Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Twitter bans popular account highlighting Nancy Pelosi stock trades, @NancyTracker

Twitter purges another account that scrutinizes powerful figures

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | December 8, 2021

Twitter has booted @NancyTracker, a popular account that documented Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s stock trades and drew attention to the millions of dollars she and her husband have generated through trading.

The account had over 200,000 followers when it was banned. Some of its most popular tweets highlighted that Pelosi’s role as a government official gives her access to “insider information” and noted that Pelosi’s returns have significantly outpaced both the market and some of the world’s best investors.

@NancyTracker was created by The Free Press Report which also created the largest Ghislaine Maxwell trial tracker account, @TrackerTrial.

Twitter suspended both accounts earlier today and claimed that The Free Press Foundation had broken its rules against “platform manipulation and spam.” It also referenced rules that prohibit artificially amplifying or suppressing information.

However, The Free Press Foundation pushed back against Twitter by saying that all of the @TrackerTrial’s engagement was “organic” and that “there was not outside amplification.”

In October, less than two months before the accounts were suspended, @NancyTracker said it had received “a cease and desist order from a lawyer representing someone high up in the [Political] office.”

“I will not name names. And I will also not cease or desist,” @NancyTracker added at the time.

The Free Press Report is urging fans of the @NancyTracker account to follow it on free speech social network Gab and has already built an audience of tens of thousands of followers on the platform.

Filmmaker Daniel Bostic described the censorship of the @NancyTracker account as a “full on authoritarian crackdown just days after Dorsey leaves.”

Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey stepped down on November 29 and was replaced by Parag Agrawal. Since being appointed CEO, Agrawal has faced scrutiny for his past comments that Twitter’s role is “not to be bound by the First Amendment” and that he wished Twitter had censored some content sooner.

Investor and Bitcoin commentator Anthony Pompliano also suggested that the censorship was linked to Agrawal by highlighting that the accounts had been suspended and tweeting: “New Twitter CEO seems to be having a busy week.”

The censorship of these popular accounts is the latest in a wave of Twitter censorship that has occurred since Agrawal took the reigns. A link to the American Heart Association website was recently flagged as “unsafe” and numerous accounts have been suspended after Twitter announced new rules that ban the sharing of photos or videos of people without their permission.

December 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Javid’s children – out of shape and out of their poor minds

By Dr Sinead Murphy | TCW Defending Freedom | December 8, 2021

ON November 9, Health Secretary Sajid Javid announced to the House of Commons that a full Covid vaccination status will be required of all patient-facing NHS staff from April 1, 2022. ‘I am mindful of the need to protect human life,’ he said.

‘To protect human life’: the phrase struck an off note as the sequel to Hancock’s slogan ‘Save Lives’, which at least acknowledged that humanity comprises individual beings.

We talk about ‘plant life’ or ‘animal life’. But how often do we say ‘human life’? The phrase rings with indifference, with that distant carelessness about the components of a large group which we may feel when we lift a stone to reveal the ‘insect life’ beneath.

At other times, the phrase ‘human life’ would probably be unremarkable. But given that our government, in lockstep with governments worldwide, seems bent on reframing its people as anill-disciplined lump of behaviours and diseases, to be administered from on high, Javid’s desire ‘to protect human life’is surely significant as well as objectionable.

At a swimming pool the other day, a woman took the seat next to me and smiled. At least I judged that she smiled – her eyes narrowed slightly and creased about their edges. The rest of her face was hidden behind a blue surgical mask.

As she turned to scroll through her phone, it occurred to me how little of her appearance and personality she was offering to the world, how barely-human she was, how abstract – body slumped over a tiny screen, and a face that might be anyone’s.

This is ‘human life’, I thought. This inert, anonymous being: this is what Javid wants to protect . . .

And this, it appears, is what Javid wants to breed. Last week saw the return of mandatory face masks in secondary schools. Not in classrooms yet, but in the between-lesson social spaces in which our children have the chance to establish themselves, to try out what kind of person they are and might be. Now, this vital opportunity to flourish is taken from them; you cannot find yourself when you are masked in a sea of masks.

The question is whether this masking of our children, nasty enough on its own, is only the surface manifestation of a deeper campaign against their chances of defining themselves.

At the swimming pool, the daughter of the masked woman next to me joined a group of other eight-year-olds being instructed on the front crawl at the near edge of the pool. Once each had taken their turn and heard how they were to improve, they clambered out and walked back the length of the pool to line up and do it again.

During the half-hour that followed, these young children filed past me several times. It was not an uplifting parade. Though it is almost taboo even to notice it, the fact is they seemed out of shape, distinctly lacking in tone and posture.

With only a single exception in the group of eight, these children’s movements were more clumsy than they should have been, their shoulders more rounded, their hips turned inwards, their feet slapping against the tiles as if they were, somehow, out of their element.

What is happening to our children that they are misshapen and unwieldy in this way?

In a short film called Numb, from June 2020, 15-year-old Liv McNeil depicted the experience of many children during the Covid lockdowns, sentenced to schooling and socialising on a screen. Following a brief survey of the photographs and trophies on display in her bedroom, telling of outdoor activity camps, parties with friends and triumphs on the ski slope, the camera comes to rest in front of Liv – seated cross-legged on her bed, back bent over her laptop.

There follows a series of rapid cuts, in which Liv remains seated and slumped through the changing outfits and hairstyles of passing days and weeks – like one of those cheap cut-out cardboard dolls to which you can attach different items of clothing and heads of hair.

Numb closes with clips of Liv – still seated, still slumped – apparently screaming at her computer screen. She is, with good reason, losing her mind. She is also losing her shape.

If we are concerned about the thoughts and feelings of our children during the sedentary isolation imposed by Covid restrictions, then we should also be concerned about their muscles and joints which must surely be atrophied and contorted.

The National Child Management Programme recently reported that obesity rates in reception aged children increased from just under 10 per cent to almost 15 per cent over the single academic year spanning 2020 and 2021; rates of obesity in Year 6 aged children increased from 21 per cent to over 25 per cent. By the age of 12, more than four in every ten children are now overweight or obese.

The fragile frames of those eight-year-olds at the pool are destined to be covered in fat. And it looks as if their faces are destined to be covered in cloth.

What will they be once all this covering is accomplished, once their already neglected bodies are further overlain and obscured? They will be ‘human life,’ of which our Health Secretary declares himself so mindful: an inexpressive, undifferentiated human heap in which it will be very, very difficult to find yourself.

December 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

Sweden and Germany: No Deaths In Children Due to Covid

BY PAUL ELIAS ALEXANDER | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE | DECEMBER 8, 2021

The decision by parents to vaccinate their child against Covid is really a question of risk management. Parents must seriously consider that Covid-19 is a less dangerous illness for children than influenza. It has shown to be so and quite stably near 20 months now.

Children do not readily acquire this pathogen, spread to other children, spread to adults, take it home, get severely ill, or die from it. It is that simple. We know children tend not to transmit Covid-19 virus and that the concept of asymptomatic spread has been questioned severely, particularly for children.

Children, if infected, just do not spread Covid-19 to others readily, either to other children, other adults in their families or otherwise, nor to their teachers. This was demonstrated elegantly in a study performed in the French Alps. The pediatric literature is clear science on this. Overwhelming data shows that the SARS-CoV-2-associated burden of severe disease or death in children and adolescents is very low (statistically zero).

Swedish data by Ludvigsson reported on the 1,951,905 children in Sweden (as of December 31, 2019) who were 1 to 16 years of age who attended school with largely no lockdowns or masks. They found zero (0) deaths. “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.”

A recent German study (collating evidence from three sources 1) a national seroprevalence study (the SARSCoV-2 KIDS study), 2) the German statutory notification system and 3) a nationwide registry on children and adolescents hospitalized with either SARS-CoV-2 or Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome (PIMS-TS)) reported that there were zero (0) deaths in children 5 to 18 years old across the period of study.

Governments and public health officials have driven this pandemic of fear and propaganda. But parents willing to assess this purely from a benefit versus risk position might ask themselves: ‘If my child has little if any risk, near zero risk of severe sequelae or death, and thus no benefit from the vaccine, yet there could be potential harms and as yet unknown harms from the vaccine (as already reported in adults who have received the vaccines), then why would I subject my child to such a vaccine?

And in the presence of the potential risks, as well as the fact that a vaccine for Covid-19 is simply not indicated in children, why would a parent allow their child to be vaccinated with still-experimental vaccines? The children should live normally, free, and if exposed to SARS-CoV-2 we can rest assured that in the vast majority of cases, they will have no to only mild symptoms while at the same time developing naturally acquired immunity, and harmlessly; an immunity that is definitely superior to that which might be caused by a vaccine.

The innate immunity in children that they come with and which works to protect them will work here and has worked here wonderfully (innate antibodies and NK cells, as well as other components of the innate immune compartment). This approach would also accelerate the development of the much needed herd immunity about which much has been written.

In addition to concerns related to immediate or long-term sequelae of the new mRNA vaccines in children, there is clear data suggesting that the vaccines might not be as effective against infection and spread as initially reported.

We also have reports of the vaccinal antibodies functioning to suppress the innate antibodies (potentially devastating for children who depend on these as their first line of defense) and outcompeting them given the vaccine antibodies are specific and have high affinity for their antigen, while innate are non-specific and with low-affinity. This is a huge problem, especially if the vaccinal immunity outcompetes the naturally acquired immunity antibodies, etc.

So why are we rushing to vaccinate our children? Drs. Fauci of NIAID, Walensky of CDC, and Francis Collins of NIH are reckless here with the vaccine developers e.g. Pfizer and Moderna, for they know these vaccines lack the proper safety testing and we do not know what will happen to children long-term.

This really is about risk management decisions we as free people (as parents) are presumably allowed to make in the USA. This is not only about science. Remember also, children cannot give proper informed consent e.g. an 8-month-old, a one-year-old.

This is a very important ethical matter. The death rate in children e.g. under 12, is as close to zero as we can get. None of the lockdown and school closure policies worked and all have failed with crushing harms on populations.

We have masked our children, closed schools, locked them down, driven surges in suicides in adults as well as our children due to these policies, and now we seek to vaccinate children with a vaccine for which we have no data on the long-term harms. Is there any wonder why there is a loss of trust and why parents might be reluctant to comply with every edict being issued by governments concerning health?

Dr Alexander holds a PhD. He has experience in epidemiology and in the teaching clinical epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology.

December 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

As Predicted, They’re Coming For The Unvaccinated

By Richie Allen | December 9, 2021

Yesterday, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that his government would move to Plan B covid measures as a precaution against the emergence of the omicron variant. He was lying. What else is new, I hear you say.

In my opinion there is no omicron variant. It is a fantasy. Johnson’s government moved to Plan B for one reason only, to turn the jabbed against the unjabbed.

In recent weeks, regular listeners to my radio show will have heard me play dozens of soundbites from UK TV and radio news shows, where the public is invited to call in and opine on what should be done about the anti-vaxxers.

I said that we were being primed or conditioned for a day of reckoning next year, when the government will announce “enough is enough, we can’t keep shutting down society, we must mandate the jabs.”

Nothing that has happened since, has changed my mind. UK Health Secretary Sajid Javid said this morning that mandatory jabs will not be pursued by his government. He said that such a thing would be “unethical.” He was lying too.

Today, the public are quite rightly enraged at the announcement of new covid measures and the prospect that they will be tightened further still on December 18th.

However, the great majority of people are not demanding an end to this charade at once. No, they’re raging at the Tories for holding Christmas party’s last year while they were locked down and obeying the rules.

And predictably, they’re turning their ire on the unjabbed.

Take a look at this outtake from this morning’s Jeremy Vine Show on Channel 5. The guests call for the unjabbed to be blamed for the tyrannical covid restrictions. They even suggest that we should be exiled.

Instead of challenging them, the impotent host egged them on.

We’re in the fight of our lives now.

 

December 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Covid has been horrible for me. Do I regret being unjabbed? Not for a second!

By Julia | TCW Defending Freedom | December 9, 2021

COMPARED with Australia’s other police-run fiefdoms, South Australia has generally stayed under the Covid madness radar. No public police thuggery and rubber bullets in the back, no beating up grandmothers and pregnant women, no Daniel Andrews, no dictatorial legislation, no forced Covid camps, no rounding up of Aboriginal community members (so far). There has been Covid farce, however – a mind-boggling absence of perspective and proportionality reflective of the manic, embedded zero-Covid ideology experienced in other Australasian jurisdictions.

First, there was the pizza outbreak in November 2020. After a man with Covid-19 lied about his link to an Adelaide pizza parlour, the whole State entered a lockdown slated for six days which ended abruptly after three, due to lack of interest from the virus.

Then there was the ‘don’t touch the football’ affair, when Australian Rules fans were warned to duck if the ball came towards the crowd.

The latest is the case of a South Australian Senator, Alex Antic, a vigorous opponent of vaccine mandates and lockdowns, who was carted off to quarantine in a ‘medi-hotel’ after returning from Parliament in Canberra. (Antic is a conservative Liberal in a State run by so-called ‘moderates’ aka Leftists who should be in another party.)

This is in the State that has experienced four Covid deaths. Four. And 952 ‘cases’. South Australia has no crisis whatsoever, certainly none that can justify the establishment of a mini-police state. But the State is run not by a Premier but by an unelected police commissioner and an unelected chief health officer.

Which brings us to the persecution of Dr Bruce Paix, a doctor of 32 years in South Australia who is now unemployed due to ‘vaccine hesitancy’. Dr Paix has been issuing exemptions for mask/vaccines and is a staunch critic of the Covid vaccine and lockdowns. He contacted a member of Parliament, who happens to be South Australia’s acting attorney general, about matters Covid. This politician, one Josh Teague, or someone in his office, it would seem, notified the police. As a result Dr Paix was visited by officers and told that he should stop contacting the MP to voice concerns about Covid management policies.

He was advised to ‘tone down his emails’ and ‘be careful what he writes’, as his communications were ‘drawing attention to him’. Soft, friendly police power. In reality, an iron fist in a velvet glove.

Dr Paix is responsible for a string of Covid crimes – he is unvaxxed, he strays off message, he speaks out, and, worst of all, he is willing to grant exemptions from the jab. His offence in this case seems to have been his act of approaching his elected representative to seek a meeting to protest against a government policy, and his act of letter writing.

Seven officials raided the surgery of another such dissenting doctor, Mark Hobart, in Melbourne last month and seized confidential patient files, an appointment book, and other documents after he refused to hand them over. Inevitably, Hobart is described as ‘controversial’, such is the embedded state of Covid ideology across the legacy media.

Such doctors are quickly swooped on and threatened with being de-registered. The Victorian state government even changed the rules about exemptions to close off what it sees as ‘loopholes’. Patients were apparently ‘doctor shopping’ to find a practitioner who would give them a medical exemption from the vaccine.

A spokesman for the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency and the Medical Board of Australia has made their message clear: that vaccination is a non-negotiable part of the public health response to the Covid-19 pandemic and that advising against it ‘undermines the national immunisation campaign’.

They said the consequences for doctors of not complying would include having their registrations suspended.

The Australian Covid State has relied massively on third party collaboration for maintaining fear and hysteria and for enforcing Covid mandates. The corporate media and the churches are but two of the most egregious examples. Arguably the role of the medical establishment and behaviour of supine, self-regarding doctors is way more appalling than that of all the other ‘just-following-orders’ functionaries of Covid totalitarianism. They are guilty of

·         Bullying patients to get the jab, whatever their medical circumstances;

·         Collaborating with government in refusing exemptions to patients who palpably deserve them;

·         Propagating lies about Covid and about those who question the official Covid narrative;

·         Not speaking up and out against ‘medical tyranny’ in Australia;

·         Getting into bed with Big Pharma;

·         Making a mockery of the Hippocratic Oath, ‘first, do no harm’ by cheering on the vaccination of healthy youth, some of whom they know will die from the vaccines.

Dr Bruce Paix and Dr Mark Hobart have found themselves at the sharp end of the medical wars over Covid. They are enemies of the Covid State, hunted down like the Aborigines of the past – and under Covid Law are once again.

December 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Watchdog urged to investigate Jewish charity over ‘political’ activities

MEMO | December 8, 2021

Pro-Palestine campaigners have called on the charities regulator, the Charity Commission, to launch an urgent investigation into the activities of a pro-Zionist lobby group after it falsely accused anti-Israel demonstrators of extremism, racism, and intimidation at a recent protest rally.

The Community Security Trust attempted to turn what was a peaceful anti-Israel protest against the presence of Israeli ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely, at a university event last month into a panic about anti-Semitism.

The CST is a registered charity that ostensibly exists to “provide safety, security, and advice to the Jewish community in the UK”. However, rather than serving this purpose it routinely engages in political activities designed to protect the state of Israel from criticism and censure.

The latest evidence of this came at a debate hosted by the London School of Economics Debating Society on Tuesday 9 November 2021. This was a peaceful protest that attracted scores of students and others from all backgrounds, with many wishing to express their opposition to racist Israeli policies that have seen Palestinians dispossessed and oppressed for over 70 years.

Although the event passed off peacefully without any arrests the CST has since made unsubstantiated allegations about supposed anti-Semitism amongst the protestors and about the threat these types of protests pose to Jewish students, deliberately conflating anti-Israel activity with anti-Semitism. The CST has increasingly relied on this false equivalence to demonise anti-Israel campaigners, attempting to damage their credibility using the charge of racism.

The letter reminds the Charity Commission of its differential treatment of Jewish and Muslim charities. In recent years the watchdog has been at pains to remind Muslim charities to steer clear of taking positions on the Palestine issue, but it appears to have given the CST a free pass to support Israel, using underhand methods if desired.

The signatories call on the Charity Commission to launch an investigation into the CST which they say has breached the code on charities engaging in political activity, spreading racial hatred, and the requirement to remain impartial. The full letter can be read here.

IHRC Chair Massoud Shadjareh said: “It would seem that in the eyes of CST there is no good pro-Palestinian and everybody who opposes Israel’s subjugation of Palestinians is fair game for demonisation. This latest episode highlights once again how CST primarily behaves as an apologist for apartheid and a brutal illegal occupation.”

December 8, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , | Leave a comment

YouTube reveals mass problem of false copyright claims

Millions of videos falsely flagged

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 7, 2021

YouTube has published its latest transparency report – this being the first detailing the way the giant deals with copyright claims.

The big takeaway is that the copyright claims system is abused on a mass scale, as many observers believe it to be – 2.2 million videos have been targeted with fraudulent, or “incorrect” as YouTube put it, claims in the first half of this year alone, the report reveals.

Still, this is only a small fraction – under 1 percent – of overall copyright claims filed from January to June 2021, which amounted to a whopping 729 million. And 99 percent of those came from the automated and controversial Content ID system.

When creators decided to contest these bogus claims, their appeals were accepted in 60 percent of cases, YouTube claims, interpreting this number to mean that its copyright enforcement and appeals system represents “real recourse” and brushing off the long-standing, serious shortcomings as “no system being perfect.”

But creators who lose income thanks to false copyright strikes – when their content is blocked, muted, or stripped of ad revenue – are unlikely to be appeased by YouTube admitting to its faults and providing a glimpse into the numbers with the first of its kind copyright transparency report.

Despite being a massive platform and a financial juggernaut, YouTube is still failing to meet the goal set by CEO Susan Wojcicki all the way back in 2019, when she said the Google company was “exploring” how it might find “the right balance” between creators and copyright holders.

In the report, YouTube says that they have worked hard to assist the latter with even better tools to protect what they claimed as copyrighted content, while creators are being given tools and resources to help them “manage” their content.

YouTube also explains that there are three avenues they provide to copyright owners: the webform, which can be used by anyone and rarely results in takedown requests; the Copyright Match Tool available to more than 2 million channels hunting down reposted content; and finally, what YouTube calls its “award-winning” Content ID, which is responsible for 99% of all takedown requests – 722 million in the first six months of this year.

Content ID is geared towards serving “the most complicated rights management environments, like movie studios and music labels,” said YouTube.

December 8, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

“Masks were to soften you up for Plan B”

By Laura Dodsworth | December 8, 2021

‘Masks were a softening up exercise for Plan B,’ according to a government whistleblower. He told me that while there is little appetite in the Cabinet for a full lockdown, Covid Passes are ‘oven-baked’ and ready to go.

In my opinion, the UK government’s Winter Plan was always about Plan B. It displayed a classic ‘foot-in-the-door’ strategy – the raison d’être of Plan A was to prepare you for Plan B. Now winter is upon us, and the nudges fall in a flurry of torpefying snowflakes. Worst case scenarios, big numbers, salutary stories in the media, threats and cajolements are directed at us daily. Plan B is in motion as calls for working from home are heard from the usual suspects and we hear the Cabinet is divided on Covid Passes.

This seasoned government insider plays a key role on a Covid task force and has decided to speak out now because he is disturbed by the unethical reasons for mandating masks. Firstly, ‘It’s a highly political move to reset the Johnson administration’s orientation after bad polling over sleaze and corruption. If Omicron turns out to be super-bad and the public ask what the government did about it, the answer is we implemented masks. The one-way systems, plexiglass screens and masks are to give you an illusion of the government doing something. It’s just theatre. There is no evidence base or proportionality in favour of masks.’

Boris Johnson is a fan of deadcatting, a technique to deflect attention from one issue to another, akin to throwing a dead cat on a table during a heated debate to change the topic.  Masks are a dead cat. In this case rather than throw them on the table, the government have slung them on our faces.

Face masks are increasingly discredited, but certain journalists fell hungrily upon a recent new study which concluded that face masks reduce transmission by 53%. The Guardian, The Times, Metro and New Scientist positively feasted. However, that fragrant soupçon of a percentage was based upon weak evidence, there were confounding factors and caution was required when interpreting the study, as Fullfact explained.

‘The public are annoyingly on board about masks’, said this task force advisor. ‘Journalists have not demanded evidence that they work. But the message from the government and the media is hegemonic – everyone says they do work.’

As I set out in my book A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic masks are a nudge, even described as a ‘signal’ by David Halpern, the director of the UK government’s Behavioural Insights Team. Similarly, Professor Neil Ferguson said that masks remind us ‘we’re not completely out of the woods yet’. They serve as a visible public reminder of the pandemic, turning us back into walking billboards pronouncing danger. My source concurred: ‘Masks are a behavioural psychology policy. We need to stop pretending that it’s about public health. Nudge is a big thing in government.’

Despite ‘a pretty much unlimited budget to run trials’ they didn’t run one for masks ‘because they knew that they don’t work’. In effect, ‘the trial was Scotland versus England. And we found they don’t work.’

For this government insider the implications are now too serious to remain silent because ‘we are lying when we say masks work. They are a signal, a psyop. And we’ve criminalised not wearing them. Masks also transfer the blame onto individuals for the epidemic spreading. We have people counting the unmasked on public transport, policing each other. It is deeply unethical that we have set people against each other in this way. It allows the creation of an “out group” to blame.’ He points out that it is the government we should blame for not increasing healthcare capacity.

The timing of our conversation is interesting. He speaks to me just before the news about Downing Street Christmas parties breaks. People are rightly angry about hypocrisy and the pain of their own cancelled plans last year. The nation suffered last minute restrictions while Downing Street enjoyed revelry. More than one million pounds in fines have been served to nearly 2,000 Covid-19 rule breakers at Westminster magistrates court, including throwing and attending parties, while Boris Johnson evades punishment.

But the real point is not the hypocrisy, or that we suffered while they did not. Rather it is that those who organised and attended the party had a different risk calculus. They did not feel imperilled by parties and gatherings. They knew they were safe, just as they know that masks don’t work. What we are expected to believe is another matter.

As these distasteful double standards are unmasked, Ministers are considering whether to impose Plan B and roll out Covid Passes. When the Winter Plan was published, we were told that the trigger to move from Plan A to Plan B was if the NHS comes under ‘unsustainable pressure’. This was left deliberately vague. If you were watching cases and hospitalisations with an anxious eye, I’m afraid you were missing the more important signs: stories about doctors’ anger at the ‘selfish’ un-jabbed, daily polling via Twitter, TV shows and Yougov about the national appetite for Covid Passes and mandates, and the reintroduction of masks.

There is an army of behavioural scientists, communications specialists and Covid task forces focussed on Covid. The government insider told me there are hundreds of people in this Covid apparatus, even though we are no longer in an emergency. Robert Higgs talks about the ‘ratchet effect’ in his book Crisis and Leviathan whereby the state expands in response to a crisis and then doesn’t recede afterwards to its former level. The aura of emergency will not fade and we risk ever more stringent and unpalatable restrictions unless this apparatus is dismantled. Furthermore, public reputations have been staked on enforcing restrictions, including journalists, scientists and politicians.

The government insider is brutal about the reality of our situation: ‘England is teetering on the edge of a depressing, bureacratic, safety-obsessed society. We’re not at the level of Germany or Austria yet, but we’re on a precipice nonetheless.’ On his primary reason for calling me, he said he is ‘ashamed how much people believe in masks despite the lack of evidence’.

Our leader’s masks are slipping, exposing hypocrisy, psychological manipulation and barefaced lies. Frankly, I am ashamed of them.

December 8, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

A Constitutional Cure for Covid-19

By Marilyn M. Singleton, MD, JD – December 6, 2021

Covid, Covid, Covid. Variant, variant, variant. Trust me, I’m the government’s highest paid employee, and “I represent science.” Show your papers, wear a mask, take a shot or lose your job. And the beat goes on for an infection where 99.95 percent of infected persons under age 70 years recover. It’s becoming clear that Covid-19 is not merely a disease but an excuse to concentrate power in the government.

It’s time for the political histrionics to stop. Multiple studies have shown that the consequences far outweigh any potential (and illusory) benefits of masks, lockdowns, and school closures. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director admitted that the current Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, while helpful in reducing deaths and hospitalizations, do not stop transmission of the virus. “Breakthrough” cases in vaccinated persons are on the rise. Moreover, the current vaccines likely are not effective for the new, likely less lethal Omicron variant. Public health experts opine that the SARS-CoV-2 virus (that causes Covid-19) and its multiple variants are becoming endemic. That means SARS-CoV-2 and its infinite number of variants will not be eliminated, but become a manageable part of the human-viral ecosystem.

Sadly, our government is not responding in accordance with the scientific facts. Instead, federal and some local governments are mandating more vaccines, culminating in proof of vaccination to engage in society and continue living as a normal human being. This is not science. This is nascent totalitarianism.

Two lines from the 1990 Cold War era spy film, The Hunt for Red October foreshadowed our government’s warp speed trajectory to authoritarianism. “Privacy is not of major concern in the Soviet Union, comrade. It’s often contrary to the collective good.” And a White House official casually boasted, “I’m a politician that means I’m a cheat and a liar.”

It didn’t take long for President Biden to tell the big lie. As president-elect, Mr. Biden said there would be no vaccine mandates. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (the third in line for the presidency) brilliantly illustrated the intersection of lying and privacy. As late as August 2021, Speaker Pelosi said, “We cannot require someone to be vaccinated. That’s just not what we can do. It is a matter of privacy to know who is or who isn’t.”

Without skipping a beat, the executive branch issued three separate vaccine mandates: all federal contractors (including remote workers), an Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) requirement for businesses with more than 100 employees, and a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requirement for employees, volunteers and third-party contractors of health care providers certified by CMS.

The judicial branch is fighting back against the President’s attempt to jettison the Constitution’s separation of powers clauses, a large chunk of the Bill of Rights, and Supreme Court precedents on bodily autonomy with these mandates. On November 9th, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals put the OSHA mandate on hold. The Court reasoned that the mandate “threatens to substantially burden the liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between their job(s) and their jab(s).” And “the loss of constitutional freedoms ‘for even minimal periods of time … unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”

Citing the lack of congressional authorization and harm to access to medical care, on November 29th a Missouri federal district court placed a temporary halt on the CMS health care workers “boundary-pushing” mandate. The government planned to enforce the mandate by imposing monetary penalties, denial of payment and termination from the Medicare and Medicaid program. The ruling covers providers in Kansas, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.

On November 30th, a Louisiana federal district court blocked the CMS mandate issuing a nationwide injunction in a lawsuit brought by 14 states (Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia). “If the executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the legislative branch to make laws, two of the three powers conferred by our Constitution would be in the same hands. … [C]ivil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency.”

That same day, a Kentucky federal district court issued a hold on the federal government contractors mandate, citing lack of authority of the executive branch—“even for a good cause”. The court reasoned that if a procurement statute could be used to mandate vaccination, it “could be used to enact virtually any measure at the president’s whim under the guise of economy and efficiency.” The ruling covers Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.

The mainstream media finally reported on the toxicity and poor results of Dr. Fauci’s “standard of care” treatment, remdesivir. This prompted families to use the courts rather than watch their relatives needlessly die. Victories for patients are growing. A Chicago area judge recently ordered a hospital to “step aside” and allow a physician to administer ivermectin in an effort to save a dying patient. It worked.

People are tired of lies. When Google employees are signing a “manifesto” to fight the mandates, you know the seeds of revolt have sprouted.

December 8, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Media are gagging challenges to the Government’s Covid narrative

By Mark Sharman | TCW Defending Freedom | December 8, 2021

In his skyscraper office high above New York’s Sixth Avenue, Roger Ailes, then boss of the Right-leaning Fox News, was justifying his channel’s slogan, ‘Fair and Balanced.’

It was a well-rehearsed line. The rest of the US media, he said, were the liberal Left. ‘So we balance it  – and that’s fair.’

Later, an underling added that in America you chose the channel that best fuelled your own views. ‘It just depends on how you take your political medicine.’

On the flight home, I thought how fortunate we were in the UK, with a remit of impartiality in broadcasting; a duty to report fairly and evenly. Less than two decades later, I wonder what’s happened to those intrinsic values.

In all my years around newsrooms, decent journalists have seen it as their right and obligation to seek out the truth, to scrutinise and determine the facts. But on Covid-19, mainstream news outlets have seemingly kow-towed to the Government line, following the ‘official’ science.

Worse, opposing views have been ignored, blocked or summarily dismissed as ‘conspiracy theories’ or ‘misinformation.’ This is not honest journalism as I know it, especially at a time when the Government has extra powers of control over the population. I was taught early that the more someone pushed for or against a story, the more it needed investigating. So what changed?

It’s bad enough that Big Tech acts as the world’s censor, suspending or cancelling any accounts that carry unpalatable comments about the virus or the vaccines. But the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom has also muscled in.

The authority instructed broadcasters to be alert to ‘health claims related to the virus which may be harmful; medical advice which may be harmful; accuracy or material misleadingness in programmes in relation to the virus or public policy relating to it’.

When did it become the regulator’s job to determine debate on Government policy? In effect it discourages investigation of alternative views. And who decides what is accurate or misinformation anyway?

Some media outlets have their own ‘fact checkers,’ but I’m not overly encouraged that BBC News has a Specialist Disinformation Reporter (the title hardly suggests impartiality) or that Sky’s Digital and Forensics team compiled an article that begins: ‘Covid-19 conspiracy groups who have attempted to undermine efforts to bring the pandemic under control are increasingly sharing climate change misinformation.’

The terms prosecutor, judge and jury spring to mind – and try as I might, I couldn’t find any hard evidence that so-called ‘theories’ were bunkum. They weren’t proven either, but that’s not the point.

Maybe the root can be found in Event 201, a simulated global coronavirus pandemic exercise organised by the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security, in October 2019.

Advice to world governments included ‘flood the media with fast, accurate and consistent information’ (some would say propaganda), while media companies, for their part, ‘should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritised and that false messages are suppressed, including through the use of technology’.

We’ve certainly witnessed less-than-overt Government behaviour.

In her best-selling book A State of Fear, Laura Dodsworth charts how proven psychological techniques influenced the Government in frightening and intimidating the population, ‘nudging’ us to comply over Covid. And how mainstream media acted as cheerleaders in weaponising that fear.

It should make uncomfortable reading for any news executive.

Our Government is supposed to serve us, not use fear tactics to bring us to heel. As an industry, we should challenge the narrative much more rigorously, starting with the numbers. At least the BBC carries the small print, that deaths are from any cause within 28 days of positive test. However, these quickly become Covid deaths on many daily score charts. It’s inaccurate reporting. Or should I call it misinformation? Or again, propaganda?

Now the shame-and-blame game has shifted to the unvaccinated (I prefer vaccine-free), those ‘radical anti-vaxxers … spreading fake news’ according to Austria’s Chancellor as he introduced compulsory vaccination.

When did it become acceptable to persecute people who stand up for that most basic of human rights, that of their own body autonomy?

Why are we not outraged that our neighbours in the Netherlands, ordinary citizens, are shot by their own police? Or that Australians are beaten and shot by rubber bullets, or incarcerated in what has become a police state?

Are we ready to accept such a reaction on the streets of London, Birmingham or Sheffield? What angle would the MSM take, police violence or mob rule? Which way would the scales dip?

A recent protest, not widely reported, saw thousands of people marching through London; students, medics, teachers and ex-servicemen, of all ages and races, people with genuine concerns for their children and their democratic freedoms.

They seek the truth and nothing but the truth about the virus and, particularly, the safety of the vaccines. And they have deep convictions that the truth is not forthcoming from the Government or from broadcasters and newspapers.

And that’s the point. If the media continue to stifle alternative views that flourish on various social sites, and continue to follow the censorial state narrative instead of encouraging healthy open debate, they are fuelling the very ‘conspiracies’ they seek to dismiss.

December 7, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Subjugation - Torture | , | Leave a comment

TV show deletes poll after 89% oppose mandatory vaccination

RT | December 8, 2021

ITV breakfast television show ‘Good Morning Britain’ received backlash on social media after deleting a poll which showed a vast majority of respondents opposed mandatory Covid-19 vaccination.

The poll, which asked viewers whether it was “time to make vaccines mandatory” in response to the spread of the Covid-19 Omicron variant, was posted to Twitter on Tuesday and soon received more than 42,000 votes.

A whopping 89% of those who voted opposed any scheme to make vaccination mandatory, with just 11% in favour.

After the poll went viral, however, social media users noticed that it had been deleted by the Good Morning Britain Twitter account and critics accused the program of trying to cover up the public consensus.

“Why did you delete this poll, is it because you were asked? Or because it shows the people don’t support this sh*t, this tyrannical future your colleagues seem to want. We see you,” reacted one critic, while another suggested, “Guess that wasn’t the answer they were looking for.”

Good Morning Britain – which was hosted by controversial commentator Piers Morgan before his departure in March – did not explain why it removed the poll.

December 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

The Paucity of Evidence for Mandated Covid-19 Vaccine Boosters

BY ANDREW BOSTOM | BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE| DECEMBER 6, 2021

Federal legal challenges have temporarily enjoined the Biden Administration’s sweeping large business, health care worker, and federal contractor covid-19  vaccine mandates. Notwithstanding these injunctions staying primary covid-19 vaccine mandates, “amendments” mandating booster covid-19 vaccinations have already been issued, as examples, for New Mexico healthcare workers, and University of Massachusetts-Amherst students.

Dr. Allon Friedman’s recent Brownstone essay, citing randomized, controlled trial data on primary covid-19 vaccination, demonstrated, “The Pfizer and Moderna trials show that in lower risk populations (which account for most of society) COVID-19 vaccines do not reduce mortality.” Friedman concluded, “Therefore, [covid-19] vaccine mandates, which are enormously costly and terribly divisive, are a cure worse than the disease.”

Why did Dr. Friedman rely exclusively—and appositely—upon randomized, controlled trial data to justify his conclusion? Almost sixty years ago (in 1963) Campbell and Stanley published their seminal monograph on research methodology entitled “Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research.” This work, which shaped research designs ever since highlighted the major threats to validity that are avoided, uniquely, by the randomized controlled trial—a true experimental design.

Observational studies and all other non-randomized designs lacking parallel control groups, which they referred to as “quasi-experimental,” are fraught with known biases investigators attempt to control for, after the fact, with limited success. Worse still are intractable, unknown biases which the randomization process, alone, accounts for. Guyatt and colleagues, in their 2008 British Medical Journal paper “GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations”, updated and reinforced these ideas, appropriately assigning highest priority to randomized, controlled trial evidence.

On Friday, November 19, 2021, CDC Director Dr. Walensky endorsed the expanded recommendations of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) that booster (third dose) shots be provided to all adults 18 years of age, and older, who received their second Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine second doses, at least 6-months earlier.

What randomized, controlled trial evidence were the basis for this “unanimous decision,” touted by Dr. Walensky?

Although two small, published, randomized, placebo-controlled trials—one in kidney transplant recipients, and another in a general population—revealed enhanced immune responses to boosters, CDC’s recommendation clearly hinged upon a large, unpublished Pfizer randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

A month before the CDC expanded booster recommendation was announced, Pfizer’s “randomized trial results by press release” were issued (10/21/21). The ~10,000 person, placebo-controlled randomized covid-19 vaccine booster trial, yielded a 95.6% reduction in symptomatic covid-19 infections (i.e., 109 in the placebo group; 9 in the boosted group), after a median 2.5 months of follow-up. The press release also included this important caveat:

“The observed relative vaccine efficacy of 95.6% (95% CI: 89.3, 98.6) reflects the reduction in disease occurrence in the boosted group versus the non-boosted group in those without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

The November 19, 2021, ACIP presentation of Pfizer’s Dr. John Perez included enough data about prior infection to conclude boosters did not reduce covid-19 infections relative to placebo in this clinically relevant, ever burgeoning subgroup. Simple calculations (based upon the slides from pages 16 and 17) indicate there were only 2 symptomatic covid-19 infections among the 524 trial participants with a history of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1/275 who received boosters, and 1/249 given placebo injections (p=0.944 for incidence rate difference of 0.038%).

Moreover, CDC’s Dr. Oliver, in her ACIP review (p. 25) of Pfizer’s booster trial data, acknowledged that within the full cohort of ~10,000 there were no covid-19 hospitalizations or deaths, and no data to assess any impact on SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

These findings comprise a striking paucity of randomized trial evidence on the “efficacy” of boosters—literally none on the most clinically relevant outcomes of serious covid-19 morbidity and mortality. Even the potential effect of boosters on SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains unaddressed.

Rapidly accumulating data strongly suggest prior covid-19 infection, “natural immunity,” is more robust, flexible, and enduring than exclusive covid-19 vaccine-acquired immunity. Pfizer’s covid-19 booster trial data confirm boosters afford no benefit in preventing covid-19 infections among those with natural immunity.

Given these overall randomized trial findings regarding covid-19 vaccine boosters—absence of even a short- term reduction in mild covid-19 infections in those with natural immunity, and no data establishing that boosters prevent covid-19 hospitalizations, deaths, or SARS-CoV-2 transmission—there is no rational, evidence-based justification for covid-19 vaccine “booster mandates.”

Andrew Bostom, M.D. MS, is an academic clinical trialist and epidemiologist, who is currently a Research Physician at the Brown University Center For Primary Care and Prevention of Kent-Memorial Hospital in Rhode Island.

December 7, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »