Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

A Deceptive Construction – Why We Must Question The COVID 19 Mortality Statistics

By Iain Davis | UKCOLUMN | March 28, 2021

According to the UK Government, as of 27 March 2021, 126,515 people have died as a result of contracting Covid-19, and an additional 21,610 people have died with COVID-19 on their death certificates.

The government alleges, therefore, that a total of 148,125 people in the UK have died as a result of COVID-19. As we shall see, this claim is not credible.

Justifiable Policy?

Claims about mortality have been used by both the government and the mainstream media to justify the policy response.

The pace of change driven by that policy response has been astonishing. With Health Secretary Matt Hancock’s recent announcement of the creation of the UK Health Security Agency and its commitment to take “action to mitigate infectious diseases and other hazards to health before they materialise,” it is clear the government’s new (ab)normal is here to stay.

There is clearly an agenda; one entirely founded upon the idea that COVID-19 presents a significant threat. The primary evidence offered to substantiate this claim is suggested COVID-19 mortality.

Age Standardised Mortality

Just like nearly every other mortality cause, COVID-19 risks increase proportionately with age. Statistics for those of working age show a population mortality risk of between 0.0166% and 0.0046%, depending upon who you believe. The COVID-19 risk to the working age population is statistically insignificant. For the under 18’s it is statistically zero.

Mortality risk disproportionately impacts men. In 2018 the average age of death for men was approximately 80, and 83 for women in England and Wales.

The average age of COVID-19 death is just over 82. When we look at standard mortality distribution, there is no observable impact from COVID-19.

UK all cause mortality doesn’t suggest any need to panic either.

The ONS released data estimating a total of 607,173 deaths from all causes in England and Wales for 2020. Given demographic changes over time, the ONS use Age Standardised Mortality Rates (ASMR’s) to calculate relative death rates. The ASMR showed that 2020 was the worst year for mortality in the last decade.

ASMR’s were in continual decline throughout the post war period. That decline stopped abruptly in 2009 as the economic impact of the global financial crisis took its toll on public health. Thereafter it showed a marginal rise to 2019. Mortality in 2020 and 2021 should be seen in the context of a global financial crisis that dwarfs the credit crunch of 2008.

ASMR’s fluctuate annually and 2020 showed a significant increase above the 5 year average mortality rate. This was higher than most rises but by no means “unprecedented.” ASMR’s in England since 1938 show similar increases in 1947, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1963, 1970, 1972, 1976, 1985, 1993 and 2014.

Most of these spikes in ASMR’s were in the region of 35 to 45 points. For example, in 2014 the ASMR rose by 40.2, in 1993 by 38.4 and in 1985 by 46.3 points. It rose by 90.5 in 1947, by 83.5 in 1963, it went up by 104.9 in 1970 and in 1951 by 216.3. So the 2020 rise of 118.5 is by no means the worst.

The death toll in 1951 was attributed to the the influenza epidemic which struck some parts of the UK (most notably Liverpool) but left others relatively unscathed. To this day science has struggled to account for this.

2020 not only didn’t have the highest mortality rate in the post war period, it didn’t have the highest mortality rate in the 21st century either. 2020 ranked 9th, out of 20 consecutive years, for all cause mortality in England and Wales. It was the 11th least dangerous year in the last 50.

While there is no statistical evidence of an unprecedented global pandemic in England and Wales (nor in Scotland and Northern Ireland) this tells us little about how many deaths were genuinely attributable to COVID-19. Nor does it indicate at which point we should sacrifice our rights, freedoms, children’s educations and economy in the service of public health.

We certainly didn’t sacrifice them in 1947, 1963, 1970, nor even in 1951. Why was 2020 different?

PCR Does Not Mean COVID

For the purposes of this analysis, we will use the government’s higher claim of 148,000 deaths. The vast majority of these deaths were attributed based upon a positive RT-PCR test. The UK Coronavirus Act makes a clear distinction between the virus and the disease. It states:

Coronavirus means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); coronavirus disease means COVID-19 (the official designation of the disease which can be caused by coronavirus).

SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 are not the same thing. The detected presence of SARS-CoV-2 does not mean the person has or will develop COVID-19.

Therefore the attribution of mortality based solely upon a positive test result in no way proves the person died of COVID-19. The extent to which the disease caused or contributed towards a death is a precise medical assessment. The UK government created a death certification and registration process where this did not occur in an unknown number of cases. We need to know what that number is.

COVID-19 has a distinct presentation that requires careful diagnosis. The unique symptoms are severe hypoxemia (low blood oxygen levels), hypercapnia (elevated blood Co2 saturation) and unusually no corresponding loss of respiratory system compliance.

Measurement of gaseous exchange and fluid retention in the lungs appears normal, meanwhile the patient, in serious cases, struggles to breath. This is unlike other influenza like illnesses (ILI’s).

Yet the NHS describe a list of COVID-19 symptoms that could be attributable to any ILI. A high temperature, continuous cough and loss of taste and smell are associated with many. While this is public information, intended to guide our decision to seek medical advice or a test, the list of possible causes expands further given that the NHS state just one of these symptoms possibly indicates COVID-19.

Without precise symptomatic diagnosis, it is difficult to distinguish COVID-19 from a range of other respiratory illnesses. A study from the University of Toronto found:

The symptoms can vary, with some patients remaining asymptomatic, while others present with fever, cough, fatigue, and a host of other symptoms. The symptoms may be similar to patients with influenza or the common cold.

A Cochran Review meta analysis of available studies looked for a clear definition of COVID-19 symptoms. Published in June 2020, the reviewers noted:

The individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic properties … Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out disease.

Even using advanced diagnostics, such as a computer tomography (CT) scan, won’t always provide a clear result. A study attempting to improve differential diagnosis using CT scans found:

Although typical and atypical CT image findings of COVID-19 are reported in current studies, the CT image features of COVID-19 overlap with those of viral pneumonia and other respiratory diseases. Hence, it is difficult to make an exclusive diagnosis.

Regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 test status, without a very accurate diagnosis of symptoms, suspected COVID-19 patients could be suffering from one among a range of ILI’s. Again, a positive test result does not mean the patient died from COVID-19, even if they had corresponding symptoms.

Notifications of Infectious Diseases

In England and Wales it is a legal requirement for all registered medical practitioners to notify their local health authority of any suspected cases of notifiable diseases. The list of Notifiable Infectious Diseases (NOIDS) includes COVID-19. This is not optional.

All diagnosing doctors must complete a NOIDS report upon making a diagnosis. Testing laboratories are also required to notify Public Health England (PHE) of positive tests for notifiable diseases.

According to the fact checker FullFact there were 18,152 COVID-19 notifications made by doctors in the whole of 2020.

Yet the government claim that there were 70,853 COVID-19 deaths, never mind cases, in England and Wales in the same year.

Fullfact offered an explanation for this apparent huge discrepancy:

People with Covid symptoms are advised to get a test, but not to visit their doctor, which may be part of the reason why doctors reported so few cases of the disease through NOIDS. Since Covid became widespread in the UK, and began to be monitored in other ways, it is also possible that doctors felt there was little need to continue notifying PHE about each case.

This is not credible. While it is true that people were told not to go to a doctor if they suspected they had COVID-19, a diagnosis by a doctor was still necessary at some point. Self diagnosis doesn’t usually afford access to hospital treatment. The suggestion by FullFact that doctors unilaterally decided not to bother with their statutory obligations is ridiculous.

What this massive difference between claimed cases, subsequent COVID-19 mortality and NOIDS indicates, is that Doctors were largely reliant upon laboratory testing to fulfil the duty to notify the authorities. This adds considerable weight to the notion that laboratory testing was the leading determinant in the overwhelming majority of COVID-19 diagnosis.

Until mid August 2020, a UK COVID-19 death was reported if the decedent had tested positive at any point during the preceding months. An individual may have have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in March, have died of cancer in August and subsequently have been recorded as a COVID-19 statistic.

The scientific rationale for this did not exist. Research conducted by scientists at Oxford University analysed the COVID-19 Hospitalisation in England Surveillance System (CHESS) and calculated the average time between infection (positive test) and mortality to be 26.8 days.

And so, in response to public and scientific pressure this approach changed to only recording a COVID-19 death within 28 days of a positive test. Still the UK government would not let go of its inflated number system, adding nothing but statistical confusion, they announced:

In England, a new weekly set of figures will also be published, showing the number of deaths that occur within 60 days of a positive test. Deaths that occur after 60 days will also be added to this figure if COVID-19 appears on the death certificate.

The August methodological change reduced claimed COVID-19 deaths by 5,377 in England alone. This didn’t make any difference to the number of people who had died from COVID-19, it just changed the number of people who had reportedly died from COVID-19.

This wasn’t the only notable change to the data gathering process. Just before the significant spring spike in mortality, on the 30th March 2020, the MSM reported that the government had instructed the ONS to change the way they record COVID-19 deaths. Hitherto the ONS only reported a COVID-19 death if it was recorded as the direct or underlying cause. This was changed to recording “mentions” of COVID-19. A spokesperson for the ONS said:

It will be based on mentions of Covid-19 on death certificates. It will include suspected cases of Covid-19 where someone has not been tested positive for Covid-19.

The reporting of COVID-19 comorbidity rates was“paused” in July and has yet to resume. The final published ONS analysis that directly reported the number of pre-exiting conditions for deaths “with” COVID-19 mentioned on the death certificate, was released for the period ending 30 June 2020.

From this we learned that 91.1% of alleged COVID deaths had at least 1 serious additional comorbidity. The mean number of comorbidities for a those under 70 was 2.1 and for the vast majority over 70 it was 2.3.

It is preposterous to claim that a decedent who had cancer, pneumonia and had just had surgery, but tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 four weeks earlier, could reasonably be categorised as a COVID-19 death. Yet that is precisely what happened, and continues to happen to this day.

Covid-19 Cures the Flu

COVID-19 also cured influenza and other respiratory disease, such as adenovirus. Early January is always a period of notable influenza outbreaks, resultant hospital admissions and mortality. This is evident if we look at PHE’s Weekly Influenza Report for week 2 in any year prior to 2020.

In 2020, according to the newly combined PHE Weekly Influenza and COVID Report, there have been virtually no cases of influenza, treatment or related deaths.

The ONS note all the details on a death certificate. In their mortality roundup for the January to August 2020 period they stated:

Influenza and pneumonia was mentioned on more death certificates than COVID-19, however COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death in over three times as many deaths between January and August 2020.

How can flu and pneumonia possibly be on more death certificates than COVID-19 if, as the media and PHE allege, it has been wiped out? It seems the medical profession didn’t get the memo.

A Systemic Catch-22

A positive SARS-CoV-2 test appears to be the primary reason for attribution of mortality. Only the most fastidious diagnosis can differentiate between COVID-19 symptoms and other ILI’s. Is it credible to believe that flu and pneumonia are on more death certificates but that COVID-19 is deemed the cause of death on three times as many Medical Certificates of Cause of Death (MCCD’s)?

These are somewhat rhetorical questions. The reason why bizarre anomalies like this occurred is because recording COVID-19 as the cause of death was practically unavoidable.

The Coronavirus Act overhauled the MCCD and death registration processes. In addition, World Health Organisation Coding changes and guidance issued by the NHS and other medical authorities combined to create a systemic Catch-22.

In England and Wales an MCCD is completed online using the WHO’s recommended coding. The MCCD is split into sections. Part 1. a) “Disease or condition directly leading to death”; b) “Other disease or condition, if any, leading to (a)”; and c) “Other disease or condition, if any, leading to (b)”.

Part 2 records “Other significant conditions contributing to the death, but not related to the disease or condition causing it.” For example, a person may have died from heart failure caused by pneumonia but obesity, though not directly related to the immediate cause of death, could have contributed and would therefore be recorded in Part 2.

In the case of respiratory disease, the direct cause of death could be Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). This may be brought on by, for example, pneumonia which was caused by influenza. In this instance the direct cause of death would be recorded in Part 1. a) as ARDS, prompted by pneumonia in Part1. b), and the underlying cause would be set as influenza in Part 1. c).

The WHO Family of International Classifications (WHOFIC) Network Classification and Statistics Advisory Committee (CSAC) created new International Classification of Diseases codes (ICD-10 codes) for COVID-19. If the decedent had tested positive, or had been in contact with anyone else who had, a recorded COVID-19 death was practically a fait accompli.

A “confirmed case” was dependent solely upon a positive test result and was given the code U07.1. Observable symptoms were not necessary for U07.1 code to be recorded on a death certificate.

A suspected COVID-19 case was coded as U07.2. A decedent known to have had contact with a SARS-CoV-2 positive person who, while neither testing positive nor having any symptoms themselves, was deemed a suspected/probable COVID-19 case and given the code U07.2.

Neither the U07.1 nor the U07.2 codes required any evidence that the decedent had COVID-19.

As the U07.1 code indicated a “confirmed case,” unless the decedent passed away from something obviously unrelated, such as head trauma, a SARS-CoV-2 positive test would almost automatically confirm COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death.

The WHO clearly described this process in their International MCCD coding guidelines. They defined what death “due” to COVID-19 was:

A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death. A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer).

A clinically compatible illness could be any ILI. Even if the individual died from cancer, as long as they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, or the Doctor suspected respiratory distress, the death would be registered as “due to” COVID-19. COVID-19 would again be the reported as the underlying cause.

Additional WHO guidance stated:

COVID-19 should be recorded on the medical certificate of cause of death for ALL decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death. Although both categories, U07.1 … and U07.2 … are suitable for cause of death coding … it is recommended, for mortality purposes only, to code COVID-19 provisionally to U07.1 unless it is stated as probable or suspected.

If a doctor was uncertain and merely suspected a probable COVID-19 case, they were clearly advised to record it on the MCCD as a confirmed case (U07.1 and not U07.2). Again, ensuring it would be reported as the “underlying cause.”

The Office of National Statistics stated:

Deaths involving the coronavirus (COVID-19) include those with an underlying cause, or any mention, of U07.1 (COVID-19, virus identified) or U07.2 (COVID-19, virus not identified) …

If the Doctor held firm and coded COVID-19 as U07.2 on Part 2 of the MCCD, the ONS (and the NRS and NISA) would still report it as a COVID-19 death.

In the Clear

The Coronavirus Act indemnified all NHS doctors against any claims of malpractice or negligence. It removed the need for a second medical opinion (Medical Examiner), it effectively ruled out both post-mortem examinations and jury-led coroner’s inquests, allowed virtually anyone to act as the qualified informant and facilitated rapid cremation.

In response to the Coronavirus Act and WHO IC10 coding, the NHS issued guidance to doctors for the completion of the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD). The COVID-19 death certification and registration process they produced beggars belief. Under the guidance, acting on their own without any corroborating opinion:

Any medical practitioner with GMC registration can sign the MCCD, even if they did not attend the deceased during their last illness.

Attend doesn’t mean examine either. Checking in with the decedent via Zoom is sufficient. Failing that, if the MCCD signing doctor has only seen the decedent after death, providing they have tested positive, a review of their notes is still sufficient to record a COVID-19 death. The NHS stated COVID-19 could be recorded wherever:

A medical practitioner has attended the deceased (including visual/video consultation) within 28 days before death, or viewed the body in person after death.

In keeping with the WHO coding guidelines, there isn’t even any need for a positive test result. The NHS guidance added:

If before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID-19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death … In the circumstances of there being no swab, it is satisfactory to apply clinical judgement.

The NHS then created a system of remote death certification:

During periods of excess deaths due to COVID-19, healthcare providers are encouraged to redeploy medical practitioners whose role does not usually include direct patient care, such as some medical examiners, to provide indirect support by working as dedicated certifiers, completing MCCDs.

These dedicated certifiers, though medically qualified, are tasked with signing off COVID-19 MCCD’s. GP’s and hospital physicians gather reports, perhaps from a review of the deceased’s medical notes or a video conference with a care home provider, and pass that information to the dedicated COVID-19 certifier for MCCD completion.

The NHS advised that no proof was required for the attribution of a COVID-19 death. They stated:

Without diagnostic proof, if appropriate and to avoid delay, medical practitioners can circle ‘2’ in the MCCD (information from post-mortem may be available later)

This suggestion that a post mortem may be available is implausible.

Additional guidance issued by the Royal College of Pathologists states:

If a death is believed to be due to confirmed COVID-19 infection, there is unlikely to be any need for a post-mortem examination to be conducted and the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death should be issued.

Bearing in mind that the WHO had instructed suspected U07.2 deaths to be coded as confirmed U07.1 deaths, the chance of anything other than confirmed COVID-19 death reaching a pathologist is extremely remote. Any MCCD signed “without diagnostic proof” would almost certainly be agreed by the pathologist without further scrutiny. The mere act of putting COVID-19 anywhere on the MCCD was enough to negate the need for a post mortem.

This new death certification system, specifically designed for COVID-19, has understandably caused confusion. The British Medical Association’s verification of death guidance advises that if no signing doctor has seen the decedent prior to completing the MCCD they should refer it to the coroner. However, this was only a policy recommendation not a legal requirement.

Contradicting this, the Chief Coroner advised:

COVID-19 is a naturally occurring disease and therefore is capable of being a natural cause of death … The aim of the system should be that every death from COVID-19 which does not in law require referral to the coroner should be dealt with via the MCCD process.

This means that even if a coroner receives a referral from a doctor, they will be highly likely to automatically approve the MCCD without further inquiry. Since a post mortem has already effectively been ruled out, there will be little point in the coroner investigating further.

NHS staff and carers who may have been uncomfortable with all this have been under no illusions. The use of draconian Hospital Trust gagging orders (non disclosure agreements) are widely reported. Carers who have spoken out have been sacked.

To finalise this unbelievable COVID-19 death registration system, the Coronavirus Act also withdrew the standard second opinion required prior to cremation. The need to complete Cremation form 5 was suspended for all COVID-19 deaths.

Alleged COVID-19 decedents can be cremated without any clear evidence that they ever had the disease, regardless of their family’s wishes, swiftly ending any chance of any investigation by sceptical family members.

What was the Cause of Death?

SAGE assessed the UK mean operational false positive rate (FPR) for RT-PCR to be 2.3% of all conducted tests. The government say they have conducted just over 118M tests of which 4.3M were positive. This includes an unknown number of multiple tests of the same individual. A mean FPR of 2.3% suggests 2.7M of those 4.3M positive tests were false positives. This equates to 62.7% of all positive test results.

As we have already discussed it is highly likely that laboratory testing was the primary determinant for a diagnosis of COVID-19. Therefore it is not unreasonable to surmise that at least 50% of claimed COVID-19 deaths were attributed on the basis of false positives. We can halve the claimed 148,000 to 74,000 COVID-19 deaths.

The 2020 ONS mortality data for England showed a reduction in deaths from a number of other causes.

Deaths from Ischaemic heart diseases were 1,450 below the 5 year average. Cerebrovascular disease was down by 2,276, malignant respiratory neoplasm by 1,537, chronic lower respiratory disease by 2,764 and influenza and pneumonia deaths were 7,313 below the 5 year average. An apparent reduction of 15,340 deaths from other causes.

It seems highly likely that these deaths were wrongly recorded as COVID-19.

As we have seen above, approximately 90% of supposed COVID-19 decedents had at least one other comorbidity. Using the Government’s 148,125 figure, we might claim, therefore that only something like 15,000 of these died of, rather than with.

Is this claim justifiable? Well, consider this:

The Department of Health and Social Care published a study of residents in care homes which purported to show the total number of confirmed cases. Among this number they claimed:

80.9% of residents who tested positive were asymptomatic.

A meta analysis by the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine found that asymptomatic rates among those who tested positive varied between 5% – 80%. If there are no symptoms, then the disease cannot have contributed towards a death.

Taking everything into account, from high rates of comorbidity, to low rates of symptomatic individuals, the impact of false positives on testing and a death certification regime heavily biased towards recording COVID-19 as the underlying cause, then it is reasonable to conclude that the total number of deaths from Covid-19 is not 148,000, nor 126,000, but much closer to 15,000.

April 10, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

A very convenient pandemic

By Daniel Miller | Conservative Woman | April 8, 2021

IN THE early stages of the ongoing ‘war on terror’, which started twenty years ago, a nebulous conception of the enemy, non-existent victory conditions and the consistent dishonesty of warmongering politicians such as Blair led some to wonder if the threat of the global ‘Axis of Evil’ had been exaggerated to achieve some other set of goals.

Today, in similar circumstances of unanswered questions and ambiguous realities underpinned by systematic deception, reinforced by Boris Johnson on Monday as he launched the new phase of the psychological and economic war he is waging on the British people – vaccine passports (and after that?) – this question is being asked:

Is there a pandemic? Was there ever a pandemic?

Perhaps the most important point to grasp is that a pandemic is a construct, not an object. There is nothing you can point at which is the pandemic, only various data points indicating that one exists.

The World Health Organisation changed its definition in 2008 to exclude the criterion of ‘enormous numbers of deaths and illness’. In other words, the definition of a pandemic is ultimately a matter of interpretation. There is no data that currently supports the claim there is a pandemic in Britain at this moment, and whether any data ever did is doubtful..

The scientific process has happened in reverse. Starting in January last year, the existence of a deadly new pandemic, unlike anything previously confronted, was conjectured on the basis of terrifying rumours and unreliable reports from China, not scientifically established facts.

Once the existence of an extraordinary pandemic was assumed, extraordinary measures were justified to fight it, including the rapid deployment of highly unreliable PCR protocols developed by the Gates Foundation-funded Christian Drosten, shock propaganda messaging, a massive and drastic reduction in health care provision (which has functionally destroyed the NHS in order to ‘protect’ it) and de facto euthanasia policies in care homes, based on Neil Ferguson’s Gates Foundation-funded models.

Compromised administrative procedures recorded deaths as lives lost to the pandemic, providing further evidence for its existence.

As is now well known, an overwhelming majority of pandemic casualties also suffered from other conditions and the average age of victims tracks life expectancy in every country.

If the pandemic had not been assumed to exist, and the reckless and cynical interventions against it had not taken place, how would anyone know there was one?

Data clearly demonstrates that lockdowns and related policies were never necessary or effective. Experimental therapies have been deployed which are unreliable and potentially dangerous. Vaccination may or may not prevent contagion or transmission. The fact that governments and their paid experts are unable or unwilling to incorporate these matters into their thinking testifies either to their sinister intentions or the extent to which their mental processes have been corrupted.

Either they believe that some clandestine end justifies repressive and deceptive means, or else they are insane, or mindless through conformism: there is no other explanation.

Phenomenologically, the most important evidence for the existence of the pandemic is its external signifiers, especially face masks, this mass psychological theatre.

Here again, the conjecture of the pandemic itself justified the imposition of the mandate, and nothing else: no evidence supports the thesis that masks have any positive medical effect and the more plausible scenario is their medical effect is negative. Nonetheless the Gates Foundation-funded behavioural psychologists of Sage and their equivalents in other countries argued that mandating them was necessary (‘because most people still did not feel sufficiently threatened’).

The vague objective of an incomprehensible ambition, opposed against a nightmare, discloses a more concrete aim: control.

Why the authors of this initiative want control presents a complex question. Either they just want it without even knowing why, or they want it for another reason. Perhaps they have a broader plan which demands dramatically upgraded repression.

Either way, what they seem to desire is control over the bodies of their populations. In the idea of vaccine passports, what is being implemented is a political and legal climate in which experimental genetic therapies on human populations are normalised and inescapable. Armed with vaccine passports, global governments and their corporate allies would be able to establish the foundations of a global surveillance state, with the power to monitor every social interaction.

Vaccine passports are the gateway to the most radical slavery the world has ever seen. It now seems likely that creating a psychological and social climate in which to impose them was always the aim behind the engineered pandemic. The pandemic was needed to impose the vaccinations, and the vaccinations are needed to impose the passport.

This transformation of one part of the population into the vaccinated simultaneously invents the unvaccinated, a problem which could eventually be resolved through liquidation, but meanwhile offering opportunity for politically profitable stigmatisation. The vaccinated (via vaccine passports) are granted ‘privileges’ that the unvaccinated are denied in order to compel compliance.

Like accepting being forced to wear a government mandated gimp mask, for no reason whatsoever, a person accepting vaccination implicitly accepts the terms of the new normal. At the same time, vaccination is a ritual, substantiating membership in a psychological community.

Anyone who supposes the vaccine passport could lead to discrimination fails to grasp that this is the whole purpose of this document. The entire point is to divide society, to rule it. By creating checkpoints everywhere, power flows to the authority controlling access, in this case Johnson and his faction: a criminal cartel.

Accepting vaccination does not automatically imply a happy ending. The privilege to resume the semblance of a normal life (a ’new normal’ life) is linked to vaccination status now, but the reasoning behind this privilege is contingent on the existence of the non-vaccinated. Once non-vaxxers vanish, the reason for continuing to offer privileges is also gone. At this point a new status category can be introduced, and the same selective sequence played again. In this way, it would be possible progressively to eliminate a significant percentage of the population.

So far the theatre of the pandemic has been organised as a campaign of psychological manipulation with policies conceived to ‘nudge’ compliance by alternately dangling rewards (which are usually snatched away) and making threats. This campaign has also featured systematic censorship and intimidation directed against some of the most accomplished scientists in the world.

Although these tactics make a mockery of the principle of informed consent, they are of the ‘softer’ variety. Ultimately, more aggressive tactics will be deployed. The intensifying lawlessness of the police now points in this direction.

What can be done? The government is ruling via a threadbare fraud. When that disintegrates what will remain is force, but the real command authority of Johnson and his collaborators over the monopoly of violence that defines the British state has barely been tested.

Would British police or soldiers open fire on peaceful protesters on Johnson’s, Gove’s or Starmer’s orders? The question may arise. So far, the Territorial Support Group have been used by Johnson to attack protesters, and a strategy of tension is being used to increase antagonism between the people and the police, but further escalation would be risky.

What is needed in the meantime is urgently to unwind the cycle of compliance, beginning with the mass removal of the mask, extending to the deconstruction of the narrative, and culminating in total disobedience against the tyranny now represented by this illegitimate and shameful government.

April 10, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Former minister blasts pro-Israel lobby over ‘disgusting interference’ in British politics

MEMO | April 9, 2021

Former Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan has accused pro-Israel lobbyists of “the most disgusting interference” in British politics, and of negatively influencing the country’s foreign policy in the Middle East. The veteran politician has also claimed that Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) went “ballistic” and blocked him from taking on a new post covering the region’s affairs.

Duncan, a former Conservative MP and government minister, makes the sensational claims in his newly published memoir, In The Thick of It: The private diaries of a minister (published by William Collins, 2021). Speaking to journalist Michael Crick about his book for the MailPlus website, the 64 year-old blasted CFI and its undue influence in British politics.

Conservative Friends of Israel, he said, had injected a “Netanyahu-type view of Israeli politics into our foreign policy,” referring to Israel’s right-wing prime minister. He claimed that it had applied pressure on Theresa May’s government to prevent him becoming Middle East minister at the Foreign Office.

In his book, Duncan claims that his new role was agreed until the then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson alerted him to the fact that CFI “are going ballistic”. He insists that he was blocked from taking the post because he believes in the rights of the Palestinians.

In one diary entry Duncan is scathing about Conservative MPs’ fawning over Benjamin Netanyahu during his visit to Britain. He was “ashamed” of the British government, accusing officials of allowing Netanyahu to “peddle pro-settlement propaganda”.

Duncan described to Crick the culture of fear created by CFI. “A lot of things do not happen in foreign policy or in government for fear of offending them because that’s the way it’s put to them by the CFI.”

He warned: “It’s a sort of buried scandal that has to stop… they will interfere at a high level in British politics in the interests of Israel on the back of donor power in the UK.” Ultimately, he pointed out, the influence of the pro-Israel lobby group came at the expense of the Palestinians.

Duncan has been a major target for the pro-Israel lobby. In 2017, an Al Jazeera documentary sensationally exposed the operations of pro-Israel lobbyists working with the Israeli Embassy in London to “take down” a minister of the Crown. Duncan, fellow Conservative MP Crispin Blunt and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn were marked out as targets. Writing for Al Jazeera at the time, Robert Grenier, a retired, 27-year veteran of the CIA’s Clandestine Service, warned against what he called the “insidious threats” of the pro-Israel lobby.

Read also: Conservative Friends of Israel urge UK to oppose ICC’s war crimes investigation

April 10, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

WILLEM ENGEL INTERVIEWS MIKE YEADON

Willem Engel with Mike Yeadon | April 5, 2021

10 seconds Dutch intro, English after

Viruswaarheid Live Special with Mike Yeadon, Ex VP Pfizer UK

April 9, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

Keeping us masked forever? The Davos set’s dystopian ambitions are very clear

By Neil Clark | RT | April 9, 2021

The WEF’s promotion of a Chinese ‘smart face mask’ that tracks every breath its wearer takes is further evidence that the changes to Western society over the last 12 months of Covid are intended to be permanent.

“It’s only for when you pop into Tesco’s to do your weekly shop, what‘s your problem with that, you selfish ‘right-wing’ libertarian?” That’s how the introduction of mandatory face-masks was sold to us in Britain last summer, by its virtue-signalling, “Look at me, I’m such a good citizen” supporters.

Masks would be temporary – restricted to shops – and as soon as the Covid threat had passed they would be dispensed with, like social distancing. Anyone who said these measures were designed to be permanent – and were part of the global elite’s plan to keep the plebs muzzled up forever – was dismissed as a ‘crank’ and ‘a conspiracy theorist’.

Well, nine months on, and where are we?

The UK government has issued a ‘road map’ for taking us – with the speed of a 150-year-old Galapagos Island tortoise on sleeping tablets – out of lockdown. But there’s no mention of when masks and social distancing will be dispensed with.

Could that be because there’s no intention of masks and social distancing ever being dispensed with? It certainly appears that way.

Since last July, we’ve seen the mask mandate expanded. You are now asked to wear them not just in shops, but in all indoor areas, unless exempt. Even school children have to wear them in class. That decision was supposed to be reviewed at Easter, and, guess what, the government has just extended the school mask mandate until the summer. In addition, football fans will be expected to wear masks when they’re finally allowed back into grounds this spring at ‘trial’ events.

‘Following the science’? Hardly. We shouldn’t forget that in the week that masks were first introduced last summer, deaths with Covid literally reached zero.

The BBC’s Health Correspondent Deborah Cohen asked the World Health Organisation if their change of advice on masks had been due to political lobbying, and they did not deny.

Why, if masks were so important in preventing transmission, weren’t we told to wear them last March and April? In fact, government scientists advised us not to wear them.

Now, it seems not only must we wear them, but we need to get used to them being a permanent part of daily life in the ‘New Abnormal’. In their recent paper, ‘Evaluating England’s Road Map out of Lockdown‘, published on the UK government’s website, the Imperial College Covid-19 Response team state: “Whilst the impact of Test Trace Isolate, mask wearing, hand hygiene and COVID security on ‘R‘ is difficult to quantify it will be vital to emphasise the importance of normalising and ensuring adherence to all measures even after ‘full lifting’ is achieved.” Got that? Masks need to stay even after Boris Johnson says ‘Lockdown is over‘.

It’s in this context that the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) enthusiastic promotion of the Chinese ‘smart face mask’ needs to be seen. It apparently reminds users when to wash it and checks if they’re wearing it properly. If too much carbon dioxide builds up inside, a phone alert reminds the wearer to catch a few breaths of fresh air. If the user forgets to put it on, the same phone app sends them a reminder to mask up.

This is not about public health, but all about making sure that measures introduced ostensibly to stop the spread of Covid-19 become permanent. Yes, once again the much-derided ‘crackpot conspiracy theorists’ of 2020 have been proved right.

Remember how last summer, the WEF was promoting a ‘Common Pass‘ health passport scheme, not just for international travel but for access to domestic events too? It would never happen, we were told. That’s ‘David Icke stuff’, was the condescending brush-off. Well, that too has come to pass – no pun intended.

To find out why all this is happening, all we have to do is to follow the money trail. All the way to Davos. What does the pro-permanent mask Imperial College have in common with the pro-permanent mask WEF? Answer: the pro-permanent mask Bill Gates.

Last month, Gates himself likened putting on a face mask to putting on a pair of trousers. “I just don’t think wearing a mask is such a deep inconvenience. I mean we ask people to wear pants. You know, why was this politicised?” Back in November, he made the same comparison. “We ask you to wear pants and, you know, no American says — or very few Americans say — that that’s, like, some terrible thing.”

But is masking up whenever we go out really the same as putting on a pair of trousers, to use the English term?

Of course it isn’t. Unless you’re Batman or The Lone Ranger, or another Saturday morning cinema superhero, or indeed a bank-robber, wearing a mask in public isn’t normal, and no amount of WEF-spin makes it so. But what walking about with pieces of black cloth over our mouths and noses does do, is maintain the levels of fear in the community.

If cases and deaths with Covid have plummeted to zero, but we want to make people live as if there is a permanent pandemic, to keep control over them, and to introduce ‘Covid-certification’ to restrict where they can and cannot go, how else can we keep Project Fear going without masks? It’s the only way we’d know that these were not ‘normal’ times. Which is, of course, precisely why they were introduced when deaths had dwindled to very low numbers.

Smart masks? The really smart thing is to get wise to the WEF’s dystopian agenda.

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com.

April 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

The Yankees Are Coming Home: The Taliban Won. Get Over It

By Philip Giraldi | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 8, 2021

It hardly made the evening news, but the New York Times reported last week that after twenty years of fighting, the Taliban are confident that they will fully control Afghanistan before too long whether or not the United States decides to leave some kind of residual force in the country after May 1st. The narrative is suggestive of The Mouse that Roared, lacking only Peter Sellers to put the finishing touches on what has to be considered a great humiliation for the U.S., which has a “defense” budget that is larger than the combined military spending of the next seven countries in order of magnitude. Those numbers include both Russia and China. The Taliban, on the other hand, have no military budget to speak of. That enormous disparity, un-reflected in who has won and lost, has to nurture concerns that it is the world’s only superpower, admittedly self-proclaimed, which is incapable of actually winning a war against anyone.

In fact, some recent wargaming has suggested that the United States would lose in a non-nuclear conflict with China alone based on the obsolescence of expensive and vulnerable weapons systems that the Pentagon relies upon, such as carrier groups. Nations like China, Iran and Russia that have invested in sophisticated and much cheaper missile systems to offset U.S. advantages have reportedly spent their money wisely. If the Biden foreign policy and military experts, largely embroiled in diversifying the country, choose to take on China, there may be no one left around to pick up the pieces.

Those who are warning of the apparent ineffectiveness of the U.S. armed forces in spite of their global presence in more than one thousand bases point most commonly to the historical record to make their case. Korea, fought under United Nations auspices, was a stalemate, with the peninsula divided to this day and a substantial American military force continuing to be a presence along the DMZ to enforce the armistice that not quite ended the war. Vietnam was a defeat, resulting in more than 58,000 Americans dead as well as an estimated 3 million Vietnamese, most of whom were civilians. The real lesson learned from Vietnam was that fighting on someone else’s turf where you have no real interests or stake in the outcome is a fool’s game, but the Pentagon instead worked to fix the mechanics in weapons and training at great cost without addressing why people fight wars in the first place. The other lesson was that the United States’ military was perfectly willing to lie to the country’s civilian leadership to expand the war and keep it going, a performance that was repeated in 2001 with the “Iraq is supporting terrorists and will have nuclear weapons” lies and also with the current crop of false analogies used to keep thousands of Americans in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

As a veteran of the Vietnam War army, I can recall sitting around with fellow enlisted men reading “Stars & Stripes,” the exclusive in-house-for-the-military newspaper that was covering the war. The paper quoted a senior officer who opined that the Soviets (as they were at that time) were really envious of the combat experience that the United States Army was obtaining in Vietnam. We all laughed. That same officer probably had a staff position away from the fighting but we draftees knew well that the war was a very bloody mistake while he may have tested his valor post-retirement working for Lockheed-Martin. The “Soviets” in any event demonstrated just how much they envied the experience of combat when they fought in Afghanistan in the 1980s, eventually withdrawing with their tails between their legs just as the U.S. had done in Vietnam after they lost 15,000 men. The “Grave of Empires,” indeed.

Since Vietnam there have been a number of small wars in places like Panama and Grenada, but the global war on terror has been a total disaster for American arms. Afghanistan, as it was for the Russians, is the ulcer that keeps on bleeding until it ends as a major defeat for the United States with the Taliban fully in control, as they are now predicting. Likewise, the destruction of a secular Iraq, regime change in Libya, and a continuing war against a non-threatening Syria have all failed to make Americans either safer or more prosperous. Iran is next, apparently, if the Joe Biden Administration has its way, and relations with major adversaries Russia and China have sunk even lower than they were during Donald Trump’s time as president. The White House has recently sent a shipload of offensive weapons to Kiev and the Ukrainian government has repeated its intention to retake Crimea from Russia, a formula for a new military disaster that could easily escalate into a major war. What is particularly regrettable is the fact that the United States has no compelling national interest in encouraging open warfare between Moscow and Kiev, a conflict that it will be unable to avoid as its is supplying Ukraine with weaponry.

There was almost no discussion of America’s wars during the recent election. One should take note, however, of a recent article by former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb that appeared on National Review which seeks to provide an explanation for “The Real Reason the U.S. Can’t Win Wars Anymore” in spite of the fact that it is “the most powerful country in the history of the world.” To be sure, Korb largely blames the policymakers for the defeat in Vietnam, aided and abetted by a culture of silence in the military where many officers knew that the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which escalated the conflict, was a fraud but chose to say or do nothing. He also observes that the war itself was unwinnable for various reasons, including the observation by many working and middle class Americans that they were little more than cannon fodder while the country’s elites either dodged the draft or exploited their status to obtain national guard or reserve commissions that were known to be mechanism to avoid Vietnam. Korb notes that “… the four most recent presidents who could have served in Vietnam avoided that war and the draft by dubious means. Bill Clinton pretended to join the Army ROTC; George W. Bush used political connections to get into the Air National Guard, when President Johnson made it clear that the reserve component would not be activated to fight the war; Donald Trump, of course, had his family physician claim he had bone spurs, (Trump himself cannot remember which foot); and Joe Biden claimed that the asthma he had in high school prevented him from serving even though he brags about his athletic exploits while in high school.”

Korb also reveals how America’s presumed prowess on the battlefield has distorted its “democracy building” endeavors to such an extent that genuine national interests have been ignored. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, success in overthrowing the Taliban was derived from critical assistance from Iran, which correctly regarded the extremist Sunni group as an enemy. But the Bush White House, far from showing gratitude, soon thereafter added Iran to its “axis of evil” list. A golden opportunity was wasted to repair a relationship which has poisoned America’s presence in the Middle East ever since.

One might add something else to Korb’s assessment of failure at war. Most American soldiers have been and are proud of their service and consider it an honor to defend their country but the key word is “defend.” There was no defending going on in Vietnam nor in Afghanistan, which did not attack the U.S. and was willing to turn over Osama Bin Laden if the White House could provide evidence that he was involved in 9/11. Nor was there anything defensive about Obama’s destruction of Libya and the decades long “secret” wars to overthrow the Syrian and Iranian governments. Soldiers are trained to fight and obey orders but that does not mean that they can no longer observe and think. Twenty years of “Reconstruction” duty in Afghanistan is not defending the United States and the morale of American soldiers in the combined Democratic and Republican Parties’ plan to reconstruct the world is not a sufficient motivator if one is being asked to put one’s life on the line. Sure, American soldiers can still win wars, but it has to be a real war where there is something genuine at stake, like protecting one’s home and family. That is what the people who run Washington, very few of whom are veterans and most of whom first ask “But what’s in it for me?” fail to understand.

April 9, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia: US Military Activity in Arctic Region Source of Escalating Tensions

Al-Manar | April 9, 2021

Russia stressed on Friday that tensions in the Arctic region only escalate due to the US military activities.

Commenting on US reports about Russia’s “unprecedented military might in the Arctic,” Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Moscow’s action in the region do not pose any threat and do not violate international laws.

“Russia does not do anything in the Arctic that would contradict international law or pose a threat to other countries,” Zakharova said at a briefing.

“If we talk about possible sources of the escalating regional tensions, it would be logical to say that this is the military activity of the US and its allies in the Arctic, which is accompanied by belligerent rhetoric. NATO and its member states, including non-Arctic nations, stage provocations there, and it happens on an increasingly regular basis,” she was quoted as saying by Sputnik news agency.

Washington has already said it plans to send a vast number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and F-22 Raptors to Alaska, adding that the US is determined to “protect its interests in the Arctic Ocean”. The Pentagon also said that the US Navy will begin South China Sea-style patrols in the Russian Arctic maritime zones as it attempts to challenge both Moscow and Beijing.

April 9, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

Hunter Biden Incident Shows That Gun Laws Are For The Little People

NRA-ILA | April 5, 2021

There is a central hypocrisy at the heart of the gun control effort. High-profile gun control-supporting politicians, the Hollywood elite, and billionaire tycoons, will advocate to strip ordinary Americans of their right to defend themselves and their family, all the while enjoying the security that armed men with guns provide. As Hunter Biden’s 2018 firearm incident shows, this hypocrisy extends even to incidents where a high-profile individual has taken the step of procuring their own firearm. The message from these elites could not be clearer: Gun laws are only for the little people.

For those who have yet to learn of Hunter’s escapades in firearm ownership, according to a report from Politico, the troubled son of the president purchased a .38-caliber revolver from a Delaware Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) on October 12, 2018. In order to acquire the gun, Hunter filled out the required BATFE Form 4473. On October 23, Hallie Biden, widow to Joe Biden’s son Beau and then-companion to Hunter, searched the ne’er-do-well’s truck, which was parked at her home in Wilmington, Del., and found the handgun. Apparently fearing for Hunter’s safety, Hallie wrapped the revolver in a shopping bag and threw it into a trash receptacle outside nearby gourmet grocery store Janssen’s Market – which is located across the street from the campus of Alexis I. du Pont High School.

Later that day, after Hunter told Hallie to retrieve the firearm, Hallie returned to where she had disposed of the gun but could not find it. At this point law enforcement was notified of the missing firearm, prompting an investigation that reportedly involved the Delaware State Police, the United States Secret Service, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

As it happens, between Hallie’s disposal of the firearm and her return to the market, a man who routinely searches the store’s trash receptacles for recyclables recovered the firearm. This man returned the revolver a few days after finding it.

According to Politico, prior to the firearm’s return a pair of Secret Service agents visited the FFL where Hunter purchased the firearm in an attempt to obtain the corresponding Form 4473.

The Politico report noted,

Secret Service agents approached the owner of the store where Hunter bought the gun and asked to take the paperwork involving the sale, according to two people, one of whom has firsthand knowledge of the episode and the other was briefed by a Secret Service agent after the fact.

The gun store owner refused to supply the paperwork, suspecting that the Secret Service officers wanted to hide Hunter’s ownership of the missing gun in case it were to be involved in a crime, the two people said. The owner, Ron Palmieri, later turned over the papers to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which oversees federal gun laws.

As has been made clear in a previous item regarding this incident, NRA does not allege that Hunter or Hallie engaged in any criminal conduct. However, Hunter and Hallie’s conduct give rise to several legal questions.

Hunter was discharged from the U.S. Navy Reserve in 2014 after he tested positive for cocaine. Further, at various times, Hunter has been a notorious and admitted drug user. Hunter’s lengthy battle with drugs has been chronicled by himself and the Biden family in numerous interviews and a forthcoming memoir titled, “Beautiful Things.”

An April 1, 2020 USA Today piece on Hunter’s memoir contained the following summary of some of its contents,

In the spring of 2018, he used his “superpower – finding crack anytime, anywhere” – in Los Angeles. At one point, a dealer pointed a gun at his head before he realized Biden was looking for drugs.

He later learned how to cook drugs and spent a lot of time with thieves, addicts and con artists. “I never slept. There was no clock. Day bled into night and night into day,” he writes.

The situation grew out of control. “I was smoking crack every 15 minutes,” he writes.

Biden returned to the East Coast in the fall of 2018, again wanting to get better, though that didn’t happen.

Eventually, his family tried to stage an intervention. “I don’t know what else to do,” Joe Biden told him. “I’m so scared. Tell me what to do.” His son replied: “Not (expletive) this.”

It wasn’t until he met now-wife Melissa Cohen in Los Angeles – whom he married after only a week of knowing – that he got sober again. They told each other they loved each other on their first date; she had the same eyes as Beau, he writes. She championed his sobriety and dumped out his crack.

It is illegal for a person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm. Possession of a firearm by a prohibited person is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

In order to purchase a firearm from an FFL, a buyer must fill out a Form 4473. The form asks, “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” Hunter answered “no” to this question.

Lying on a form 4473 is two separate crimes. It is a crime when a person “knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter,” such as the Form 4473. A violation of this provision is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment. It is also a crime for a person to “make any false or fictitious oral or written statement” to a dealer “with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale.” A violation of this provision is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

Janssen’s Market is located less than 250 yards from the campus of Alexis I. du Pont High School.

As a U.S. senator, Joe Biden was a key proponent of the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The initial version of this unconstitutional and unwise policy was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Lopez. A later, similarly constitutionally dubious, version remains on the books.

18 USC 922(q)(2)(A) provides,

(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

18 USC 921 (a)(25) defines school zone as,

(25) The term “school zone” means—

(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or

(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

18 USC 922(q)(2)(B) does provide for some exemption for possession of a firearm,

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

(iii) that is—

(I) not loaded; and

(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;

(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;

(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or

(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.

Maybe Hallie had a Delaware License to Carry a Concealed Deadly Weapon or placed the firearm in a locked container while she brought the gun to the store. However, a reasonable person might wonder whether an individual who would throw a handgun wrapped in a shopping bag away in a publicly accessible trash receptacle, would comport their conduct within these narrow exceptions while traversing the public roadways to Janssen’s Market.

If Hunter and Hallie are guilty of any illegal conduct, it’s difficult to fault the pair for ignoring the potential legal ramifications of their actions. After all, these gun control measures were not designed to be followed by well-connected elites like them. 

This point is underscored by the Secret Service’s alleged involvement in the case. Rather than having their conduct scrutinized by federal law enforcement, if the Politico report and Hunter’s contemporaneous text messages are to be believed, the federal government tried to cover up for the prominent pair.

As well-protected politicians and their establishment allies push for new gun controls, ordinary law-abiding Americans should know that these hypocrites have no intention of parting with their own elaborate security measures or being otherwise inconvenienced by the burdens they foist upon the rest of us.

April 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

A book on COVID by Sebastian Rushworth

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick | April 8, 2021

Early on in the COVID19 saga I came in contact with Sebastian Rushworth. He was, and is, working as an emergency care doctor in Sweden. It seemed we shared very similar ideas about what was going on. It was fascinating as he was working in Sweden, which has been attacked from all sides, for following WHO advice on the best actions to take in a pandemic.

Sweden did not fully lockdown, most schools remained open, as did bars and restaurants etc. As a result of this everyone died… Start again. As a result of this Sweden suffered around the average number of deaths (per head of population) in Europe.

European countries, above a certain size, that have done worse than Sweden, so far, include:

Czechia
Hungary
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Belgium
North Macedonia
Slovenia
Slovakia
Italy
UK
Portugal
Spain
Peru
Croatia
Poland
France
Lithuania
(NB: I left out micro-countries’ such as Gibraltar, San Marino, Andorra etc.)

You would think, from the howls of anguish that Sweden was now a smoking ruin, with hospitals full of the dead and dying. Which serves them bloody well right. They should have done what every other country did.

Anyway, it was interesting to link up with Sebastian to get a first-hand account of what was going on. You hear so much rubbish from the mainstream media, that it is difficult to know what is really going on. We live in a scary, censored world. Patrolled by self-appointed fact-checking dementors.

Sebastian has his own website at https://sebastianrushworth.com/ which I recommend as a good place for sensible thinking.

Now he has written a book. I should know, because he asked me to write the foreword for it, which I gladly did. It isn’t long, it is very readable, and you will learn a lot if you read it. It covers:

How Dangerous is COVID
Are the tests effective?
Does lockdown work?
Why did Sweden have more deaths than Norway?
Do face masks stop the virus?
Are the vaccines safe and effective?
I recommend it to everyone, and you can find a link to it on his website.

April 9, 2021 Posted by | Book Review | | Leave a comment

Anti-war activist visited by police after posting embarrassing AOC video

By MAX BLUMENTHAL · The Grayzone · APRIL 9, 2021

An anti-war activist said he was visited by California Highway Patrol officers after posting video of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s bumbling comments on Israel-Palestine. The action was initiated by a call to US Capitol Police.

As he waited for a food delivery at his home in Los Angeles on April 8, Ryan Wentz, an anti-war activist and producer for the online viral program, Soapbox, heard two men calling his name from over his front gate. When he approached, he realized they were not delivery drivers, but police officers flashing badges of the California Highway Patrol.

The cops informed Wentz that they had received a call from the Capitol Police, the federal law enforcement agency tasked with protecting the US Congress, about a tweet he had sent that allegedly threatened Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Wentz told The Grayzone, “The officers said, ‘We got a warning about a sitting member of Congress. And it was because of your tweet, which tagged them in it.’ And then they just wouldn’t back down from this accusation that I threatened to kill her.”

The California Highway Patrol indicated on Twitter that it had acted on a call from Capitol Police. The Grayzone has contacted the office of Ocasio-Cortez, known popularly as AOC, and will update this article when more information is available.

Whether or not AOC’s office was responsible for falsely informing Capitol Police of an online threat by Wentz, the Democratic congresswoman has demonstrated a pattern of spurious claims of violence against her critics, and of resorting to heavy-handed methods to suppress them. Any move by AOC to wield law enforcement against online detractors would be especially ironic given her status as a vehement advocate for defunding the police and ending mass incarceration.

Whoever called the police on Wentz furnished law enforcement with a patently false allegation, as he has never threatened violence against any member of Congress. In the tweet that triggered the police action, Wentz merely posted video of AOC delivering a vapid and embarrassingly convoluted answer to a question about resolving the crisis in Israel-Palestine. Describing her answer as “incredibly underwhelming,” he let the congresswoman’s cringeworthy commentary speak for itself.

https://twitter.com/queeralamode/status/1379879392642408448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1379879392642408448%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthegrayzone.com%2F2021%2F04%2F09%2Fanti-war-activist-police-aoc-video%2F

Asked by Michael S. Miller of the New York Jewish Community Relations Council about actions that could be taken to support movements towards peace between Jewish Israelis and Palestinians, AOC responded as follows:

Earlier just now you and I were talking about the what and the how. And I think that when we talk about peace, centering people’s humanity, protecting people’s rights – it’s not just about the what and the end goal which actually gets a lot of focus, but I actually think it’s much more about the how, and the way we are coming together, and how we interpret that what, and how we act in, you know, the actions we take to get to that what. So what this really is about is a question more than anything else about process. And we really need to make sure that we are valuing a process where all parties are respected and have, you know, a lot of equal opportunity to really make sure we are negotiating in good faith, etcetera. That being said, you know, I think there’s just this one central issue of settlements, because if the what – if the what has been decided on as two state, then the action of settlements, it’s not the how to get to that what. And so, you know, I think that’s a central thing that, you know, we center. And that we value Jewish and rather, we value Israeli, uh, uh, uh, we value the safety and human rights of Israelis, we value the safety and human rights of Palestinians, in that process that is similar, and that is on equal footing. And so all of that is extremely important in that process.

The video that Wentz tweeted of AOC’s long-winded dodge of a fundamental question about resolving the Israeli occupation of Palestine prompted a flood of online mockery and contempt, mostly from leftist Twitter users. Many derided AOC as a careerist who had abandoned progressive causes like Palestinian liberation in order to curry favor with Democratic Party power brokers, while others ridiculed her meaningless word salad.

Within hours of the online pile-on, someone reported Wentz to the Capitol Police for tweeting the video that embarrassed AOC. Because Wentz does not provide any information about his personal identity in his public Twitter profile, the social media giant appeared to have provided his private details to federal law enforcement.

“Another weird thing is usually I would get a report [from Twitter],” Wentz said, “because I’ve gotten my tweets reported before. But I didn’t get any notification about this.”

AOC’s staff has previously appealed to certain authorities to punish online critics. On February 4, 2021, her campaign sent a mass email to supporters asking them to “scan your social media to find posts with misleading information” about the congresswoman, and “use the built-in report feature to flag them for moderators.”

Team AOC issued its appeal for supporters to police social media in response to right-wing mockery of a dramatic livestream in which AOC suggested that the mob which stormed the Capitol building on January 6 nearly assassinated her.

“I just hear these yells of ‘WHERE IS SHE? WHERE IS SHE?’” she recounted in the livestream. “This was the moment where I thought everything was over. I thought I was going to die.”

Her eyes welling with tears, AOC continued, “I felt that if this was the journey my life was taking, I felt that things were going to be okay, and that I had fulfilled my purpose.”

However, the source of the yells which had terrified AOC turned out to be a Capitol Police officer who had been dispatched to protect her. Further, the congresswoman’s office was located in the Cannon House Office Building, which had not been penetrated by any rioters on January 6 and was located a block away from the melee.

Right-wing activists responded to AOC’s claims by launching a viral hashtag likening her to Jussie Smollet, the actor who faked an attack on himself. After attempting to challenge her critics directly, AOC delegated her staff to dispatch its army of supporters to report critics en masse to Twitter and Facebook censors.

Weeks earlier, online podcaster Jimmy Dore had initiated a “Force The Vote” campaign to pressure AOC and fellow members of the progressive congressional “Squad” to withhold their votes for Rep. Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House until Pelosi agreed to bring a bill for Medicare for All to the floor for a vote.

In response to incendiary criticism from Dore for her refusal to buck centrist party leadership, AOC declared, “That’s not tone, that’s violence.”

AOC’s record of characterizing harsh criticism as violent abuse, and turning to online censors to suppress it, raises questions about whether her team was responsible for siccing the police on an anti-war activist.

According to Wentz, the police officers that visited him asked if he had any violent intent behind his tweet, then left. “If this was like a purely intimidation thing,” he reflected, “then I guess it did its job. It’s not comforting to be on the receiving end of that. But at the same time, they’re not going to shut the left up.”

Wentz added, “We are told that AOC is a member of the left, but if she really was involved in this [call to the Capitol Police] – and that’s how the left treats the left – then I want no part of that. I don’t want this fake adversarial movement that just entrenches the horrible deeds that we’re living under now.”

April 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

Inventing Pretexts to Bash Russia

By Stephen Lendman | April 9, 2021

Establishment media provide press agent services for US imperial interests.

Russia bashing again surfaced in support of political nobody, convicted embezzler Navalny.

Along with grand theft of millions of dollars for self-enrichment, he’s unindicted but guilty of sedition, serving as a CIA/NED asset, and operating as an unregistered US foreign agent — a nation waging war on Russia by other means that could turn hot by accident or intent.

Navalny got off easily. Instead of longterm imprisonment for betraying his country and grand theft, he was sentenced to 2.8 years imprisonment.

He’s interned in central Russia about 80 miles from Moscow.

According to the lying machine NYT, his imprisonment “poses a lethal risk to his health (sic).”

Calling him Putin’s “preeminent political opponent” reinvented reality, a Times specialty.

So is serial lying. Last summer en route to Moscow, he fell ill from a metabolic disorder, what Russian doctors diagnosed when treating and stabilizing him.

No “poisoning with a military nerve agent” occurred, no “assassination attempt,” no attempt to harm him in any way.

Just the opposite! Russian doctors saved him from what may have been severe hypoglycemia, or insulin shock, a serious health risk for anyone with diabetes like Navalny.

Nearly a week ago, he began hunger-striking over alleged failure by prison authorities to provide medical treatment sought.

On Monday, prison doctors diagnosed a respiratory ailment. In response, he was moved to an infirmary for treatment.

If poisoned by a military grade nerve agent, he’d have died in minutes.

If Russia wanted him dead, he’d have been eliminated long ago.

Despite his criminality and overall unacceptable action, Moscow respects the rule of law — polar opposite how the US-dominated West operates, waging endless wars on humanity at home and abroad.

Navalny fully recovered, returned to Moscow voluntarily, was arrested for violating terms of his suspended sentence, and is paying the price.

He warrants no leniency, sympathy, or support for his criminality.

Establishment media backing is all about inventing any pretext to bash Russia and Vladimir Putin personally — a preeminent world leader in stark contract to his unindicted Western counterparts for crimes of war, against humanity, and other criminality too serious to ignore.

Turning reality on its head like the Times, WaPo falsely claimed Navalny is being “slowly killed” by Russia (sic).

His temperature is slightly elevated at 100.5. He’s coughing, and may be suffering from a respiratory illness.

Saying he’ll continue hunger-striking despite being ill makes him responsible if his condition worsens.

Former US political prisoner Maria Butina visited Navalny’s prison ward with an RT camera crew, saying the following:

“I’m tired of the complaining. He is in one of the best penal colonies in Russia.”

His treatment is polar opposite Butina’s horrific ordeal — imprisoned and brutally mistreated for being a Russian national in police state USA at the wrong time.

US dirty war on Russia by other means takes many forms — including politicized arrests, imprisonments, and brutal mistreatment under harsh gulag conditions.

Arrested by the FBI in July 2018, Butina was detained without bond and falsely charged with operating as an unregistered Russian agent — a bald-faced Big Lie.

At the time, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova denounced her arrest, detention, and mistreatment, calling it part of (a US) campaign to “stoke Russophobic hysteria.”

Despite innocent of bogus charges against her and posing no flight risk, she was denied bail, largely held in suffocating solitary confinement, and given no proper medical care – aiming to break her will by gross mistreatment.

Numerous other Russian nationals languish unjustly in Washington’s gulag longterm — guilty of nothing but their “wrong” nationality.

A Final Comment

Last October, Russia’s OPCW representative Alexander Shuglin said the following:

Despite unjustifiable demands by Russophobic Western officials, Moscow “does not owe anything to anybody” in response to groundless accusations of poisoning Navalny, adding:

“We do not need to explain ourselves to (Western officials) and we are not going to.”

“Until we receive documents, materials, samples, physical evidence that – as alleged by those accusing us – proving that a toxic agent was found in Alexei Navalny’s tests, until they sit down at the negotiating table with us for an engaged expert-level dialogue, we will treat everything that is going on in the context of this incident as a vociferous propaganda campaign of lies, or, simply, a low-grade provocation.”

To the present day, Russia never received information it requested from Berlin where Navalny was treated —nothing in cahoots with US dark forces to unacceptably bash Russia, part of their long war by other means.

April 9, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

No COVID Vaccine Required: The Case For Ivermectin

Written by thesaqproject | February 21, 2021

We would not need a COVID19 vaccine if there is already a safe and effective treatment. Imagine that: No lockdowns, no masks, no destruction of jobs and livelihoods. Are there treatments for Covid-19 that are safe, cheap, and effective?

The Case for Ivermectin is Part 1 of an investigative series exploring the ever increasing fight against censorship, health freedom, and the medical professionals and researchers who dare to question the official narrative.

Please SHARE, DOWNLOAD, and FOLLOW @TheSAQproject on the following platforms:

IG – www.instagram.com/thesaqproject
TELEGRAM – t.me/TheSAQproject
GAB – gab.com/TheSAQproject
MeWe – mewe.com/i/thesaqproject
BitChute – www.bitchute.com/channel/the-saq-project/

April 8, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »