Aletho News


Like Alberta, Saskatchewan tells RCMP to ignore Ottawa’s request to confiscate firearms

By Rachel Emmanuel | The Counter Signal | September 28, 2022

The Government of Saskatchewan has followed Alberta’s lead in telling the RCMP to ignore orders from the Trudeau Liberals to confiscate citizen’s legally-purchased firearms.

Saskatchewan Chief Firearms Officer Bob Freberg revealed that the province wrote to the RCMP saying “no provincially funded resources of any type,” including the RCMP, will be used for federal Public Safety Minister Marco Medicino’s gun bans and buybacks.

Freberg made the comments on the radio program, the John Gormley Show.

As first reported by The Counter Signal, the Government of Alberta sent instructions to the RCMP K-Division, the arm of the federal police force with authority in Alberta, to ignore orders from the Trudeau Liberals to confiscate firearms.

The orders came after Medicino requested Premier Jason Kenney’s government help in implementing the so-called buyback program.

“I am writing to seek your support in implementing the buyback program,” Mendicino wrote in a letter to the Alberta government. He said his office would be working directly with policing authorities to successfully implement the program.

In May 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he was banning more than 1,500 models of firearms, including AR-15s. Owners of these guns would have a two-year amnesty period to come into compliance with the prohibition, he said at the time.

The Liberals said they plan on spending up to $250 million buying back the guns.

Alberta Minister of Justice Tyler Shandro said Monday he would obstruct the gun grab by any means necessary.

“Alberta is not legally obligated and will not offer any provincial resources to the Federal Government as it seeks to confiscate lawfully acquired firearms,” Shandro responded.

“The decision to ban over 1,500 models of different firearms, simply because the ‘style’ of the firearm was deemed to be aesthetically displeasing, is offensive and suggests to us that you are uninterested in meaningfully addressing gun crime.”

Shandro wrote to the RCMP to say the confiscation wasn’t a priority for the Alberta government, and as such, it’s not an appropriate use of Alberta RCMP resources.

The Government of Alberta has also announced that it will intervene in six lawsuits against Trudeau’s proposed gun grab.

Trudeau issued a deadline of October 30 for any gun his government now deems illegal to be turned into the closest RCMP detachment.

Over 2.2 million Canadians are legally licensed to own and trade firearms in the country.

September 28, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

‘US Wants to Destroy EU as Economic Player’: Analysts Mull Ramifications of Nord Stream Breakdown

Samizdat – 28.09.2022

The Nord Stream 1 and 2 natural gas pipelines have been effectively rendered inoperable this week due to an incident that may have been an act of sabotage.

As the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipelines are currently incapable of transporting natural gas from Russia to Europe, experts ponder who is going to benefit from this catastrophe.

Vladimir Demidov, an international analyst of energy and natural resource markets, told Sputnik that the parties who oppose negotiations between Germany and Russia definitely benefit from the Nord Stream breakdown.

As these negotiations may lead to sanctions against Russia being partially lifted – potentially in exchange for gas shipments during winter – those who want to keep these sanctions in place could also be regarded as an interested party, he added.

“This is an act of aggression on a planetary level,” Demidov remarked. “A country or a bloc destroying infrastructure of another country. And we’re not talking about domestic infrastructure here, but infrastructure that connects countries and supplies about 30 percent of the natural gas Europe uses.”

Russian National Energy Security Fund analyst Igor Yushkov also observed that neither Russia nor Germany were interested in the pipeline’s destruction: for Berlin, Nord Stream presented an option to stave off a potential “energy collapse” during winter, while Moscow invested a lot of money into the project.

Both Demidov and Yushkov observed that Europe will now have to purchase natural gas from the United States, the largest liquefied natural gas supplier while it looks like Russia was essentially squeezed out from the European natural gas market.

“The natural gas from the US is going to become more expensive and Europe would still have to buy it because there is no other gas,” Demidov said. “A very amusing diversification has occurred in Europe: they switched from key supplier of the ‘bad’ gas from Russia to the ‘freedom’ gas from the United States that costs at least twice as much.”

He also pointed at former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslav Sikorsky, who “thanked” the United States on social media for the Nord Stream breakdown, with Demidov arguing that when people of such caliber make such statements, it looks as if they are trying to make the truth look like a joke.

“I have a feeling that the United States really wants to destroy the European Union as a global economic player,” he said.

September 28, 2022 Posted by | Economics, War Crimes | , | 5 Comments

AfD headquarters raided by prosecution officials

Free West Media | September 28, 2022

The national headquarters of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in Berlin has been raided by officials from the capital’s prosecutor’s office.

As FWM reported, according to a survey by the opinion research institute Insa, the AfD is now the strongest force in East Germany. The trend is seen nationwide. On the other hand, support for the once-popular ministers Karl Lauterbach and Robert Habeck (Greens) has imploded.

The officials raided six other locations in the German capital and the states of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria and North Rhine-Westphalia were also searched. According to investigators, certain party members allegedly may have violated the country’s political parties act and committed breach of trust.

“The defendants are suspected of violating the German Political Parties Act and of breach of trust, as the accounts submitted to the president of the German parliament by the AfD for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018, for which the defendants are responsible, contained allegedly incorrect information regarding party donations,” the prosecutor’s office said in a statement.

The party condemned the raids. “Since this morning, the Berlin public prosecutor’s office has been conducting a house search in the premises of the federal headquarters of Alternative for Germany, without any prior inquiry having been directed to the AfD regarding the facts to be clarified.”

The raids coincided with an announcement by the party of a concerted protest movement against the government’s energy and Russia policies, with the rallying cry “Our country first!”.

September 28, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | | 1 Comment

Second energy protest roils Czechia

Protest against the Czech government at Wenceslas Square in Prague, Czechia, September 28, 2022. © Lukas Kabon / Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
Samizdat | September 28, 2022

A crowd numbered in the tens of thousands gathered in Prague on Wednesday to protest against the Czech government, NATO, and the European Union. Demonstrators called for Czechia’s neutrality and protested Prime Minister Petr Fiala’s policy of sanctioning Russia, which has driven up energy prices.

Meeting on St. Wenceslas’ Day – a public holiday celebrating Czech statehood – the crowd took to Prague’s main square, named after the medieval saint, and chanted slogans against the EU, NATO and Fiala’s cabinet. Prague police would not give a specific figure of the estimated crowd size, calling it only “tens of thousands.”

The protest was organized by a group called ‘Czech Republic First,’ which Reuters described as a coalition of “far-right and fringe groups and parties including the Communists.” CRF opposes the EU and NATO and has called for Czechia’s military neutrality.

“A government has two duties: to ensure our security and economic prosperity. This government does not fulfill either of these duties,” said one unidentified speaker at the rally, according to Reuters.

A demonstrator named Pavel Nebel accused the government of being “absolutely anti-Czech” and serving only the EU, NATO, and “American power” at the expense of Czech interests.

The organizers called for another protest on October 28 and said they intend to ask President Milos Zeman to disband the government and call for early elections, according to Lidove Noviny. It was the second such rally this month, after some 70,000 people took part in the September 3 protest, according to police. Similar rallies in other Czech cities drew hundreds of participants.

“People should not be taken advantage of by manipulators who offer simple but unrealistic solutions in the squares,” Interior Minister Vit Rakusan told Lidove in response to the protest.

Fiala had dismissed the September 3 demonstrations as “pro-Russian,” accusing their organizers of listening to “Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns.” His government has diligently followed the lead of Brussels in imposing trade embargoes against Moscow over the conflict in Ukraine, which has translated into skyrocketing prices of energy normally imported from Russia.

Czechia had joined NATO in March 1999, just days before the US-led bloc attacked Yugoslavia. It became a member of the EU in May 2004.

September 28, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

FBI Misused SWAT Team to Arrest Jan. 6 Protesters – Whistleblower

Samizdat – 28.09.2022

An FBI whistleblower submitted a complaint to the Office of Special Counsel alleging that the federal agency and Department of Justice (DoJ) have violated constitutional rights of Jan. 6 defendants by misusing SWAT teams to make misdemeanor arrests.

Special Agent Stephen M. Friend informed the US Office of Special Counsel, a permanent independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency, about alleged violations by the bureau and DoJ in a whistleblower complaint obtained by US media outlet Just the News earlier this week. Friend works for the FBI in Florida and serves as a SWAT team member.

“I believed the investigations were inconsistent with FBI procedure and resulted in the violation of citizens’ Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights,” Friend wrote. “I added that many of my colleagues expressed similar concerns to me but had not vocalized their objections to FBI Executive Management.”

In particular, Friend cited an inappropriate use of SWAT teams to arrest subjects for misdemeanor offenses related to the January 6 protests in DC. According to the complaint, the agent suggested alternatives such as “the issuance of a court summons or utilizing surveillance groups to determine an optimal, safe time for a local sheriff deputy to contact the subjects and advise them about the existence of the arrest warrant.”

Nonetheless, one of Friend’s bosses told him that “FBI executive management considered all potential alternatives and determined the SWAT takedown was the appropriate course of action.”

Last year, Julie Kelly, a political commentator, author and senior contributor to American Greatness (AG), described numerous cases when January Sixers were raided by SWAT teams despite not being accused of any violent crime or having a criminal record. Many of the defendants were also interrogated with no lawyer present, according to Kelly.

In one case on June 24, 2021, the FBI arrested a Florida pastor and his son for their alleged involvement in the January 6 protest, according to American Greatness. The son, Casey Cusick, was handcuffed in front of his three-year-old daughter, while Cusick’s father, James, the founder and pastor of a church in Melbourne, Florida, also was arrested. Neither of the Cusicks were accused of violent crimes related to the DC incident.

Joseph Bolanos, a 69-year-old New Yorker and former Red Cross volunteer was raided in February 2021 by the FBI anti-terrorism task force because a tipster falsely linked him to the January 6 Capitol hill protest. The old man remained handcuffed and detained for three hours before the problem was resolved.

Agent Friend noted in his whistleblower complaint that he believes that the January 6 investigation has involved “overzealous charging by the DOJ and biased jury pools in Washington DC”.

The whistleblower likewise revealed that the FBI field office in Washington DC was opening Capitol riot cases in other field offices across the US, thus creating “a false data trail” suggesting a nationwide domestic extremism emergency when in reality the cases all stemmed from the Capitol breach in one city: Washington.

As a result of this apparent manipulation, agents in field offices across the country are being listed as case agents for search and arrest warrants for subjects they actually had not investigated, according to Friend.

“There are active criminal investigations of J6 subjects in which I am listed as the ‘Case Agent,’ but have not done any investigative work,” Friend revealed. “Additionally, my supervisor has not approved any paperwork within the file. J6 Task Force members are serving as Affiants on search and arrest warrant affidavits for subjects whom I have never investigated or even interviewed but am listed as a Case Agent.”

To complicate matters further, the FBI deprioritized other investigations of serious crimes like child sex exploitation for the sake of January 6 investigation, according to the whistleblower: “I was also told that child sexual abuse material investigations were no longer an FBI priority and should be referred to local law enforcement agencies,” the agent wrote.

Speaking to Just the News, GOP Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio confirmed that his office had communicated with Friend and is aware of his complaint. The Republican lawmakers raised concerns about the FBI’s usage of excessive force both in raids against January Sixers and the bureau’s latest searches of former President Donald Trump’s premises in Mar-a-Lago, Florida, which took place on August 8.

The DoJ dispatched a whopping 30 FBI agents to raid Trump’s home. However, Jonathan Turley, Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University, wondered if the FBI’s sudden intrusion was really justified given that Trump’s team had previously cooperated with the DoJ and complied with a federal subpoena.

On August 14, GOP Rep. Jordan told Fox News that 14 FBI whistleblowers had come forward with concerns about the DoJ’s alleged political bias in the wake of the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago raid.

Earlier, a number of FBI whistleblowers reportedly informed Republican congressmembers that the bureau and the Department of Justice had selectively launched investigations into conservative-aligned individuals and exhibited a pattern of political bias. On July 25, Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley accused FBI officials of pursuing “politically charged investigations” related to the Trump campaign while downplaying and discrediting negative information concerning Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

“If these allegations are true and accurate, the Justice Department and FBI are – and have been – institutionally corrupted to their very core to the point in which the United States Congress and the American people will have no confidence in the equal application of the law,” Grassley wrote in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Not only Republicans are concerned with the FBI and DoJ’s apparent political bias: on July 23, former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard called out the Biden administration, for “shamelessly weaponz[ing]” federal law enforcement agencies into a “political hit squad.”

Ranking Republican lawmakers have been reportedly conducting investigations into the DoJ and the FBI which could take on a new significance if the GOP wins the majority in the House and the Senate after the November midterms.

September 28, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption | , , , | Leave a comment

How the Dutch Failed their Children – A Cautionary Tale

By Hans Koppies | Brownstone Institute | September 28, 2022

One of the best places to raise children is The Netherlands. In several consecutive UNICEF reports the Netherlands ranked first for raising the happiest children among wealthy countries (2008, 2013, 2020). However, in the spring of 2020, The Netherlands became a harsh place for children and young people. The Dutch government adopted a one-size-fits-all policy handling the covid-19 pandemic, which did not spare the youngest and took a great toll on Dutch children. The Nobel Laureate Michael Levitt remarked that the Dutch policies would ‘set the record for worst covid-response ever.’

 ‘Intelligent Lockdown’

Unable to withstand the rising global panic, the Dutch government on March 16th 2020 announced an “intelligent” lockdown, a phrase coined by Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

Dutch society came to a halt. Offices, shops, restaurants and bars, libraries, sport facilities, as well as daycare centers, schools and universities were closed. The closure of schools was unexpected since the government’s official advisory group, the medics-dominated Outbreak Management Team (OMT), advised against it, for a school closure would have a minimal effect on the spread of the coronavirus.

A reconstruction of events showed that the main reason the Dutch government closed schools was that the educational field started to panic about keeping schools open. Closing schools was a political decision to follow the panic, not a medical decision. Schools supposedly closed for three weeks. Three weeks became three months. Research by The University of Oxford (Engzell, et al. 2021) shows that during the first wave the average Dutch student learned next to nothing during homeschooling. Moreover, students whose parents were not well-educated suffered up to 60% more learning losses.

School Closure ‘No Effect’ 

According to the Dutch equivalent of Fauci – Jaap van Dissel, chief scientist of the Dutch Health Agency (RIVM) and chairman of the Dutch OMT – the closure of schools in the spring of 2020 had “no effect.” Media, experts and politicians paid no attention to evidence though. Children were portrayed as ‘virus factories’ and schools were depicted as ’unsafe’ environments. Fear had a strong grip on the field of education and teaching unions exaggerated the risks of teachers in schools resulting in a drastic increase in safety demands.

The data was clear that not only did children not run any significant risk, but also that there was ‘no evidence that children play an important role in SARS-CoV-2 transmission.’ Still, a second lockdown would hit children. That second lockdown – now called a ‘hard lockdown’ – was announced on December 15th 2020. Schools closed again, this time advised by the OMT who had increased the number of areas it deemed itself expert on, on the basis of models, of course, proving Martin Kulldorff’s point that lab scientists are no public health scientists.

Dutch minister of Health Hugo de Jonge caused a stir by explaining this intervention was meant to coerce parents to stay at home. The international children’s rights organization KidsRights harshly criticized this policy: “The Netherlands has set a bad example internationally by closing schools during the corona pandemic to keep parents at home.” This children’s rights organization concluded that children were not a priority in Dutch corona policy and warned for the possible consequences.

As new insights on the negative impact of closing schools on children’s lives emerged, governments from countries all over the world decided not to close them again in the future. Undeterred, the Dutch government closed schools again on December 18 2021, just long enough to deny children their traditional Christmas dinner at school with their classmates, a big event in the childhood of Dutch children.

The deteriorating mental health of Dutch children was striking. The Dutch Health Authorities (RIVM) published a disturbing report which stated that more than one in five (22%) teenagers and young adults between the ages of 12 and 25 seriously considered taking their own life between December 2021 and February 2022 during the third lockdown. From happiest in the world to suicidal in a matter of three lockdowns.

Record Low in Sports Participation

Not only were schools closed by diktat. For two years, sports facilities were also repeatedly forced to close. The restrictions were constantly changing, with as a low point banning parents from watching their child play sports outdoors. Once again, there was no scientific evidence that this would help minimize the spread of the virus. The result is a record low in sports participation nationwide. The Dutch Olympic Committee and the Dutch Sports Federation (NOC*NSF) were ‘particularly’ worried by the negative effect on young people’s sports participation.

The Corona Pass

So no school and no sports. Another low point with regard to children was the corona pass (Coronatoegangsbewijs) that was mandatory from September 25th, 2021 for every Dutch citizen above 12. The corona pass was required for most social activities, such as going to the movies, attending a sports game with parents, or entering the canteen at sports club with teammates to drink tea or lemonade after the match.

Unsurprisingly, there was no scientific evidence that this intervention would reduce the spread of covid-19, but the Dutch government enforced it anyway. Crucially, the corona pass required vaccination, recovery from covid-19 or a negative result from a coronavirus test taken less than 24 hours before entry. So essentially, access to social life was used by the government to blackmail Dutch children into invasive medical procedures.

The madness continued, unsupported by evidence. At one point in time, outside playgrounds for children were closed. Parents were not allowed to enter swimming pools to dress their preschoolers before and after swimming lessons. In the winter of 2020-2021 the Dutch government even went as far as trying to regulate snowball fights, by dictating that only those from the same household were allowed to participate, and that their group could not exceed a certain number.

Neither sex nor the sea were exempt from the regulators. Young adults were advised which forms of sex were recommended, bearing the 1.5 m distance rule in mind. Drones were used to prevent people from gathering on the beach. To restrict the movements of young people even further, an evening curfew was introduced. It was not supported by any scientific explanation, just “boerenverstand” (common sense) as the advisory group OMT called it.

Restricting the lives of children and young people during the pandemic should require a great deal of evidence, as well as a risk-benefit evaluation. The Swedish government decided early in January 2020 that the measures in Sweden should be evidence-based. So it kept schools open, a decision supported by the evaluation of the Swedish Corona Commission in 2022. In Norway – where schools only closed briefly – the corona commission concluded in April 2022 that the Norwegian government had not done enough to protect children and that the measures regarding children had been excessive. The Norwegians essentially took the unethical initial decision to harm children without evidence and its authorities recognized that afterwards.

Sweden’s approach to the pandemic contains inconvenient truths for the Dutch, which is why Dutch authorities ignored the evidence from Sweden (and from Norway). As the Swedish journalist and author Johan Anderberg states in the epilogue of his book The Herd:

“From a human perspective, it was easy to understand why so many were reluctant to face the numbers from Sweden. For the inevitable conclusion must be that millions of people had been denied their freedom, and millions of children had had their education disrupted, all for nothing. Who would want to be complicit in that?”

This year, my wife and I decided to spend our summer holidays in Sweden and after two years of often doubtful restrictions in our home country, the Swedish summer and the beaches of Skåne were a breath of fresh air. As a parent and a Special Needs Education Generalist (and former teacher of Physical Education) I am greatly impressed by the path chosen by The Swedish Public Health Agency and the Swedish Government as they remained focused on the health, well-being, and education of children in the process of policy-making. Anders Tegnell and his predecessor Johan Giesecke have tirelessly advocated for not disturbing the lives of children, and they have been proven right.

A very outspoken Giesecke gave his frank opinion on Swedish television: “I am a father and grandfather myself, and I feel if children are given the opportunity to receive a good education and that the risk for me to become infected with covid-19 would increase slightly, it is worth it. Their future is worth more than my future, and it’s not just about my grandchildren, it’s about all the children.”

The successful Swedish approach shows that in many countries government policies met the criteria of child abuse. A key lesson for the future is that schools should not close again in similar circumstances. The Dutch government and the OMT failed the children of their country, a dark and shameful chapter in our history that future historians will surely not look favorably upon.

All expert knowledge and wisdom that has contributed to the health and well-being of Dutch children was thrown out of the window overnight in the spring of 2020. Children and young people were made to carry the burden in order to ‘supposedly’ protect adults.

As Sunetra Gupta and many others have stated, that is the precautionary principle turned upside down. The Danish-American epidemiologist Tracy Beth Høeg rightly condemned such policies, which were also pursued in the US, by calling them: Sacrificing children’s health in the name of Health.

After two years of closing down children’s lives, I firmly believe we owe it to children and their parents to make amends for the wrongs that were done to Dutch children. Above all, Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child should never be forgotten: “In all measures concerning children, the best interests of the child must come first.” It is mind-boggling how quickly children’s rights have gone out of the window worldwide. With disastrous consequences.

For children and young people a recovery plan should focus on repairing the damage done in education, recovering sports participation, and restoring the trust in the government and institutions that they can traditionally rely on for their health and their well-being. The Netherlands should be a safe haven for children, as it used to be. Pandemic preparedness also includes watching over children’s health and well-being and in this regard the Dutch failed their children and young people. We should do better in the future. Much better.

Dr. Hans Koppies has completed the Academy of Physical Education (ALO). He then studied Pedagogical Sciences at the VU University Amsterdam, specializing in Orthopedagogics: Families in Psychosocial Difficulties. He has worked as a remedial educationalist at various institutions in youth care and special education. He writes about growing up and raising children, parenting and counseling in articles and essays in newspapers and magazines.

September 28, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

Hey, Covidian! Leave Those Kids Alone


As my beleaguered teaching colleagues and I try to get our school communities into the swing of things once again this new academic year, I find myself to be merely, powerlessly wishing that no more grotesque permutations of the Covid Madness return for a third consecutive winter. ‘Home-learning’ in particular was, of course, disastrous for children in a myriad of ways. On a purely practical level, it was fairly tricky for the teachers too, so I do believe that most of the profession hopes to avoid the insidious perfidy of forced absences or outright closures. Granted, I would prefer my colleagues to be motivated in these desires by an understanding of the abhorrent, casual neglect of children’s fundamental needs over which we were forced to preside for two years. But I’ll have to be content if the Department for Education will just let us stay open.

Belatedly, conventional wisdom has it that Covid doesn’t tend to seriously affect the school-aged population. Perhaps if the undistorted version of that truism was more widely accepted – that Covid doesn’t tend to seriously affect the healthy population – some teachers (and their unions) might find that their selfish and flawed but unending clamour for ‘more to be done’ lost its sympathisers.

It’s been a typically warm and sunny September thus far, but a small number of our students remain curiously attached to their face-coverings, sporting them lesson in, lesson out, as I look on aghast but unable to order their removal. The so-called harmless, cost-free non-pharmaceutical intervention continues to wreak its harms.

For those of us who have, by now, long fought Covid restrictions, it might feel like a further, renewed battle this Autumn to see off the prospect of the Return of the Madness. After all the hammer-blows of Spring 2020, we ordered our thoughts, picked our battles, identified our sacrifices, practised our polemics, marshalled our arguments and, eventually, took to the fray. For many of us with little or no previous experience in politicking, we may even have learnt some tricks about the art of discourse and debate along the way.

I am not referring here to my professional life of course. In my professional life I am – quite rightly – not permitted to express my personal or political ideologies or opinions to students.  No good and proper teacher would dream of doing so – unless of course you suddenly, naively found that your beliefs fell in line with the government propaganda of the day. If you happened to support the mantra “Hands, Face, Space”, you could plaster it across every TV screen and vacant stretch of wall in the whole place. If you were minded to promote social distancing, or face coverings, or bubbles, or ‘don’t kill granny’, or healthy 12 year-olds giving their own consent to being tested for Covid before entering the building, or any other similar paean to the dreaded virus – exhort it from the corridors, folks!  If you were an Assistant Head, you might even have the surprising chutzpah to lead a series of science-themed assemblies (to 1,200 impressionable young minds) in which you vaingloriously celebrated the disingenuous and risible proposition that Professor Sarah Gilbert’s AstraZeneca vaccine “saved 2 billion lives”.

No – when I refer to my endeavouring anew to muster awareness of the risk of restrictions this winter, I’m talking about in my personal life, away from school.

There is a danger for those of us who have resisted the mainstream Covid narrative for two-and-a-half years that we forget quite how completely and devastatingly uninterested the compliant majority are in our version of events. Many may have shifted their positions slightly, faced with ever more piles of evidence (from their own preferred sources) of the damage needlessly done. Surely, it would be hard to find someone who would embrace it all quite so gleefully all over again.

But the big arguments are not won; the wider population are still just not listening. Family members try to gently talk us down; friends tactlessly avoid the subject altogether or just silently disappear from view; some colleagues regard me warily and with increasing wryness as a bit of a crank. They all seem to manage to tell themselves that none of it really affects them and, with a special kind of inward-looking perspective, I suppose they can make that be true.

So we keep talking and waiting and wondering where the socially palatable prima facie evidence to incontrovertibly back us up and help us definitively put a stop to all this might come from. I continue to posit theories, based on my understanding of basic principles of human decency and common sense. Anecdotes, ideas and experiences should be part of our arguments and, after all, when that single piece of elusive, critical, confirmatory data lands – why should anybody ever believe what any expert says these days anyway?

Some older adults – I overhear them in crowded cafes – are delightedly and obediently getting in line for their fifth (count ‘em!) Covid jab, and some disconcerting individuals in the High Street and park remain devotedly wedded to their face-covering. They don’t seem one bit ashamed or embarrassed by the many peculiar and ridiculous things their Government forced them to do for a good while there. Is that just it for them? Over and Out, Shut Up, Move On.  Are these things, this history, these awful, ungodly consequences we’re all living with, just a permanent feature of the rest of their lives, no questions asked?

There are certainly those who seemed to revel in the whole drama of it all, those who still reel performatively, sanctimoniously backwards in doorways when you dare to step near; those who complied without thought and still appear blissfully ignorant of any possibility of error or mishap or downside and who probably watch too much TV; those who spewed the new terminologies of their epoch with uneasy, faltering confidence: ‘flatten the curve’, ‘viral load’, ‘third wave’, and – my personal favourite – ‘asymptomatic’.

Is it possible that this merry, obstinate lot are the very same people who seem in recent times also to be lurching emptily but enthusiastically from one cause to another? ‘Stay Safe everyone!’ ‘Respect this virus!’, bang a kitchen pan and ‘Save the NHS!’, erect a flag and ‘Stand with Ukraine!’, buy some frozen Chicken Kievs, close everything when it’s hot and etcetera and blah, ad infinitum.

Could it be that the common thread which connects all the headline-followers, the unquestioning, the frighteningly readily compliant, is a lack of something raw, true, local, deep and meaningful in their lives? Might there be a link between the modern world’s malaise, the tragic lack of connection and community, and a very public hankering after connection and community? You don’t know your neighbour, you’re not invested in your town, you couldn’t possibly overcome the awkwardness involved in helping the elderly lady down the road – why not get your phone out instead to prove how good you are at Joining In and Helping Out?

If people don’t have a potentially perilous stake in something close, precious and valuable, or anything at all to believe in which reaches them viscerally, it seems as though they might just keep scrambling around, somewhat manically and pathetically, for Another Good Cause to get behind.

And if I’m right about all of that, then the solution to the real Covid problem lies with people and professionals who don’t know they’ve got a problem.

Get a life. Get a community. Get some meaning. And do not force a single school kid to stay at home again this year.

Fraser Krats is a secondary school teacher.

September 28, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

A Critique of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission

By David Bell | Brownstone Institute | September 27, 2022

The Lancet recently released its long-awaited COVID-19 commission report. The report well reflects the current state of public health science and addresses the business needs of the Lancet. It may have been naïve to expect further, but health is an important area and should be taken more seriously.

The level of obfuscation of evidence, misrepresentation of prior knowledge, and disregard for diversity of scientific evidence and opinion does not reflect well on either Lancet or the commission itself.

The Lancet in context

Medicine and public health are particularly dependent on truth and transparency, as the lives and health of people cannot be entrusted to dogma and superstition. Clear and open debate is fundamental to minimizing mistakes, which can kill, and to building the trust that patients and populations need to follow guidance (as they must ultimately be the decision-makers). These two related disciplines are also increasingly lucrative for practitioners and for the companies supplying the wares they employ. These forces inevitably pull in different directions.

Private companies making these wares, such as those in the pharmaceutical industry, have a responsibility to maximize profits for their shareholders. This means encouraging more people to use their tests or drugs, rather than putting people in states of health where they do not need them (either good health, or death).

This is not an extreme position, it is a simple truth – it is how this industry is structured. If there is a wonder drug in a lab somewhere that resolves all metabolic disease with a single dose, and it is easy to manufacture and copy, then the Pharma industry would collapse. Pharma has a duty to build a market, not heal.

Transparency and truth, on the other hand, could mean admitting certain highly profitable drugs are not needed or even dangerous; that an alternative safe and cheap drug, previously available for other purposes, will be more cost-effective and lower risk.

We cannot expect private companies to state this, as it will damage or destroy their income (their business). If they do not try to block a repurposed drug that puts their own investments at risk, they would be betraying their investors. What they should do, for their investors, is overemphasize the advantage of their own product, maximize the desire of people to use them, and run public campaigns to ensure this situation is prolonged as far as possible. This is what any for-profit business does – it is their job. It is not unexpected.

We have long relied on medical journals to act as a conduit for information from researchers to medical practitioners and the public. This is a plausible model if journals are independent and the staff and owners of the journal promote truth above politics or company profit.

This was once the case; the Lancet, a subject of this article, was once family-owned and that could hold to the values of Thomas Wakley and his descendants, standing against medical authorities up to 1921. It has since been owned by other for-profit companies, now a subsidiary of a larger Dutch-based publishing conglomerate, ‘Elsevier.’

Elsevier in turn is owned by RELX group (back in London), a large company with a typical list of major institutional investors including BlackRock (and so its major owner Vanguard), Morgan Stanley and Bank of America – the same list as major pharmaceutical and biotech corporations whose products Lancet publishes on.

The above does not tell us there is intentional wrong or malfeasance, just intrinsic conflicts of interest of the type journals such as Lancet are supposed to guard against. Lancet’s ultimate ownership has a duty to shareholders to use their portfolio of assets to maximize return; on this measure alone Lancet should favor certain pharmaceutical companies. The only thing that could stand in the way is lack of competence by the owners, or a moral code that rates investors below integrity.

In this context, Lancet’s track record over COVID-19 has been checkered. In February 2020 it published a major letter on COVID-19 origins that ignored major conflicts of interest in which nearly all authors were implicated in the alternative lab origin hypothesis. It published clearly fraudulent data on hydroxychloroquine that were significant in halting early treatment studies.

A lack of early effective treatment was necessary to secure Pharma profits for later COVID-19 medications and vaccines. The later exposure of the fraud was subsequently described by The Guardian and was one of the biggest retractions in modern history.

In 2022 Lancet published a weakly-evidenced opinion advocating medical fascism; dividing and restricting people based on compliance with pharmaceutical interventions. Lancet’s top leadership has remained unchanged throughout. This is relevant context for understanding the report of the Lancet ‘commission’ on COVID-19.

The Lancet COVID-19 Commission’s Report

In mid-2020 Lancet recruited people from various aspects of public life to review various aspects of the COVID-19 outbreak. This ‘commission’ (a somewhat grand name for a privately-convened group from a private for-profit business) was headed by economist Jeffrey Sachs, who preceded the recent release of the report by publicly discussing conclusions on the potential source of SARS-CoV-2, highlighting the probability of a laboratory origin as opposed to direct animal-human spread.

This part of the commission’s investigation had been halted early when Sachs discovered that several panel members had undisclosed conflicts of interest amounting to receipt of funding to conduct the very laboratory gain-of-function research widely suspected of promoting rapid human spread. Some had been authors of the earlier Lancet origins letter.

The Executive Summary provides a foretaste of the quality of work to come, noting IHME estimates of “17·2 million estimated deaths from COVID-19,” a “staggering death toll” as the commission notes, particularly staggering as it is higher than the WHO estimates for total excess deaths throughout the pandemic period. These WHO estimates include all deaths caused by lockdowns and those where virus detection was incidental. It is an implausible figure, even ignoring the lack of context here (nearly all in late old age, and with severe comorbidities).

Ironically, the commission reports in its main text over 2.1 million excess deaths from malaria, tuberculosis and HIV arising from the COVID-19 response in 2020 alone. However, this is a misunderstanding by commission members of WHO’s actual estimates – WHO does report significant excess 2020 deaths from these diseases but not this many – though many more will accumulate through subsequent years.

Reflecting the lack of inclusiveness of the commission itself, the report recommends censorship of the alternate approaches, considering “failure to combat systematic disinformation” to be a contributor to severity. The commission then inadvertently provides an example of disinformation in its characterization of the Great Barrington Declaration, misrepresenting it as calling for “uncontrolled spread of the virus.

This, based on the declaration itself, must be a lie, as the commission must not have read the declaration within the two years they had available. Did they not consider it pertinent to question those who wrote it or (over 900,000) signed it? Whether the declaration was correct or not, it reflected prior WHO evidence-based policy. Ignoring this is simply untenable for a serious inquiry.

The overall findings of the commission are extremely disappointing from the point of view of science, public health, and simple honesty. Its apparent lack of familiarity with prior public health norms and practice, including that of the World Health Organization (WHO), may have been genuine, or may be contrived to emphasize a narrative it was intended to support. Given Lancet’s COVID-19 track record and business imperatives, the latter would not be entirely unexpected, but it is disappointing to see adults in positions of influence producing a document of this nature.

Summary of key findings

The Report helpfully provides a three page ‘Key Findings’ section. While missing aspects of the main body such as the euphemism “prosocial behaviour” to denote social exclusion, and extolling the “logic” of the completely illogical WHO slogan for mass COVID-19 vaccination, “No one is safe until everyone is safe,” it generally captures the main thrust of the whole text. Reading the rest is however recommended to understand how modern public health thinking has so clearly gone off the rails.

The key findings are stepped through here. Anyone with a public health background is encouraged to refute the concerns raised, as many of the commission’s assertions appear to involve common traps that seem inexcusable for public health professionals. They hang heavily on a failure to grasp three fundamentals of COVID-19 and public health:

  1. Public health interventions are about risk and benefit. Interventions have positive and negative impacts. Recommendations therefore cannot be given without considering the potential harms they may cause in the short and long term, weighing these against perceived benefits.
  2. COVID-19 mortality is highly skewed towards very old age, and heavily associated with comorbidities. Therefore it is imperative to consider COVID-19 disease burden relative to other diseases in terms of life-years lost, not raw mortality (from or with) COVID-19.
  3. Prolonged lockdowns, workplace and school closures were not part of prior policy, or were partially recommended only in far more severe outbreaks. This is not implying the interventions were good or bad, it is just a fact that they defied public health norms and prior evidence. They were recommended against due to the harm they potentially cause. This lands most heavily, as WHO notes, on low income people and populations.

Highlights of the commission’s key findings:

“WHO acted too cautiously and too slowly on several important matters: … declare a public health emergency… restrict travel … endorse the use of facemasks…”

The commission seems unaware of the prior WHO pandemic influenza guideline. It is not among their 499 references. WHO specifically warned against restricting travel in this guideline, also noting that evidence on facemasks is “weak.” Travel restrictions can be significantly harmful to economies – cutting tourism income alone in low-income countries can increase mortality through poverty. The report fails to mention costs that extending these response measures would impose. Where lockdown costs are mentioned at all, it is in the context of costs of ‘failure’ to implement earlier or heavier, never in terms of weighing harm avoided against that caused. Ignoring relative costs, including the long-term health costs of increased poverty from longer lockdowns, is anathema to good public health policy.

Metanalyses of randomized control trials of community masking do not show significant benefit, and trials during COVID-19 show similar results. At a minimum, WHO was therefore evidence-based when recommending against community-masking – the organization is yet to provide evidence to back its later endorsement of their widespread use. The Lancet commission appears to be specifically recommending against the use of evidence-based approaches.

“… most governments around the world were too slow to acknowledge its importance and act with urgency in response….”

Most people live in low and middle income countries with low COVID-19 mortality and far higher burdens from other infectious disease, which occur in far younger people. This statement therefore seems strangely Western-centric. If they had known earlier, what would countries have actually done? (if earlier implementation of poverty-inducing responses, then for how long?)

The commission appears unaware of serological evidence of spread prior to January 2020, in some cases backed by PCR. This would negate any benefit from this recommendation, even ignoring the harms.

Citing the Western Pacific Region as an example of ‘lockdowns working’ similarly makes little sense, as comparisons elsewhere (e.g. Europe) did not show significant benefit, while in crowded slum areas they are clearly pointless. Evidence of early wide transmission (e.g Japan) indicates that low mortality was due to other factors.

“Epidemic control was seriously hindered by substantial public opposition to routine public health and social measures, such as the wearing of properly fitting face masks and getting vaccinated.”

This statement is ignorant or disingenuous. If the commission members have experience in public health, they know that quarantine of healthy people, prolonged ‘distancing’ and workplace closures were never used at scale before, and that widespread lockdowns were not ‘routine public health and social measures.’ If they did not know this, they had two years to find out. The world, including Lancet, knew by March 2020 that COVID-19 overwhelmingly targets the elderly and has little impact on healthy working-age adults.

The vaccines do not significantly reduce overall transmission – heavily vaccinated countries continue to show high transmission – so to suggest low vaccination hindered epidemic control is a vacuous statement. It may seem intuitive (e.g. it occurs with some other vaccines) but the commission had 18 months to observe COVID-19 mass vaccination.

“Public policies have also failed to draw upon the behavioural and social sciences.”

This is an extraordinary statement to use regarding COVID-19. Many Western governments have openly employed behavioral psychology in an unprecedented way in the COVID-19 outbreak. No public health campaign has ever gained such media attention or had such uniform suppression of non-official messaging from media outlets. It is strange to see a statement so removed from reality.

“Heavily burdened groups include essential workers, who are already disproportionately concentrated in more vulnerable minority and low-income communities.”

This appears to be a nod to compassion for vulnerable populations. It is true that certain groups did suffer higher rates of severe COVID-19, though these are highly correlated with rates of comorbidities (obesity in Western countries is unfortunately associated with poverty, and poverty with certain ethnic groups).

However, the burden was overwhelmingly on the elderly – to a rate several thousand times that in young people. It is the response that burdened these groups most clearly and the report does mention inequity-driving school closures, but this appears forgotten elsewhere in an apparent blind support for faster and harder lockdowns.

“In low income and middle-income countries (LMICs)… better outcomes were seen when previous experiences with outbreaks and epidemics were built upon, and when community-based resources—notably community health workers—were used to support screening and contact tracing, capacity and trust-building within communities.”

This claim appears false. Sub-Saharan African countries did well irrespective of prior experience, with a relative exception of South Africa where obesity is more prevalent and there is a higher proportion of old people. Tanzania instituted very few COVID-19 specific measures but has similar outcomes. More than half the sub-Saharan population is less than 20 years of age, an age-group with extremely low mortality in the West. Actual spread in Africa, confirmed by WHO, has been very high.

“… the support for vaccine production in LMICs, for use in those countries, has come at a great cost in terms of inequitable access to vaccines.”

Nearly all people in low and middle income countries (except perhaps China) will by now have immunityPost-infection immunity is equal or more effective to vaccine-induced immunity. Therefore, mass vaccination of a whole population with COVID-19 vaccines that don’t significantly reduce transmission cannot plausibly provide much benefit, whilst resource diversion is harmful. This statement is therefore devoid of public health sense.

“Economic recovery depends on sustaining high rates of vaccination coverage …”

Economic recovery depends on removing impediments to a functioning economy (lockdown measures). Vaccinating immune people with a vaccine that does not stop transmission cannot help to ‘reopen’ an economy. This statement parrots official mass-vaccination messaging elsewhere, but Lancet’s commission had an opportunity to promote logic and evidence-based policy.

“The sustainable development process has been set back by several years, with a deep underfinancing of investments needed to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.”

This is indeed clear. Poverty is worse, malnutrition is worse, and preventable disease burdens are higher. Women’s rights are greatly reduced across much of the world, and school attendance has been denied to hundreds of millions of children, entrenching future poverty. Acknowledging this is important, but it also calls into question much of the remainder of the report. Recommendations that acknowledge these mass harms which are concentrated on populations with lowest COVID-19 risk, but go on to recommend more of the interventions that caused them, do not seem well considered.

The remainder of the key findings recommend policies of mass vaccination ‘to protect populations,’ more money for the World Health Organization, and more money internationally for supporters of the growing pandemic agenda. This plays to Lancet’s gallery, but does not consider the harms of resource diversion, the actual very low mortality from pandemics over the last 100 years, or the heterogeneity of human populations and of risk to disease.

If vaccines worked in reducing mortality (for all-cause mortality (the Pfizer and Moderna randomized controlled trials have not shown this to date), if vaccination was confined to highly vulnerable groups where benefit is most likely, and if the trillions of dollars spent on lockdown compensation, mass testing and mass vaccination had been spent on chronic and endemic disease burdens and poverty mitigation, does the Commission really believe more people would have died and outcomes been worse?

A travesty of public health and science

The commission members appear convinced that lockdowns and mass vaccination were a net benefit, but It also appears that in two years of consultation they have not considered the alternative. The loss of decades of progress on infectious disease, human rights, and poverty reduction caused by lockdowns has not been given sufficient pause for thought.

A virus that mainly targets people over 75 years of age was addressed with a public health response that targets the children and the economically productive, cementing long-term poverty and inequity. They support this approach, but consider it should have been instituted earlier, and was lifted too soon.

After emphasizing mandatory and restrictive measures throughout, and misrepresenting or ignoring alternative approaches, the report ends on a note that it should perhaps have started with. “We note the timeliness of recommitting to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN’s moral charter, as we celebrate its 75th anniversary in 2023.”

This declaration includes rights to work, travel, socialize, and express opinions freely including, specifically, through any media. A quick read of the WHO’s charter would also have helped – health includes social and mental well-being (and physical well-being beyond a single disease). The report is void of such thinking – a travesty of both human rights and public health.

The report could well have been written based on slogans from WHOGavi and CEPI (whom the Lancet recommends should receive more money), from Pharma companies (on whose support Lancet is heavily directly or indirectly reliant) and from the World Economic Forum (who seem everywhere these days).

Some will have hoped for careful and considered thought, wide consultation, and a strong evidence base. It seems the corporate world may no longer have time for such indulgence. This is, in the end, a rich person’s club, seeking increased taxpayer funding for their favorite project. They are doing this in the name of public health.

It was reasonable to have hoped for better. What would Thomas Wakley have thought?

David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is the former Program Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland.

September 28, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Slovak Economy on Verge of Collapse as Energy Prices Soar – Prime Minister

Samizdat – 28.09.2022

Slovak Prime Minister Eduard Heger said on Wednesday that energy crisis and rising electricity prices could put the country’s economy on the verge of collapse unless the European Union provides more financial help.

Heger said that money allocated from an EU windfall tax, which is put on “abnormally high profits” of energy companies, should be equally distributed and Slovakia should receive 1.5 billion euros ($1.5 billion). The prime minister also hopes for additional help from Brussels that could provide Slovakia with 5 billion euros more from unused regional development funds to reduce energy bills for businesses.

“Otherwise [Slovakian businesses] will be closing and could actually collapse the whole economy,” Heger was quoted by the Financial Times as saying, adding that Slovak companies providing energy supplies would have to be nationalized if Brussels did not help.

Since 2021, energy prices in EU countries have been surging as part of a global trend. After the beginning of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine in February 2022 and the adoption of several packages of sanctions against Moscow by the EU, energy prices have accelerated the growth, placing energy security high both on the global and national agenda and pushing many European governments to resort to contingency measures.

September 28, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

Executive Order Advances Biotech-Transhumanist Agenda

I predicted this ‘no testing required’ formula would spread beyond COVID shots, and that’s exactly what’s about to happen.

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | September 25, 2022

Scroll down for videos.

September 12, 2022, President Biden signed the “Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe and Secure American Bioeconomy.”1

Specified in that order is the development of genetic engineering technologies and techniques “to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers,” as well as genetic technologies to “unlock the power of biological data” using “computing tools and artificial intelligence.”

Additionally, “obstacles for commercialization” will be reduced “so that innovative technologies and products can reach markets faster.” What we have here is, in a nutshell, the creation of a fast-tracked mRNA pipeline.

When, in June 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration quietly implemented a “Future Framework” scheme2 to deliver reformulated COVID boosters without additional testing, I predicted that this “no testing required” formula would spread beyond COVID shots. And, according to this executive order, that’s exactly what’s about to happen.

In early September 2022, the FDA also put out medically false and misleading COVID booster campaign messages that prove we’ve officially entered the era of transhumanism:

“It’s time to install that update! #UpdateYourAntibodies with a new #COVID19 booster.”3 “Don’t be shocked! You can now #RechargeYourImmunity with an updated #COVID19 booster.”4

Is This the Death Knell to Allopathic Medicine?

Historically, gene therapies have had to jump through extra hoops, which is why so few exist on the market. As of 2021, there were 20 gene therapies commercially available.5 The world’s first gene therapy trial didn’t begin until 1990, so this is still a very new field.

The entire gene therapy field actually collapsed overnight in 1999, when a teenage trial participant died from side effects. An FDA investigation concluded research had moved too fast and that safety “had not been put first.”6 Progress, thanks to increased caution, slowed from there on.

Such caution is now being thrown to the wind, and it’s not difficult to predict there will be disastrous ramifications. Millions will die from poorly tested gene therapies and, eventually, medical research and allopathic medicine will both cease to exist, as survivors vow to have nothing to do with that murderous cabal ever again.

The only way they might be able to keep going is if they are in control of people’s brain function and/or able to force drugs under threat of death, or worse — neither of which is impossible at this point, shockingly enough. In the meantime, we’re looking at a cornucopia of mRNA shots coming our way.

mRNA Flu Shots Are in the Works

Not surprisingly, mRNA flu shots are in the works.7 While we probably won’t see mRNA flu shots during the 2022/2023 winter season, there’s every reason to expect they’ll be rolled out next year.

September 14, 2022, Pfizer initiated a Phase 3 study, which will test a quadrivalent mRNA-based flu shot on 25,000 American adults.8 Pfizer is also exploring mRNA technology that uses self-amplifying RNA (saRNA), for potential use in the future.9

Moderna began its Phase 3 mRNA flu jab trial in early June 2022.10 It’s also working on mRNA shots for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV), which is in the herpes family, as well as a SARS-CoV-2-influenza combination shot. Ultimately, Moderna wants to create an annual mRNA shot that covers all of the top 10 viruses that result in hospitalizations each year.11

Its current flu jab candidate, mRNA-1010, encodes for the hemagglutinin (HA) glycoproteins of four different influenza strains, including influenza A/H1N1, A/H3N2, influenza B/Yamagata and B/Victoria. According to Moderna:12

“HA is a major influenza surface glycoprotein that is considered an important target to generate broad protection against influenza and is the primary target of currently available influenza vaccines.”

The Transhumanist Agenda

Video Link

Over the past three years, I’ve written several articles exploring the transhumanist agenda, which all these mRNA shots and genetic technologies are part and parcel of. Basically, the goal of the transhumanist movement is to transcend biology through technology, and to meld human biology with technology and artificial intelligence.

In September 2020, I posted a video with Dr. Carrie Madej (above), in which she suggested we were standing at the crossroads of transhumanism, thanks to the fast approaching release of mRNA COVID-19 shots.

Since these shots are designed to manipulate your biology, they have the potential to also alter the biology of the entire human race. Nearly two years later, we still don’t know the extent to which they might be doing that, yet more fast-tracked and untested gene therapies are on the way.

One reason why it’s important to know for certain whether synthetic RNA ends up creating permanent changes in the genome is because synthetic genes are patented. If they cause permanent changes, humans will contain patented genes, and that brings up very serious questions, seeing how patents have owners, and owners have patent rights.

US Defense Department Aims to Create Human Cyborgs

The hydrogel used to preserve the mRNA can also contain nanobots to create a bioelectric interface capable of connecting to a smartphone or other interface. Novel technologies that measure biological data, such as blood sugar, are based on this. Such technologies will, of course, have immediate ramifications for our privacy.

Who will collect and have access to all this data? Who will be responsible for protecting it? How will it be used? Also, if your cellphone can receive information from your body, what information can your body receive from it, or other sources? Could transmissions affect your mood? Your behavior? Your physical function? Your thoughts or memories?

So far, it doesn’t appear as though the COVID shots have these kinds of capabilities built in, but we do know for a fact that militaries around the world are exploring and working toward such capabilities. In fact, it’s an arms race in its own right.

In his September 14, 2022, Substack article,13 “Human Cyborgs Are Just the Beginning,” Dr. Robert Malone reviewed several of those plans. Certain report titles alone tell the story, such as the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Biotechnologies for Health and Human Performance Council’s report,14 “Cyborg Soldier 2050: Human/Machine Fusion and the Implications for the Future of the DOD.” It doesn’t leave a whole lot to the imagination, does it? According to the assessment abstract:

“The primary objective of this effort was to forecast and evaluate the military implications of machines that are physically integrated with the human body to augment and enhance human performance over the next 30 years.

This report summarizes this assessment and findings; identifies four potential military-use cases for new technologies in this area; and assesses their impact upon the DOD organizational structure, warfighter doctrine and tactics, and interoperability with U.S. allies and civil society.”

Human augmentation technologies deemed technically feasible by 2050 at the latest include ocular enhancements to improve sight and situational awareness, optogenetic bodysuit to restore or improve muscular strength and control, auditory enhancements, and neural enhancement of the brain for two-way data transfers and brain-to-brain communication.

Changing What It Means To Be Human

In “The Plan to Turn You Into a Genetically Edited Cyborg,” I covered another shockingly dystopian report by the U.K. Ministry of Defense and the German Bundeswehr Office for Defense Planning, published in May 2021.

That report, “Human Augmentation — The Dawn of a New Paradigm, a Strategic Implications Project,”15 reviews the scientific goals of the U.K. and German defense ministries, and they basically mirror that of the U.S. DOD. On page 12 of the report, the concept of the human body as a platform is described, and how various parts of the human platform can be augmented. For example:

  • Physical performance such as strength, dexterity, speed and endurance can be enhanced, as well as physical senses. One example given is gene editing for enhanced sight
  • Psychological performance such as cognition, emotion and motivation can be influenced to activate and direct desired behavior. Examples of cognitive augmentation include improving memory, attention, alertness, creativity, understanding, decision-making, intelligence and vigilance
  • Social performance — “The ability to perceive oneself as part of a group and the readiness to act as part of the team” — can be influenced. Communication skills, collaboration and trust are also included here

They list several different ways to influence the physical, psychological and social performance of the “human platform,” including genetics (germ line and somatic modification), synthetic biology, invasive (internal) and noninvasive (external) brain interfaces, passive and powered exoskeletons, drugs and nano technology, neurostimulation, augmented reality technologies such as external holograms or glasses with built-in artificial intelligence, and sensory augmentation technologies such as external sensors or implants.

As noted in this report, “Human augmentation has the potential to … change the meaning of what it means to be a human.” This is precisely what Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), has stated is the goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution.16

WEF has been at the center of global affairs for more than 40 years, and if you take the time to dive into WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution material, you realize that it’s all about transhumanism. It’s about the merger of man and machine.

This is a dystopian future that WEF and its global allies are actively trying to implement, whether humanity at large agrees with it or not. Importantly, the “Human Augmentation” report readily admits that human augmentation can “directly enhance behavior.”

And, if you think these reports are just brain fodder for geeks in uniforms, think again. The U.K. Defense and Security Accelerator (DASA) is currently, right now, accepting proposals for human augmentation technologies such as those listed above.17 Grants of 70,000 euros ($74,000), will be given to proposals that can provide proof of concept.

We’re Already Being Programmed to Accept Transhumanism

Both the DOD’s “Cyborg Soldier” report and the British/German “Human Augmentation” reports discuss the fact that human augmentation will inevitably widen already existing disparities, inequalities and inequities, and therefore, “efforts should be undertaken to reverse negative cultural narratives of enhancement technologies.”18

In other words, don’t let people come to the conclusion that human cyborgs are a bad idea, because at worst that might prevent their development, and at best, it’ll pitch regular people against the augmented elite, making their efforts to rule the plebs more difficult.

As noted by Malone, “Once again, we are being played before we even know what the playing field looks like.”19

Disturbingly, considering how nontransparent governments have been so far, it’s not inconceivable that technologies capable of influencing thoughts and behaviors would be used on populations without informing anyone, which makes the list of potential risks one takes with each new mRNA injection even longer than it already is.

But we don’t need to be genetically reengineered or have nanobots introduced into our brains to be at risk of outside manipulation. That’s already happening through noninvasive means.

Control Capabilities Go Far Beyond Orwell’s ‘1984’ Vision

In a November 2019 interview with CNN,20 history professor Yuval Noah Harari, a Klaus Schwab disciple, stated that humans are already “hackable,” meaning the technology exists by which a company or government can know you better than you know yourself, and this knowledge can be used for both good and ill.

According to Harari, the available capabilities already go far beyond Orwell’s “1984” authoritarian vision, and it’s only going to become more powerful from here.

He predicted that algorithms will increasingly be used to make decisions that historically have been made by humans, either yourself or someone else, including whether or not you’ll be hired for a particular job, whether you’ll be granted a loan, what scholastic curriculum you will follow and even whom you will marry.

To learn more about the larger issues of transhumanism and the race to merge man with machine and artificial intelligence, check out the Truthstream Media video below.

For example, there are even ongoing attempts to upload the human mind into the cloud, ultimately creating a form of “digital hive mind” where everyone communicates via “Wi-Fi telepathy.” This, despite the fact we still do not fully understand what “the mind” actually is, or where it’s located.

Final Thoughts

I don’t know what it will take to prevent the dystopian post-human world envisioned by Schwab and his technocratic minions, but I suspect education would be a cornerstone of such an endeavor. In order for there to be a resistance, enough people need to be aware of what the plan is, and where we’re actually being led with all these novel therapies and inventions.

In the shorter term, it’s crucial to realize that the fast-tracking of “genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers” means they’re going to cut corners. Loads of them.

Testing is basically going to be done on the population at large, just as they’ve done with the COVID jabs. The results of such experimentation are relatively predictable. People will be seriously injured and many will die. So, think long and hard before you agree to take any of these forthcoming gene therapies.


September 28, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment