Lockdown Deaths in the US: 170,000
BY MICHAEL SENGER | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | JUNE 13, 2022
A new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, cited in The Australian and in a New York Times op-ed, reveals over 170,000 non-Covid excess deaths among young Americans in 2020 and 2021, most likely attributable to measures implemented to combat the coronavirus—i.e., deaths by lockdown.
The Economist puts the number even higher, at 199,000. This rate of non-Covid excess deaths among young people holds constant across European Union countries that employed strict lockdown measures, but disappears for Sweden, which did not employ such measures.
According to the NBER study:
Summing our estimates across causes and age groups, we estimate 171,000 excess non-Covid deaths through the end of 2021 plus 72,000 unmeasured Covid deaths. The Economist has assembled national-level mortality data from around the world and obtains a similar U.S. estimate, which is 199,000 (including any unmeasured Covid) or about 60 persons per 100,000 population (Global Change Data Lab 2022). For the European Union as a whole, the estimate is near-identical at 64 non-Covid excess deaths per 100K. In contrast, the estimate for Sweden is -33, meaning that non-Covid causes of death were somewhat low during the pandemic. We suspect that some of the international differences are due to the standard used to designate a death as Covid, but perhaps also Sweden’s result is related to minimizing the disruption of its citizen’s normal lifestyles.
Hauntingly, the results of the NBER and Economist studies are a near-perfect match of the simple calculations of lockdown deaths performed in my book, Snake Oil.

As the New York Times notes euphemistically: “The rate of death from all causes for younger adults has risen by a bigger percentage than has the rate of death from all causes for old people.” It’s nice of the New York Times to finally print this fact, but they would appear to be, euphemistically, a day late and a dollar short—the “dollar” in this case being 200,000 young American lives.
Heavily armed police search Swiss doctor’s office after mask exemptions

Free West Media | June 12, 2022
Apparently the stance against doctors who work according to their Hippocratic oath and the medical code of ethics is being tightened internationally.
The enforcement of masks is an important goal in order to be able to continue the pandemic, as is known from internal protocols of the Israeli Ministry of Health or statements by the Austrian Director of Public Health. Masks have become a sign of submission while at the same time renouncing fundamental rights.
Even in Switzerland, which is known to be more liberal with the measures and had already lifted many random measures in mid-February, completely disproportionate action was taken against doctors. On social media, users likened the raid to how police would normally respond to a terror threat.
This is already happening in Germany, as the criminal judgment against Dr. Ronald Weikl showed. In Germany, such an act would be less surprising in view of the many house searches, even against judges who had issued “unwanted” judgements, also in connection with masks for children.
The regional court of Passau, Germany is expected to pass a verdict against the “mask doctor” Weikl for writing blank exemption certificates against the mask requirement.
“Whether it was a matter of issuing false health certificates, which is punishable under §278 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), as alleged by the prosecution, or only of medical certificates, for which §278 (StGB) does not apply at all,” noted the Children’s Health Defense Fund.
Weikl acted in the best interest of his patients, his lawyer explained and this should not have led to an indictment due to the lack of a criminal act on his part. The legal principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege applies, which means that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law – showing concern for his patients and especially children.
The law in Switzerland expressly provides for exceptions to the mask requirement. However, some authorities and the public prosecutor’s offices obviously do not care. For months there has been a veritable witch hunt against doctors who are critical of the measures.
Like Weikl, the Bern psychiatrist Dr. medical Ruke Wyler had issued mask certificates for her patients. The practice of the psychiatrist, who had only fulfilled her medical duty, was stormed in a heavy and a completely disproportionate police operation.
The scientific network Aletheia reported on the raid on the doctor’s practice. Critical doctors who question Corona measures to protect their own patients are being addressed and sanctioned, both abroad and in Switzerland.
Under the supervision of armed police officers wearing bulletproof vests, her computer hard drive was confiscated and patient files were taken away. People who wanted to support the doctor were asked to leave the building under threat of violence.
The Aletheia network said they were extremely concerned about these developments. Doctors who had issued mask certificates for the benefit of their patients did so because, after a thorough study of the data, they had come to the conclusion that wearing masks would be of no benefit, would be only harmful, first and foremost for children.
The medical certificates issued by the doctor could in no way be deemed to be incorrect since there has been no examination by the police or the public prosecutor’s office; this is a matter for medical expertise and the professional code of conduct for physicians. Medical professionals are free from directives, especially from non-physicians.
The vast majority of Corona measures are based on the narrative of the epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2, which has long been refuted. This means that all non-pharmacological measures that go beyond hygiene and self-isolation for sick people (antisocial distancing, masks in public spaces, isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, school closures and curfews) are ineffective and harmful for asymptomatic people who were previously considered healthy.
The January 6 Capitol riot was not the real insurrection
America is under attack from within, and it’s not by the DC rioters from 17 months back

By Ian Miles Cheong | Samizdat | June 11, 2022
As members of the House of Representatives gather to attend the hearing of the US House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, one can’t help but wonder about the hypocrisy of the spectacle, especially in light of the Biden administration’s soft touch approach to the George Floyd riots that swept the nation in 2020.
As the pandemic raged during the summer of 2020, thousands of Americans took to the streets to protest, and in some cases riot, over the death of George Floyd, an African-American man who was killed in police custody.
Floyd’s death was a flashpoint in America’s growing racial and cultural divide, exacerbated by social justice activists who maintain that police in America are racist, and that their actions are enabled by systemic racism inherent in America’s culture, history, and its very foundations.
The riots saw over a billion dollars in property damage, according to reporting from Axios, but the true cost of the violence is even higher due to their impact on cities – not to mention the human cost and the destruction of anything that wasn’t properly insured.
Opportunists and looters ran amok in American cities, wreaking havoc on commercial districts – and even residential neighborhoods. Black- and minority-owned businesses in cities like Kenosha and Minneapolis were burned to the ground by rioters chanting ‘Black Lives Matter’ slogans, few of which have recovered.
In Seattle, Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists took over an entire neighborhood. Dubbing it ‘CHAZ’ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone) or ‘CHOP’ (Capitol Hill Organized Protest), the protesters sectioned off a portion of the city, turning it into a police no-go zone. It was rife with crime. Several people, including minors, were shot and killed in the so-called ‘autonomous zone’. Several sexual assaults allegedly took place. Only one man was arrested over one of the fatal shootings a year later.
In the US alone, at least 25 people are estimated to have been killed while participating in protests and incidents related to the political violence that occurred throughout that summer. Retired police officer David Dorn was murdered on the streets of St. Louis while trying to protect a pawn shop. His death was a rallying cry for conservatives and supporters of the police who were tired of seeing the men and women in blue vilified for doing their jobs.
The impact of the George Floyd riots cannot be understated. It continues to reverberate throughout America as numerous liberal cities have moved to implement bail reform, defund police forces, and put in place legislation to hinder so-called ‘police brutality’ – effectively neutering law enforcement.
The nation saw a drop in police recruitment and rise in resignations, transfers, and an overall decline in morale. Cities like San Francisco, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis have seen spikes in property crime, violent crime, and carjackings as prosecutors refuse to try cases, letting felons back out onto the street with little more than a slap on the wrist. The shocking examples of victims falling by the wayside as violent criminals with extensive arrest records get away with racially-motivated assaults on whites, Asians, and Jews. Their crimes go unpunished while Joe Biden and members of his administration continue to rail against the threat of ‘white supremacy’ and wave around Transgender Pride flags, giving empty speeches about society’s apparently most marginalized demographic – trans people.
‘Move out of the cities’ has become a common refrain among conservatives who cite the destruction of America’s most prosperous and populous locales as a reason to embrace rural living outside of suburbia.
Cities, once the pinnacle of American culture, and home to monuments honoring the Founding Fathers, have become a sad parody of themselves. Crime goes unpunished, drug addicts litter the streets with needles, and homeless people set up camp right in front of the world’s largest corporations. In Seattle, Amazon was forced to shutter its downtown office due to violent crime.
At the height of the summer, innumerable statues were torn down, damaged, or removed by the cities due the racially-charged protests. Few were ever held responsible for the destruction of these historical monuments.
Despite the destruction and ruination of American cities, and the attack on America’s founding values, Democrats have chosen instead to not only ignore the riots’ cost to American lives, but champion the protests as a positive, progressive development.
Approximately $90 million was given to Black Lives Matter, and millions more have been spent on reshaping American culture through diversity initiatives in corporate boardrooms, civilian government, and even the military. The mayors of Portland and Minneapolis endured struggle sessions. Democrats took a knee in a symbolic gesture honoring Black Lives Matter.
When Democrats insist that the January 6 attack on Capitol Hill was one of the worst moments in American history, they’re ignoring the ongoing destruction of America and absolving themselves of their participation in it.
“The insurrection on January 6 was one of the darkest chapters in our nation’s history,” said President Biden at an event on Friday. Describing it as “a brutal assault on our democracy, a brutal attack on law enforcement,” the president insists that “it’s important that the American people understand what truly happened and to understand that the same forces that led to January 6 remain at work today.”
Biden is right about one thing – the forces that led to January 6 remain at work today.
To understand what’s going on, we have to look at how the January 6 riot was caused by a general sense of discontent with America’s downward trajectory. It was staged by a collective of Americans who refer to themselves as patriots, who are unhappy with the continued destruction of America and its values. When they raised their voices, they were mocked, silenced, and disenfranchised as traitors and conspiracy theorists – all this even before the events of that fateful day. And after that day, many were arrested – some of whom were forced into solitary confinement and stripped of their rights even to this day. They have had few defenders, and the legacy media remains unwilling to even speak of their plight.
If there’s an insurrection, it’s ongoing, and it’s seeing through the destruction of America’s core values. When all is said and done, the events of January 6, 2021 will be nothing more than a footnote in the history books.
Ian Miles Cheong is a political and cultural commentator. His work has been featured on The Rebel, Penthouse, Human Events, and The Post Millennial.
Ex-Bolivian president Jeanine Anez sentenced to 10 years in prison
Press TV – June 11, 2022
Former Bolivian interim president Jeanine Anez has been sentenced to a 10-year prison term more than a year after being arrested on charges of leading a US-backed plot in 2019 to oust re-elected socialist president Evo Morales.
Anez will serve 10 years in a women’s prison in La Paz, the administrative capital’s First Sentencing Court announced on Friday in a ruling that came three months after her trial began.
Convicted of crimes “contrary to the constitution and a dereliction of duties,” the former right-wing television presenter was sentenced to “a punishment of 10 years” over charges stemming from when she was a senator, before becoming president.
Government prosecutors, however, had asked for a 15-year jail term for Anez, who has been held in pre-trial detention since March 2021 while dismissing her trial as “political persecution.”
Also sentenced to 10 years were the former chief of Bolivia’s armed forces, William Kaliman, and the country’s ex-police chief Yuri Calderon — both of whom have reportedly fled the country and remain on the run.
This is while Anez still faces a separate, pending court case for sedition and other charges related to her short presidential tenure.
At the start of her presidency, the US-sponsored rightist politician had called in the police and military to restore order. The post-election unrest left 22 people dead, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).
For that, Anez also further faces genocide charges, which carry prison sentences of between 10 and 20 years.
The IACHR described the 22 deaths that occurred at the beginning of Anez’s presidential stint as “massacres,” and found they indicated “serious violations of human rights.”
Unlike the other accusations against Anez, the case will be dealt with by congress, which will decide whether or not to hold a trial.
The ex-president had already declared she would appeal if convicted, claiming, “We will not stop there. We will go before the international justice system.”
Anez became Bolivia’s interim president in November 2019 after Morales, who had won a fourth consecutive term as president, fled the country in the face of what was widely viewed as a US-sponsored unrest purportedly against alleged electoral fraud.
The US-led and Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS) claimed at the time that it had found “clear evidence” of voting irregularities in favor of Morales, a popular, anti-US president who was re-elected into office for 14 years.
Many potential successors to Morales — all members of his MAS party – were also forced to resign or flee, leaving right-wing opposition member Anez, then vice-president of the Senate, next in line.
Virtually unknown, the lawyer and former TV personality proclaimed herself interim president of the Andean nation on November 12, 2019, two days after Morales’ forced resignation.
The Constitutional Court recognized Anez’s mandate as interim, caretaker president, but MAS members disputed her legitimacy.
Elections were held a year later, and won by Luis Arce – a close ally of Morales.
With the presidency and congress both firmly in MAS control, Morales returned to Bolivia in November 2020.
After handing over the presidential reins to Arce, Anez was detained in March 2021, charged with illegitimate assumption of power.
“I denounce before Bolivia and the world that in an act of abuse and political persecution, the MAS government has ordered my arrest,” she proclaimed in a Twitter post at the time.
Obama: We have to “detoxify” the “scourge of disinformation and conspiracy theories and hate online”

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | June 10, 2022
Former US President Barack Obama made a fresh push for online censorship during an appearance at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit by calling for crackdowns on content that he deems to be “disinformation,” “hate,” or a “conspiracy theory.”
Before Obama took the stage, 2022 Obama Foundation Leader Sarah-Josephine Hjorth hinted at what was to come by railing against “fake news and misinformation.”
“While the increase in use of smartphones and social media first came with the whisper of renewed democratic participation, fake news and misinformation dominate the digital landscape and result in an erosion of the fabric of truth and polarization,” Hjorth said.
Shortly after taking the stage, Obama continued this theme by invoking the January 6 Capitol riot and tying it to “misinformation and conspiracy theories.”
“In my own country, the forces that unleashed mob violence on our Capitol are still churning out misinformation and conspiracy theories,” Obama said.
Towards the end of his speech, Obama made a more direct call for censorship of content that’s branded as a conspiracy theory, disinformation, or hate.
“We have to take steps to detoxify our discourse,” the former President said. “Particularly the scourge of disinformation and conspiracy theories and hate online that has polluted our political discourse.”
Obama continued by demanding that technology companies “accept a certain degree of democratic oversight and accountability” and noting that he spoke at length about these issues during his April 21 speech at Stanford University.
In his Stanford speech, Obama called for “solving the disinformation problem,” welcomed social media censorship of “hate speech,” and said that content moderation “doesn’t go far enough.”
After finishing his speech, Obama invited three 2022 Obama Foundation leaders, Tudor Iulian Bradatan, Selvije Mustafi, and Federica Vinci, to the stage. He then complained about the increased amount of misinformation since he left office and the difficulty of “sorting between what’s true and what’s false, what’s journalism and what’s fabrication.”
Obama continued by claiming that the politicization of COVID issues, such as getting vaccinated or wearing masks, was “driven just by misinformation that was out there.”
“I’m wondering how…it’s [misinformation] affected you and whether you’ve seen some solutions to…help young people distinguish between what’s true and false in making decisions about how to participate and what to support?” Obama asked.
Mustafi, a national grassroots organizer at the biggest Roma movement in North Macedonia, said “there are big concerns also in our movement about how…false information and misinformation is spreading on the internet to influence decisions by some political actors or political sides.”
She added that the challenge of this kind of fake news and misinformation is that it makes people have a “different kind of opinion which is not necessarily relevant or truthful.”
Vinci, the Deputy Mayor of Isernia, Italy, described the spread of “false news” and “false noise” as “scary.”
Obama’s Copenhagen Democracy Summit and Stanford University speeches are some of the many pushes he’s made for rules that would chill online speech.
Earlier this year, the former President proposed “modifications” to online anonymity when people are “rude, obnoxious, cruel, or lie” and suggested that social media algorithms should be audited by federal inspectors to deal with misinformation.
And in previous years, Obama has called for social media regulations that curb “crazy lies and conspiracy theories” and pushed internet platforms to reduce the influence of hate groups.
Wired retracts statement accusing Substack of “paying extremists”
Substack supports “open debate,” not censorship.
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | June 10, 2022
In one of its recent articles attacking Substack, which has a relatively open free speech policy, Wired falsely claimed that the newsletter platform “actively recruits and pays extremists.”
The tech outlet was forced to retract the statement after Substack’s head of communications Lulu Cheng Meservey, who has done a good job in speaking out in support of free speech, took to Twitter to expose how Wired did not provide evidence and refused to provide evidence of their claims even after Substack pointed that out to the outlet privately.
“We do not and have not, and he can’t name any examples,” Meservey wrote in one of the tweets. “Yet when approached about it, he said: ‘I’d be happy to remove it if you could provide evidence that it’s inaccurate.’”
Meservey rightly pointed out that is not how journalism works.
“It’s not journalism to make an unfounded claim and demand contrary “evidence” to remove it. It borders on extortion: we will defame you unless you give us what we want,” she wrote.
She likened what Wired did to a news outlet accusing you of laundering money “and when you protest, they refuse to issue a correction unless you give them your financial statements,” adding that the “burden of proof is on the journalist, not the subject.”
Meservey went on to note that not only was evidence not provided, the writer did not make an attempt to show any of the allegedly recruited people were extremists.
The false claim was retracted but it is a testament to the recent smear campaign against Substack. The newsletter platform allows journalists, writers, and other content creators to make money, as it is subscription-based, meaning creators can avoid having to rely on invasive advertising practices.
Where’s the Emergency? 18 Congress Members Demand Answers as FDA Set to Approve COVID Shots for Kids Under 5
The Defender | June 8, 2022
Members of Congress today demanded answers from Dr. Robert M. Califf, commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as the agency reviews Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVID-19 shots in children age 5 and under.
The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) is meeting on four separate occasions in June to discuss additional EUAs that would provide cradle-to-grave COVID-19 shots — and to consider a “Future Framework” that will permanently lower the bar for safety and efficacy, according to Toby Rogers, Ph.D.
A letter signed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) and 16 other members of Congress today asked Commissioner Califf 19 questions about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for young children.
The questions focused on the youngest children (6 months to 5 years) due to the Congress members’ concerns about what they called the FDA’s “one-size-fits-all” approach to the vaccines.
“The data show that the risks of serious adverse outcomes for COVID for children five and under is very low and as such the standard for evaluating EUA interventions must be very high,” the letter states.
“We believe it is prudent and necessary that the FDA provide answers to a number of questions before approving EUA vaccines for children under age 5, including more than 70% of whom are already seropositive for COVID-19.”
The VRBPAC meetings began Tuesday. The meeting schedule is:
- June 7 — EUA for Novavax’s COVID-19 shot for adults.
- June 14 — Amendment to Moderna’s EUA to include primary series to children and adolescents 6 through 17 years of age.
- June 15 — Amendment to Moderna’s EUA to include primary series for children 6 months to 5 years and amendment to Pfizer’s EUA to include the primary series to children 6 months through 4 years of age.
- June 28 — Proposed “Future Framework” for COVID-19 shots.
The Congress members’ letter presses the FDA to address unanswered questions regarding the risks and benefits of administering COVID-19 vaccines to children.
They ask the FDA to explain, among many other things:
- What the cardiac risk factor is for children who receive EUA COVID-19 vaccines.
- Why the FDA recently lowered the efficacy bar for COVID-19 vaccines for the youngest children.
- When the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will provide the public with more details on children’s serious adverse outcomes from COVID-19 infections.
- If it is possible that administering the vaccines in young children could predispose them to increased risk from future novel COVID-19 variants.
- How many children ages 5 and under with and without pre-existing medical conditions have died from COVID-19 or its variants.
Finally, the letter asks Commissioner Califf to “please list the medical emergencies [among] children 0 to 4 years old that enables the FDA to approve the COVID vaccine for children using its EUA.”
Children’s Health Defense calls for action
Mary Holland, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) president and general counsel, called the FDA’s Future Framework proposal “quite possibly the worst idea in the history of public health.”
Children under 18 with no comorbidities have virtually no risk of death from COVID-19, according to a November 2021 study published in Nature.
A July 2021 preprint paper found children have a 99.995% recovery rate, and the vast majority of children have minimal symptoms.
The Nature study described how children between 3 and 11 years of age mount effective, robust and sustained immune responses to COVID-19.
The CDC’s own data show that at least 75.2% of children ages 0 to 11 and 74.2% of adolescents ages 12 to 17 already have superior natural immunity.
There is no clinically significant health benefit from the mRNA vaccines, according to Moderna. Reporting on its Phase 2/3 KidCOVE study, the company said, “the absence of any severe disease, hospitalization or death in the study precludes the assessment of vaccine efficacy against these endpoints.”
Preliminary data showed the shots were only about 44% effective at preventing symptomatic infection in children 6 months to 2 years old, and 37% effective in children ages 2 to 5 — both below the 50% level that regulators generally called the minimum level for EUA approval in 2020.
In New York, officials observed that Pfizer’s efficacy against Omicron plummeted from 68% to 12% after 7 weeks in children ages 5 to 11.
“These shots are dangerous and carry very real risks,” Holland said.
Studies show vaccinated children face a substantial risk of myocarditis. Moderna’s EUA application, originally filed in June 2021, has already been held up because of a clear safety signal for myocarditis, which prompted a number of European countries to prohibit its use in young people.
Additionally, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System or VAERS has more than 48,500 reports of adverse events in children, including 112 deaths (as of May 27), and a growing number of reports of encephalopathies, clotting issues, diabetes and neurological problems in children following COVID-19 shots.
© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Shanghai lockdowns increase market for invasive medical surveillance tech
By Will Henney | Reclaim The Net | June 10, 2022
The South China Morning Post interviewed experts who believe there could now be a big market for facial recognition cameras to “detect signs of COVID-19.”
The news outlet cited a report by Everbright Securities that claimed that about 2 million devices for detecting infection and confirming vaccination and test results could be put in public venues like entertainment venues, hospitals, office buildings and shopping centers.
Everbright estimated that the market to be about 50 billion yuan ($7.5), with market leaders like Hikvision and SenseTime expected to leverage the opportunities. Another player in the surveillance market, Telpo, already makes facial recognition technology that can check the temperatures of multiple people.
The paper quoted Wang Feng, a financial services expert, saying: “The market potential here cannot be matched anywhere else in the world, because these smart devices will be widely used in big cities to meet stringent virus control rules. Operators of shopping malls and cinemas will buy the machines to improve efficiency of their verification processes.”
The facial biometrics device would, in theory, check test results, vaccination status, and recent movements before allowing someone to enter a certain venue. Everbright said that each device would cost between 2,000 and 10,000 yuan ($300 to $1,500).
Covid Passes – and coercion – are here to stay
By Niall McCrae | TCW Defending Freedom | June 10, 2022
So the Covid Pass was not just for Christmas. Despite all the rhetoric of ‘living with Covid’, the Civil Service seeks two deputy directors for further development of this digital health certification (one a ‘delivery lead’, the other a ‘service management’ role). Seemingly a coronavirus outbreak is being exploited to usher in technocratic surveillance whereby the state will know our every movement. And given the excuse of another pandemic, or perhaps a climate-related emergency, such movement will be readily curtailed.
Looking back, we can see how society was primed by the authorities and mainstream media for the language of a ‘new normal’. The term ‘lockdown’, first used in a US prison setting, began to appear in British newspapers several years ago, typically in hyperbolic Daily Express reports of an incident in a railway station or department store. Was this predictive priming? Soon after Covid-19 emerged, the media were warning of ‘Long Covid’. As we now know, mRNA vaccines were already patented, and perhaps this syndrome was a prepared disguise for the likely litany of vaccine injuries; every symptom under the sun was included.
‘Long Covid’, though, may have a different and darker meaning. The Covid-19 regime has set a precedent, and draconian infection controls could be reinstated at any time. Anyone who thinks Covid-19 is over is very naïve. In places as diverse as Portugal, Finland, North Korea and New York the disease has returned to the headlines, with summer surges feared owing to holidaying, festivals and other socialising (otherwise known as fun). The virus will never officially disappear, and a largely compliant public will accept public health controls while dissidents will be forced to comply or suffer the consequences.
Vaccine passports, like Covid, are ready to pounce again. They were introduced in a limited way in England, while the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland went much further. Nicola Sturgeon, a leader who basked in the glow of ‘saving Scots’ lives’, imposed restrictions long before and after the allegedly reckless rulers in Westminster.
It was as recently as January this year that the Scottish government expanded the use of vaccine passports. Adults needed to show proof of being fully vaccinated (less than four months since last jab) or a negative test before admission to nightclubs, unseated indoor events with more than 500 people, unseated outdoor events with over 4,000, and any event with more than 10,000 in attendance.
Many commentators believed that the SNP was using Covid-19 as a wedge in its independence drive, but the Labour assembly in Wales was just as extreme. In January Big Brother Watch launched a judicial review against Welsh ministers for its vaccine passport regime. Lawyer Shirin Marker of Bindmans LLP said: ‘In maintaining the Covid Pass Scheme, the Welsh government is exercising an unprecedented level of control over the rights and freedoms of the public. In these circumstances, it is essential that the Welsh government is transparent about what evidence they have relied upon to impose the scheme. Unfortunately, to date, such evidence has not been forthcoming.’
I suspect that decisions were made at UK level to use the Celtic fringes to test the water. Whereas the Scots and Welsh were manipulated by national consciousness, the awkward English have too many Samuel Bamfords against the establishment. And another Peterloo could turn the tide. Remember the poll tax riots, after the policy was introduced in Scotland with little resistance.
While he was still fooling us with Churchillian rhetoric, Boris Johnson repeatedly expressed his opposition to identity cards, an authoritarian creep of Tony Blair’s government. In the Daily Telegraph in 2004 he wrote: ‘There is the loss of liberty, and the creepy reality that the state will use these cards – doubtless with the best possible intentions – to store all manner of detail about us, our habits, what benefits we may claim, and so on.’
Yet as Prime Minister throughout the Covid-19 debacle, Johnson has keenly promoted the ‘build back better’ agenda espoused by the World Economic Forum. He agrees with WEF leader Klaus Schwab that we cannot return to the ‘old’ normal. While the British people feel they have left Covid-19 behind, at least for now, Johnson’s administration is spending public money to advance the Covid Pass. He will know of plans on a global scale, about which we can merely speculate. The enthusiasm of ministers for a new pandemic treaty, which would override national democracy, shows that we remain in the ratchet. What was Michael Gove doing at the recent Bilderberg meeting in Washington?
The blurb in the job advertisement states that the Department of Health and Social Care, which is administering the Covid Pass, is ‘central to the government’s response to Covid-19, the biggest challenge the country has faced in a lifetime’. Really? If there had been no constant barrage of sensational media messages in the last two years we would have carried on our lives regardless. Many of us know more victims of vaccine injury than of the virus itself.
Referring to the Prime Minister’s ‘Living with Covid’ strategy, the advert notes that ‘the NHS Covid Pass will be required at events and for international travel for the foreseeable future’. Living with Covid means never letting Covid go. And it is obviously not only about health, as this boast indicates: ‘Covid Pass is an award-winning DHSC programme undertaking a complex transition while continuing to deliver a vital citizen service in a changing health landscape.’
Digital surveillance here we come. But is it even more than that? Why are governments around the world so determined to inject us with repeated vaccines against a mostly mild and unremarkable respiratory virus? Are we being genetically engineered, and for what purpose? I can’t answer that, but clearly more jabbing is planned. In some countries the vaccine passport had slots for eight or ten doses, like a coffee loyalty card. Vast sums have been spent on stocks of Pfizer and Moderna vials.
I wonder how the interview panel would answer if applicants ask how many jabs they would be expected to take. Or is this post at a level high enough for vaccine immunity? For the plebs, however, Covid will be very long indeed.
Google tells Congress the proposed antitrust bill would hinder its censorship efforts
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | June 9, 2022
Google continues to lobby and campaign against legislative efforts aimed at curbing its monopolistic power, this time openly, in a blog post.
Google claims that antitrust legislation – whose goal is to loosen the stranglehold it has on the market and competitors – would prevent it from censoring “disinformation.”
In the past months, the tech giant has used other avenues as well, from (🛡 fake) grassroots support that it purports to have, to spending millions on professional lobbyists in Washington DC.
In all this, Google has gone for all sorts of “targeted” arguments in an effort to make sure the bipartisan bills never become law. Lawmakers and voters had the chance to hear that if Google is not allowed to run its business unimpeded, exactly as it’s doing now, anything from innovation to national security would suffer.
And now, no doubt addressing that part of its audience that is particularly concerned with the specter of arbitrarily, if at all, defined “disinformation” as internet’s “greatest ill” – this time in the context of geopolitics – Google claims that the bills under consideration in Congress, would, if passed, prevent it from censoring disinformation.
VP of Google’s Privacy, Safety and Security Royal Hansen, claims that the legislation is a risk for US security, for that of its users, while it doesn’t address problems that “Americans care the most about.”
Despite the context of the writeup, Hansen for some reason mentions “privacy, child safety, and inflation.” This Google exec packs a lot of FUD into just a few sentences, to also warn users that some of their favorite products like Search and Maps will get broken – if Google is made to abide by possible future antitrust laws.
Among many other usual talking points that supposedly outweigh the need to regulate Big Tech’s business models Hansen talks about the danger of “rolling back” Google’s “war on disinformation” – that is, the unprecedented levels of censorship visible particularly on YouTube.
These last years, the topics were mostly Covid and US elections, but those are getting a little old; and so Hansen brings the war in Ukraine into the mix – as another reason why the digital market should not be a fair and level playing field for startups and other competitors.
“By prohibiting us from ‘discriminating’ against competitors, the bill would prevent us from taking action against purveyors of malicious content,” writes the Google exec. “Since Russia invaded Ukraine, we have been able to move quickly to limit Russian propaganda and disinformation, even as that content has migrated to new channels. The proposed legislation could undermine this work.”

A roving reporter who covered Italy’s top politicians explains to The Grayzone how his country was reduced to a joint US-Israeli “aircraft carrier,” and raises troubling questions about an Israeli role in the killing of Prime Minister Aldo Moro.