vaccines would induce reliable and robust immunity after they had spent months explaining how actually getting infected with covid did not.

So let’s go back to our syllogism test:

  1. Immune system exposure to the pathogen that causes covid does not result in the immune system developing strong and effective immune cells against the virus.
  2. Vaccines – which by design are mimicking infection so as to provoke the immune system to respond in a similar manner – will provoke an immune response as if an infection was happening.
  3. The logical conclusion: Assuming premise #1 is true, then the vaccines would be expected to not elicit robust or reliable immunity.
  4. The conclusion of the medical community: The immune response to the vaccine will be robust and reliable, even though the immune response to infection with the real thing is not, and even though there has never been a vaccine that elicited superior immunity to a pathogen than infection.

The only consistency in the logic of the medical community regarding immunity is that if we don’t make it, it’s bad, but if we make it, it’s amazing.

They had no way of knowing that vaccines would produce superior immunity, and certainly had no indication from prior science or from real clinical evidence (and in fact all of the available evidence had and has soundly and unambiguously contradicted them). All they had was this bizarre theory that we’re just going to assume that the immune response to the natural pathogen was of course going to be inadequate, and our designer vaccines will be better because they are producing antibodies to the spike protein which is of course superior, although we have no actual evidence for such a proposition.

There is actually much, much more to say regarding how insane and anti-science the natural immunity denialism by the medical establishment was (and still is), but this should suffice to illustrate the delusional quackery of this position.

In Short: The medical community denied the obvious reality of natural immunity from the beginning without any basis despite this being one of the most radical and wacky theories ever conjured up in the history of the scientific method; and then they did a partial about-face when it came to the vaccines, despite the inescapable contradiction between the two positions; this means that the medical community has been so conditioned to follow anything that is said by the medical “authorities” that they resemble a religious cult more than scientists. It also means that there is no limit to what they will be willing to cast aside of science that was previously held as a foundational truth.

13. Censorship and Fraud

Censorship is a weapon employed by authoritarians to hold onto their power – a mafioso intellectual thuggery that remains the last refuge of charlatans cornered by the truth.

I’m putting censorship and fraud together because censorship in science is by definition fraud — the process of scientific inquiry is to debate different hypotheses and test various options; if some are censored, then the scientific inquiry is being conducted fraudulently.

So… who remembers the original letter to Nature that became the justification to portray the “lab leak hypothesis” as a lunatic conspiracy theory? And let’s not forget the Great HCQ Fraud Paper (What is… Surgisphere?) that got published in The Lancet, which was the catalyst for government agencies and medical organizations around the world to suspend HCQ even from ongoing active trials. The paper whose data was entirely fabricated out of thin air. And it was far from the only corrupt fraudulent paper published.

Then there is the newest fad in academic medicine: Retractions. Papers threatening the establishment narrative or “facts” that somehow elide the censors and pass peer review are suddenly without any warning yanked by journals, something that is unprecedented in modern academia. Daniel Horowitz wrote a great article documenting this phenomenon: Retraction serves as the new academic censorship.

And lets not forget the now-infamous Ouchy-Fauci emails that were openly plotting in plain English to “takedown” the Great Barrington Declaration & the universally acclaimed preeminent epidemiologists who authored it. If trying to depict world-renowned expert epidemiologists as fringe in order to disabuse the public of their considered expert opinion isn’t censorship, I don’t know what is.

And then there is the entire regime of threatening to yank the license, and even possibly investigate criminally, any medical professional who is judged to be guilty of spreading “covid disinformation”. Literally straight out of the Soviet playbook.

So although Big Tech seems to get all the attention as censors, the medical community seem to be far better at it in some respects. After all, if the big medical journals keep out “unapproved” opinions, how will the majority of the medical community – the front-line doctors, nurses, etc who don’t do their own research but rely on their weekly emails from various medical societies or journals of that week’s “notable” developments – be able to stay abreast of actual developments and research? It is no wonder that the vast, vast majority of doctors are so illiterate and ignorant.

In Short: The medical community has engaged in a wholesale, all-out censorship regime in order to eliminate any dissenting facts, data, and expert opinions that challenge their preferred narrative; censorship always and everywhere is the attempt to hide the truth from public view.

14. They didn’t denounce useless and harmful practices derived from their policies and statements

If someone distorts your opinion egregiously in a way that makes it look insane, you would protest, especially regarding a national policy that affects >330 million people. In addition to making you look like a fool, such distortions will deter people from accepting your policies.

Yet, we were treated to all manner of theater of the absurd, such as wearing masks when alone in your car or outside, and even when taking a shower. My parents were recently on a packed flight whereupon the plane landing, the stewardess kindly reminded the passengers to please be mindful to socially distance while getting off the plane. Umm, what now??? Good luck with that.

Then there were the insane policies, like Governor Whitmer in Michigan banning people already in a store from purchasing “non-essential” items. She irrationally banned gardening at one point of Michigan’s lockdown, the scientific justification of which still remains unclear.

In some states, even driving by yourself was prohibited. So people who were literally going mad cooped up all day in their house who desperately needed to get out for a bit so they didn’t become one of the >25% of people who considered suicide by June 2020 were forbidden to do so. What could possibly justify such a draconian nonsense measure? This list is endless. (If you really want to get a sense of how crazy this all was, just look at the evolution of headlines over at The Babylon Bee from the lockdown months.)

Special emphasis is reserved for restaurant policies: wear your mask into the restaurant but take it off when you sit down only to put it back on when you walk to the bathroom??

To be fair, often enough, it wasn’t the people misinterpreting the scientific catechisms of the elite public health demigods — their policies or statements were frequently objectively incoherent.

Warning: you are entering the Twilight Zone

The initial “15 days to flatten the curve” underwent numerous evolutions to finally reach the status of indefinite emergency without any defined objective or stopping conditions; it has given rise to a host of devastating memes capturing the sheer lunacy, mendacity, hypocrisy and tyranny of the rapidly changing policies.

Masks were initially (and accurately) explained to be not only useless for reducing the community transmission of covid, but likely to be counterproductive as well in the hands of untrained laypeople who would handle them very unsanitarily. But the science made a radical turnabout after a few months, when we were then informed that masks were the single most critical measure in reducing covid transmission. This kabuki theater reached a climax with then-CDC director Robert Redfield picking up his mask, putting it down, holding it up, and then declaring that it provides more protection than a vaccine would (!?!) – all of this during a nationally televised hearing in front of a senate committee. This stood as the most illiterate statement of any prominent public health official over the course of the pandemic until the covid vaccine rollout. Mask mandates were reimposed in numerous jurisdictions following the obvious failure of the vaccines to mitigate covid transmission from the vaccinated. So in hindsight, Dr. Redfield was not really that off base.

The IHME models routinely failed to accurately predict the covid metrics for the day the model was released. These divorced-from-reality IHME models also predicted the imminent overwhelming of hospital capacity in numerous states, which was the catalyst that convinced governors in a few states to infamously compel nursing homes to accept positive covid patients back from hospitals – in order to clear space for the expected tsunami of critically ill covid patients. Besides the obvious stupidity of starting cascades of nursing home outbreaks that would produce many extra and unnecessary severe covid cases that would require hospitalization, why would anyone listen to the doomsday predictions of an algorithm so inept that it couldn’t even accurately capture the metrics that already existed, let alone predict future numbers? This is the equivalent of watching the local weather forecaster saying that there is a thunder storm right now and tomorrow there will be a hurricane as you’re relaxing on the beach under an umbrella to protect you from the sun.

Where did 6 feet come from? Nobody knows really, but the one place it definitely didn’t come from was a scientific publication or study. What difference does it make if we’re standing 6 feet apart or 1 foot apart in an indoor room, and the aerosols carrying the live covid virions could hang in the air for literally days and sometimes weeks? Also unclear, but distancing definitely made people feel better.

What was the minimum age that wearing a mask is safe? That depended on which agency you consulted. The CDC was by far the most optimistic, declaring that masking 2-year-old kids was perfectly ok. The WHO took a far more cautious approach, asserting that masks should categorically not be worn by anyone under the age of 5, and that children under the age of 12 should only wear masks if absolutely necessary and under the supervision of a competent adult. Various European countries fell all over the map in between, in a haphazard manner that resembled a Wonder-8 ball more than science. Although science itself had by then become virtually indistinguishable from shaking a Wonder-8 ball.

Speaking of competent adults, I am fairly confident that no one except perhaps for the teachers union representatives would consider the average public school teacher in Chicago or NYC to be “competent” in the way the WHO’s guidance had in mind.

And for anyone who was wondering what the actual efficacy of masks was, that mostly depended on who was interviewing Fauci that day. To be honest though, Fauci had a tendency not to provide numbers all that much, which left a confused and vexed population to parse the adjectives Fauci used to try and decipher the degree of efficacy of mask wearing for any particular day. For instance, “confers a high degree of protection” meant more efficacy than “it’s better than nothing”. Precisely where “it is undeniable that wearing a mask helps” fell on this scale was left to the individual cable news viewers to figure out for themselves.

Some policies even confounded justices on the Supreme Court, some of whom struggled to grasp for instance why casinos were not a significant covid risk operating at 50% capacity but churches were virtually guaranteed super-spreaders even at a mere 10%.

And who can forget the profound mysteries of viral kinetics that confounded the best and brightest scientists, who were never quite able to explain the precise scientific rationale by which 10-person outdoor funerals were unacceptably risky but 27 million screaming protesters were perfectly safe.

Did anyone once ever hear Fauci call out these excesses? And not just Fauci, but anyone and everyone who was prominent or influential. It’s almost as though they wanted the most draconian, incoherent measures. As every good tyrant and cult leader knows, forced irrationality conditions people to blind, unquestioning obedience.

In Short: The medical community never called out any of the innumerable excesses that were the result of authorities and individuals misinterpreting their policies and statements. This means that they were not perturbed by the obvious unwarranted and false conclusions being assumed by many local policymakers or regular people evident from their own policies, statements or actions.

15. The medical establishment is riddled with massive financial conflicts of interest

The financial conflicts are everywhere. The vast majority of the establishment gets significant money from either the government, a hospital institution, a billionaire-funded non-profit, or Pharma – all of whom will stop the flow of finance the instant the recipient steps out of line. There is an incestuous merry-go-round of high-profile FDA regulators joining Pharma board members. Etc.

In Short: There is an otherworldly degree of financial inducements and pressures on the vast majority of medical professionals and anyone else caught up in the orbit of the mainstream medical institutions to toe the official narrative, or else; this means that they are compromised – and certainly not trustworthy – to think independently, much less to openly defy the establishment.

16. Every specific claim made regarding the vaccines so far has ultimately proven to be false

Here are just a few of the many specific claims made about the vaccines by the medical community that have since been resoundingly debunked:

  • The injected serum of the vaccine will stay in the area of the injection site
  • The spike proteins will remain tethered to the cell membrane and won’t escape into circulation
  • The spike protein is not biologically active
  • The spike protein has no significant toxicities
  • No corners were cut in the development or trials of the vaccines
  • There were no life-altering SAE’s in the Pfizer kids trial
  • The lipid nanoparticles are safe and won’t circulate all over the anatomy
  • The vaccines confer superior immunity to natural infection
  • The vaccines prevent infection & transmission
  • There are no serious side effects associated with the vaccines
  • there is no plausible mechanism or basis by which the vaccines can affect fertility
  • reports of menstrual irregularities are exaggerated and fake
  • VAERS reports are mostly submitted by random people who are simply assuming without any basis that a random adverse event that happened after vaccination is related to the vaccine
  • The CDC investigated all of the VAERS reports of death and determined that none were attributable to the vaccine
  • There is no need for long term observation to determine that there are no serious long term effects
  • 99% of the hospitalizations for covid are unvaccinated patients
  • There is no basis for a causal link between myocarditis and the vaccines
  • Myocarditis is an exceedingly rare complication from the vaccines, and everyone is more likely to get myocarditis from covid than from the vaccines

In Short: Every specific thing they said about the vaccines that can be adjudicated so far has turned out to be demonstrably false. Why would anyone trust someone on a topic where everything they say is wrong?

17. A significant % of the medical community are genuinely evil people

In numerous cases around the country, hospitals have refused giving deathly ill covid patients Ivermectin, preferring to see them die rather than recover.

A very simple question: What possible reason could hospitals have to go to court to fight patients they themselves had already given up on, and for whom they had no more treatment options, in order to prevent even outside doctors from prescribing a medication that is safer than Tylenol? And even if you can somehow come up with some sort of justification for the first time, once there were a few of these cases on record, surely there is no rational moral basis for not trying Ivermectin on every patient, let alone fighting in court to ensure that the precious few patients whose families have the temerity to demand Ivermectin should be denied lifesaving treatment??

Whistleblowers have revealed cruel treatment of patients in Covid wards – negligent treatment, letting patients starve to death, putting patients on ventilators unnecessarily and without critical safeguards in place resulting in numerous “covid” deaths, denying patients their vitamins and doctor prescribed medicines, etc.

Society trusted medical professionals due to its ethos of prizing saving life above all else. This is most certainly no longer the case regarding the medical community writ large. At a minimum, a medical community whose culture breeds such contempt for the value of a patient’s life that hospitals will fight in court to deny potentially lifesaving treatment that is essentially cost-free and without any legal liability is a medical profession that has lost all credibility that their overriding concern is saving lives and the welfare of their patients.

Within this context, let us turn to the war on covid treatments more generally.

As practically anyone reading this is undoubtedly aware, at the height of the HCQ political controversy, The Lancet – arguably the world’s top medical journal – published what was initially presented as the coup de grâce to kill HCQ’s viability: the aforementioned Surgisphere study. This study purported to have data from more than 90,000 patients from hospitals on all six inhabited continents showing not only that HCQ had no efficacy against covid, but additionally was toxic and raised the mortality of hospitalized covid patients.

To make a long story short, the entire study was quickly debunked as a massive fraud – literally the entire dataset they had was fabricated out of thin air. And it was obvious to anyone who was even a little bit familiar with the details of how such studies are conducted.

Which all begs the question: Why would the editors and scientists at The Lancet be willing to publish a colossal fraud??

The only rational conclusion from this affair is that they had an overwhelming desire to kill HCQ and debunk it, that was powerful enough to get the editors at the world’s most prestigious medical journal to forever tarnish their reputation by publishing an obvious and wholesale fraud on the most controversial political issue at the time — there wasn’t even a snowball’s chance in a volcano that the fraud wouldn’t be easily spotted and debunked.

Why would they oppose a cheap, safe and widely available drug that could significantly mitigate covid disease??

Why would they quash a potentially effective drug that might save millions of lives if deployed widely, but might result in millions of deaths if denied??

And the medical community has continued to prosecute an organized and systematic war on every cheap and effective covid treatment that is being successfully used by thousands of heroic doctors around the US and around the world.

The FDA even went so far as to publicly tweet out that Ivermectin – pound for pound the most effective covid treatment widely available – was a “horse-dewormer” and potentially very dangerous. This was despite the fact that the discovery of Ivermectin won a Nobel prize in 2015 and is one of the safest drugs ever made, having been dispensed over 4 Billion times over the past few decades without any known toxicities.

There’s one more dimension to point out regarding the genuine evil within a large segment of the medical community: the absolute devastation caused by the covid policies.

Rational Ground has a partial list of lockdown harms (with supporting documentation) that is simply way too long to reproduce here, but it conveys a sense of the scope and destruction inflicted by public health officials worldwide.

Very disturbingly, children bore the brunt of the societally calamitous covid policies. Perhaps the most enduring symbol of the pandemic will ultimately be the useless and abusive masking of children. The institutionalization of child abuse through forced masking in schools, lockdowns, quarantines, the inhuman deprivation of sociality — these are unforgivable sins. And these are all policies that were suggested and implemented by the medical community, who were the driving force behind this unequivocal abomination.

Realize that prior to covid, if a teacher would have disciplined an impossibly unruly and disruptive student by forcing the student to wear a surgical facemask, the teacher would quickly find him/herself under criminal indictment for child abuse. Somehow, though, masking children as young as two (!?!) has become the norm.

For some perspective: Sweden never closed their schools, had no mask policies, and didn’t have a test-and-quarantine regiment. Not one child died from covid and teachers in Sweden tested positive for covid at a slightly lower rate than the occupational average for jobs with a similar covid risk profile.

In Short: A significant portion of the medical community are genuinely evil people responsible for the deaths and suffering of hundreds of millions. The culture of the medical community is sufficiently rotten to the core to not only allow for the ascendance of such evil people to positions of influence and authority, but also celebrate them. Such evil should not be tolerated, nor regarded as an authoritative source for any matter.


There is so much more to say on every issue raised here, but the need for brevity restrains how much can be included.

In summation, with the advent of the covid vaccines we were assured – promised, really – that the mRNA vaccines were truly a once-in-a-generation medical miracle akin to the discovery of penicillin or hand hygiene by physicians.

We were promised. But that’s all we ever had: the guarantee of the medical community. They still won’t let us have meaningful access to the real data or science behind the vaccines. We still don’t have:

  • the raw data from any of the vaccine trials
  • any reports from government agencies tasked with vaccine safety monitoring providing details of how they have so far adjudicated the existing pharmacovigilance data such as VAERS
  • any reports from government agencies tasked with vaccine safety monitoring providing details of the manufacturing and production infrastructure and how it has fared so far
  • the methodology by which the CDC/FDA/NIH (allegedly) adjudicates potential causality of reported vaccine injuries
  • access to internal FDA communications regarding their adjudication of the trial data for any of the approved vaccines
  • access to the military data – probably the dataset that most readily can establish causality per the Bradford-Hill criteria and per common sense – but we have a few whistleblowers alleging that the data has been corruptly altered to expunge reports of vaccine injuries
  • access to the internal developmental animal studies/experiments conducted by the vaccine companies that are not subject to disclosure requirements by the FDA, but that are typically used by the Pharma manufacturers to characterize their own products for themselves so that they understand exactly how they work and what might happen in real life so that they can figure out in advance how to design trials, depict the product/drug in media, and so on.
  • access to any reports regarding the manufacturing processes used to create billions of vaccine doses, especially in so short a window – manufacturing capacity was scaled up from zero to billions practically overnight by industry standards, without the typical extensive development of manufacturing capacity that includes myriad levels of reviews and testing to ensure that the manufacturing process is consistent and free of any impurities
  • access to the copious data filed with the FDA by the vaccine manufacturers that the FDA used to adjudicate awarding the EUA’s, and which the FDA is now lying – yes, openly lying – in court to avoid surrendering the data to a FOIA request. This after the FDA’s initial request for a release timeline that would require 75 years for the full release of the requested documents was rebuffed by the judge in a glimmer of judicial sanity.

All we have to rely on is their word.

After all that has transpired, can it be at all rational to trust them?

March 6, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | 2 Comments