Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Criminalizing Safe and Effective Non-Drug Covid Treatments

By Stephen Lendman | April 24, 2021

According to the US Federal Trade Commission:

“For the duration of the (covid) public health emergency (sic)” — what’s invented, not real — the (1944) Public Health Service Act makes it unlawful…for any person, partnership, or corporation to engage in a deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation, or diagnosis of (illness) or a government benefit related to (it).” 

“The Act provides that such a violation shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under Sec. 18(a)(1)(B) of the FTC Act.”

The above applies to the (Covid) Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) (December 2020).

Alternative treatments for various health issues are safe and effective.

Yet US dark forces want information about them suppressed in pushing hazardous to health covid mass-jabbing.

According to Professor of Internal Medicine/Chief of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School Dr. Paul Marik, he and medical colleagues are effectively treating seriously ill flu patients — now called covid.

Their therapy involves intravenous use of vitamin C, corticosteroids and the anticoagulant heparin to mitigate lungs inflammation, the main cause of death from flu/covid.

Vitamin D and zinc are also therapeutically effective in treating the illness.

According to Boston University School of Medicine’s Dr. Michael Holick, a study he and colleagues were involved in “provide(d) direct evidence that vitamin D sufficiency can reduce (covid) complications, including cytokine storms and ultimately death.”

Dr. Joseph Mercola maintains that vitamin C and D, zinc, selenium, and other natural supplements can help prevent, treat and cure covid.

On April 15, the Biden regime’s Justice Department and FTC “announced a civil complaint  against defendants Eric Anthony Nepute and Quickwork LLC (for) alleg(ed) violations of the (Covid) Consumer Protection Act (CCPA).”

“Defendants” are wrongfully charged with recommending vitamin D and zinc supplements to prevent or treat covid.

The DOJ and FTC seek “civil penalties and injunctive relief to stop the defendants from” recommending safe, effective alternative treatments in lieu of experimental, hazardous, unapproved mRNA technology and vaccines for covid.

CCPA “prohibits deceptive acts or practices associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation or diagnosis of” covid or other illnesses.

Instead of protecting US consumers, CCPA aims to criminalize health professionals who prescribe or recommend alternative treatments for covid instead of toxic drugs that risk irreversible harm to health when taken as directed.

There’s nothing remotely safe and effective about experimental covid drugs that don’t protect, risk contraction of the illness they’re supposed to prevent, along with any number of other serious diseases over the near-or-longer-term that can be lethal.

CCPA should be called the Pharma Protection Act — promoting what’s harmful to health, not beneficial.

Vitamins and minerals promote health. For many years, I’ve taken daily vitamin C, D and zinc supplements.

Along with no adverse effects, I haven’t had a common cold or flu in decades.

I strongly believe these readily available, low-cost supplements help protect and preserve health.

They’ve certainly done no harm.

I believe what helps me can be beneficial for others.

From what I learned from medical and scientific experts — information covered in my writing — experimental covid mRNA technology and vaccines are high-risk, potentially deadly, with nothing beneficial from taking them other than possible mitigation of covid symptoms somewhat if one contracts the illness.

They don’t prevent or cure it.

Everyone willing to be jabbed for covid is playing Russian roulette with their health — a foolhardy risk no one should take.

It’s notably so when safe, effective, low-cost drugs and alternative treatments are effective in preventing, treating, and curing covid.

April 24, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

YouTube censors RT for entertaining unapproved thoughts, but tyranny won’t build confidence in the prescribed narrative

By Tony Cox | RT | April 23, 2021

It’s bad enough that YouTube’s latest censorship move against RT reflects disregard for free speech and scientific principles. It’s also horrible strategy if Big Tech is trying to build public confidence in its favored narratives.

YouTube on Friday disappeared four videos from RT’s channel and assessed a strike, which will sanction the news outlet for one week. If it happens again, the next round of penalties will last for two weeks (as just hit RT’s German channel, RT DE). Eventually, enough alleged violations of community guidelines can get a channel evicted from the public square permanently.

And YouTube apparently can make that happen just about anytime it wants. The four offending videos were spread out over a period of several months, some dating back to last year, but they were rounded up at once, providing the four violations of community guidelines needed to assess a strike against the channel. And given how little it apparently takes for a video to be deemed in violation – and the lack of transparency around YouTube’s decision-making – there’s little that RT can do to failsafe against being censored again. It would have to follow CNN and other mainstream media outlets in producing only ruling-class propaganda, if even that would be safe.

The topics of the videos varied, but the common thread was that they revealed the existence of contrarian viewpoints. For instance, one was a livestream of an anti-lockdown protest in London, while another showed Covid-19 skeptics holding a demonstration in Birmingham, England.

RT didn’t endorse the views of the protesters, though in a free society, that should be allowed. According to YouTube, merely showing footage of these protests violated its policy against “medical misinformation,” showing content that “explicitly disputes” the guidance of local health authorities or the World Health Organization (WHO).

Another video was found to have violated the same policy, showing an interview with legendary Soviet virologist Dmitry Lvov about the dangers of the coronavirus outbreak and the efficacy of masks.

In our increasingly dystopian society, only one set of beliefs on certain key topics is allowed to be discussed. Disagreeing with those beliefs is forbidden. Even showing someone or a group of people who disagrees with those beliefs is prohibited.

Then again, it may depend partly on who shows it. YouTube removed another RT video in March because it showed former President Donald Trump talking about another forbidden topic, alleged fraud in the 2020 election. Videos of the same speech posted by mainstream outlets, such as Reuters and ABC, were initially allowed to stay up, although some were removed later. Different livestreams of the same speech were treated as either “problematic misinformation” or “authoritative news” by YouTube, depending on who posted them.

That kind of arbitrary and capricious application of the rules makes authoritarianism all the more scary. Incidentally, the other RT video that was taken down in the latest purge by YouTube, an episode of the “Wayne Dupree Show,” also somehow crossed the line with YouTube’s election sensitivities.

The platform’s attempts at thought policing betray an incredible level of contempt for humanity. People whom no one elected and who aren’t always right, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and the WHO, will prescribe how we all must think about a life-and-death topic. Fauci can flip-flop on his edicts and even admit to purposely misleading the public – as he did on the topic of herd immunity – but we all must follow his orders and pretend that no other ideas are worth even considering exist.

That level of arrogance is astounding. Our rulers keep talking about “following the science” – except biology, the science that is outlawed when it comes to transgender propaganda – but think about all the great scientists who would have been forever silenced if they had tried to make themselves heard in the era of Big Tech. Eratosthenes, Galileo Galilei and Sir Isaac Newton would have been thrown into social media prison, never to be heard from again, and they’d never get booked on CNN.

Good and honest science can stand up to being challenged, and when it loses an argument and is amended, it becomes better science. Likewise, free societies that respect human rights don’t try to cover up ideas that might conflict with a favored narrative.

When authoritarians try to crush open discussion, they send up red flags in the minds of thinking people. If your lockdown advice is so wise, why can’t we discuss it and examine the research? If your vaccines are so safe and effective, why force them on anyone or try to manipulate public opinion, as Fauci admitted to doing when he misled the public about herd immunity? If the election was won fair and square, why can’t we thoroughly investigate and then dismiss the allegations of fraud?

Going the censorship route, the best that Big Tech, the media and the billionaire globalists can hope for is to scare most people into obedience. Perhaps they want a world full of NPCs, non-player characters, to walk around like soulless drones, buying their products and shouting down the few free thinkers on command. But NPCs aren’t true believers, and real humans tend to push the boots off their faces eventually.

Tony Cox is a US journalist who has written or edited for Bloomberg and several major daily newspapers.

April 24, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Climate is the new Covid

The “public health policies” allegedly in place to fight Covid-19 are being rebranded as “saving the planet”

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | April 23, 2021

Yesterday was Earth Day. The traditional day environmental hashtags temporarily trend across all social media sites. This year was no different, with the exception of the stronger than usual whiff of agenda.

The narrative of the “deadly viral pandemic” is slowly losing momentum. Whether this is through the public having “post viral fatigue”(as it were), or a deliberate shift in media talking points is unclear. But there’s certainly less energy in the story than at this time last year.

That said, it’s also perfectly clear that governments around the world are in no mood to give up their newly acquired “emergency powers”, and that alleged “anti-covid measures” are not going away anytime soon.

Especially lockdowns, which are being freshly marketed as “good for the planet”.

The narrative that locking down the public was “helping the Earth heal” actually dates back to last March, when it was reported all across the world news that only a few weeks of lockdown had cleared up the water in Venician canals so much there were dolphins swimming through the city.

This story later proved to be completely untrue, but that didn’t stop dozens of outlets from picking up the story and running with it.

At various times in the intervening year, Covid has been sold as having an environmental silver-lining. Including potentially “saving the planet”.

Just last month, the Guardian published a story with the headline:

“Global lockdown every two years needed to meet Paris CO2 goals – study”

That this is all about marketing and opinion control is only further evidenced by the fact that, with a few hours, they edited the headline to remove mention of lockdowns, the new one reading:

“Equivalent of Covid emissions drop needed every two years – study”

At around the same time, they had another article, warning that emissions will increase to “pre-pandemic levels” once lockdowns are ended. Another saying lockdown has taught us to “love nature”. And another claiming the UK’s “star count” had increased thanks to lockdown.

All this kicked into another gear on Earth Day, the theme of which is Restore Our EarthTM (yes, it really is a registered trademark).

Yesterday morning I woke up to a news alert on my phone, claiming this Earth Day we should “celebrate how much the planet has healed during lockdown“.

Later, I saw an advert for a new documentary titled “The Year the Earth Changed”, chronicling the ways nature has rebounded during lockdown, and how much the “Earth has healed”.

To quote one review [emphasis added]:

… lockdown offers scientists a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to observe the extent of human impact on animal behaviour, by simply taking us out of the picture.

We can use what we learn to re-evaluate and modify our habits, they argue, instead of mindlessly returning to how things once were in a pre-pandemic world.

It says, before concluding:

It offers an affirmative slant – less ‘we are the virus’; more, the suffering of these last 12 or so months hasn’t been all in vain – as well as a way out of the environmental disaster that we’re unquestionably still facing.

An article in Forbes urges people to “embrace the lessons of the pandemic”:

… the planet has had a giant pause during the pandemic and had a chance to repair and reclaim itself. The planet is not the problem, we are, so how do we now continue some of the good efforts that we adopted under sudden social distancing and the threat of Covid-19?

The Evening Standard claims the pandemic produced a “70% drop in vehicle emissions” in the city of London.

A press release from the Washington State Department of Health says “tele-working could save the world”.

Sky News reports the UK’s carbon footprint is down 17% as the “pandemic forces people to adopt eco-friendly lifestyles”.

It goes on and on and on.

Essentially, “lockdowns” – which, we remind you, are not shown to have any impact on the transmission of the “virus” – are now being rebranded, not just as “good for public health”, but also good for the planet.

Before getting to the why of all this, let’s deal with the claim itself: Has the lockdown been good for the environment?

The answer to that is either “probably no” or “certainly not”, depending on your priorities.

For starters there are plastic-fibre disposable masks – which, we remind you, do absolutely nothing to prevent the spread of viruses – hundreds of thousands of which are now busily washing up on beaches, entangling wildlife and clogging sewers all over the world.

“What about emissions?” I hear you say, “won’t they be reduced?” Well, maybe. But if they are, it’s not by much.

The “lockdowns” have been sold in the press like a total halt to all human activity but, in reality, it’s mostly small businesses being closed down, and a lot of important-sounding but largely unproductive people having zoom meetings.

The militaries of the world still travel, the navies are still at sea. Public transport is still running, even if it is lessened in some places. Emergency vehicles keep chugging along. Rubbish and recycling are still collected. Container ships, cargo planes, long-haul trucks and freight trains are still taking goods to every part of the world.

The big retailers – WalMart, Tesco, CostCo, Amazon etc. – they are all still open, and their supply lines flow all over the world.

The idea that all human activity just stopped dead is a convenient lie, sold to the sort of people who still buy newspapers and believe that absolutely everyone (or at least, everyone who matters) works a job that a) involves commuting into a city, b) can be done just as easily at home.

This is of course untrue, and most of the real, vital work of keeping society moving still happens.

Mines, mills, and plants still exist. Power stations, dams and sewage processors are still ticking over. Even the service economy is still running, just with different people moving in the opposite direction. Deliveroo, Uber and JustEat drive cars, and any decrease in people going to restaurants will be counterbalanced by increased take-away deliveries.

Factories in China are still making all the things that are being shipped around the world and then delivered to our doors, rather than shipped around the world and having us going to get them. Is that really much of a change in emissions?

Whether you drive to Waitrose, or Waitrose drives to you, the same amount of fuel is being used. Ordering hand sanitiser, an exercise bike or some spare batteries online is not, in any way, more environmentally friendly than walking into town to buy them in person.

And that doesn’t even account for the increased use of electricity/gas caused by (some) people staying home more. Or the fact that many countries never locked down at all.

Even the study being cited in the Guardian admits the lower CO2 emissions for 2020 are merely “projections”.

In short, no, there is no publicly available evidence that “lockdown” was good for the environment at all.

And, indeed, the idea that it was doesn’t really make much sense when you think about it.

The interesting thing is there’s a whole bunch of articles out there which readily admit this. Such as this one in National Geographic, or this one from the BBC. And a handful of others too.

All arguing that the Covid19 lockdown won’t help stop climate change, or will have only a small impact on emissions, or might even make it worse in the long run.

Why? Because they are the other side of the propaganda. The proverbial stick to the “planet is healing” carrot. Telling people this lockdown won’t heal the planet because it’s not strict enough, or because when it stops we’ll go back to normal.

Scary, doomsaying headlines which leave an ellipsis they expect their readers to mentally fill in: “well, I guess we shouldn’t stop lockdowns then.”

This is not the only example of “anti-pandemic” or “public health” policies being turned to include climate change.

Last summer I wrote about an academic article that suggested “moral enhancement” for “coronavirus defectors”. It argued for putting chemicals in the water supply in order to make people more obedient to mask and/or vaccine mandates, and went on to suggest the same technique could be used to combat the “suffering associated with climate change”.

Even when not directly analogous there are plenty of headlines, interviews and articles which clearly seek to associate “Covid” and “climate change” in the public mind.

“Covid19 and climate crisis are part of the same battle”, headlined The Guardian in December. As well as “Covid gives us a chance to act on Climate”.

In an interview originally aired on Earth Day, Prince William urged the world to apply the same “spirit of invention” to climate change that they have done to Covid19 “vaccines”.

This ties in with the Royal’s “Give Earth a Shot” program… which was launched in December 2019, BEFORE the pandemic (or vaccines) ever became a talking point.

A timely reminder that a lot of the solutions proposed to fight the “pandemic”, were being suggested to fight other things before the pandemic even existed. A cashless society, decreased air travel, population control, mass surveillance, decreased meat production and others have all been on the agenda since long before Covid was close to becoming a thing… and have all been mooted as ways to fight this pandemic (or “future pandemics”).

Even the so-called Great Reset actually pre-dates the pandemic.

After all, what is the much talked about “green new deal”, if not a prototype of the WEF’s Great Reset plan?

Mark Carney – former governor of the Bank of England – called for an economic reset and “brand new financial system” in order to “fight climate change”, in a December 2019 article for the International Monetary Fund website… which was, again, weeks BEFORE the “pandemic” materialised.

That’s the takeaway message here, really: The agenda revealed by the past year of pandemic propaganda has always been there, it was just never quite so brazen. It was the before Covid, and will still be there if and/or when they stop talking about Covid altogether.

The “Great Reset” and the “New Normal” are policy goals that pre-date Covid, and are far more important than any of the tools used to pursue them. The created “pandemic” is nothing but a means to an end. They might discard or sideline the narrative of the virus, they might switch storylines for a few months, or stop using certain phrases altogether for a while. But that doesn’t mean their greater agenda has changed at all.

They’ve shown us their hand. They’ve told us – upfront and out loud – what they want to achieve.

Total economic control, marked depreciation of living standards, removal of national sovereignty and radical erosion of individual liberties.

That’s the endgame here. They said so.

It’s our responsibility to hold on to that knowledge and use it. To withhold any belief and see everything with a sceptical eye. Everything. Every story in the press. Every news item on the television. Any government pronouncement or piece of legislation.

Viruses or vaccines. Poverty or prosperity. Discrimination or diversity. War or world peace. The agenda doesn’t change.

Whoever is talking. Whatever they are talking about. Whatever they claim to want. The agenda doesn’t change.

Republican or Democrat. Conservative or Labour. Red or Blue. The agenda doesn’t change.

The colour doesn’t matter. Not even when it’s green.

Happy Earth Day.

April 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Americans alarmed over social media snooping reportedly carried out by USPS

RT | April 23, 2021

Internet users are fuming over a report detailing an alleged covert program run by the US Postal Service which monitors Americans’ social media posts for activity deemed unsavory, including political rallies.

Known as the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP), the program tracks social media platforms for “inflammatory” content  and shares that information with government agencies, according to Yahoo News, citing internal documents. The initiative is run by the law enforcement arm of the USPS, the US Postal Inspection Service.

A March 16 government bulletin obtained by the news outlet details how iCOP monitored “significant activity” regarding anti-lockdown protests that were planned in cities around the country and internationally on March 20. The document, marked as “law enforcement sensitive” and distributed by the Department of Homeland Security, said that information about the demonstrations was being shared on multiple social media platforms, including “right-wing leaning Parler and Telegram accounts.”

The memo flagged several posts discussing how the protests could be used as an opportunity to engage in a “fight,” but concluded that there was no intelligence to suggest they were legitimate threats.

The US Postal Inspection Service declined to answer questions about the program submitted by Yahoo News, but explained that iCOP “[assesses] threats to Postal Service employees and its infrastructure by monitoring publicly available open source information.” It said that it works with law enforcement agencies to “proactively identify” such threats, but does not discuss its “protocols, investigative methods, or tools,” in order to maintain “operational effectiveness.”

While the Postal Service remains tight-lipped about the program, many on social media have demanded accountability from the government agency.

“This is ridiculous and dangerous. It must end immediately!” tweeted conservative pundit Robby Starbuck.

“How can this possibly be under their purview?” asked another outraged observer of the Postal Service.

Others described iCOP as Big Brother “brought to life.”

Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie described the alleged snooping as “disturbing” and suggested that it was unconstitutional. He also wondered how the agency could afford the surveillance program, given its recent budgetary issues.

There were some commenters who seemed to think that there was nothing wrong with the practice, though, and that only people engaged in illegal activity should worry about public social media posts being monitored by government workers. Several replies to the story noted that the current postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, was appointed by Republican Donald Trump, making those who blame Democrats for the snooping look absurd.

April 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Europe can’t soft-pedal a sanitary techno-dictatorship while claiming to protect people from abuse by AI

By Rachel Marsden | RT | April 23, 2021

Europe can’t soft-pedal a sanitary techno-dictatorship while claiming to protect people from abuse by AI. Pick a lane, hypocrites.

The EU is proposing to regulate AI and facial recognition in the interest of privacy, while pushing ahead with an intrusive scheme that would strongarm citizens into disclosing private medical data through digital certificates.

This week, when logging into the French government’s TousAntiCovid smartphone application – a one-stop shop for everything Covid-19 related, including the latest statistics, news and self-certification forms to be out and about after the 7pm curfew – French citizens discovered a new feature had been quietly added: “My wallet: Your test certificates will be available here,” it reads.

The addition is detailed in the app as an “experiment in progress, only on some flights to Corsica” via Air France and Air Corsica – both of which are controlled in part by the French government through a 29% stake in Air France-KLM, making the state the company’s single largest shareholder.

“To digitize your test certificates and always have them at hand, it’s simple: once the result of your test is available, you will receive a text message with a link and instructions to follow,” according to the new feature. A button below the message can be clicked to activate the user’s camera and scan the QR code of a Covid-19 PCR test.

In an interview earlier this month with CBS News, French President Emmanuel Macron said that “we are building a European certificate to facilitate the travels after these restrictions between the different European countries with testing and vaccination. And the idea indeed is altogether to offer that to the American citizen when they decided to vaccinate or with a PCR test being negative.”

The royal ‘we’ is a reference to the European Union, which has also claimed to be working on a bloc-wide certificate. Hypocritical EU officials also introduced a proposal this week to regulate facial recognition and other artificial intelligence, lest any such technology risk violating personal privacy – kind of like the EU is working on doing with its scheme to have people disclose private medical information to anyone demanding it, under the guise of sanitary nanny statism.

The beta test that has just creeped up on the French government’s anti-Covid app for use on the airline it controls is a little toe dipped into the water of a potentially massive, privacy-breaching tsunami.

At what point do people start to rebel, to send the government the message that state intrusion into the most intimate aspects of their personal life – in this case their medical history – has gone too far? When the government asks for vaccination and antibody certificates to be uploaded? When it expands the program beyond use by Air France to other airlines? When it goes beyond air travel to everyday venues? When a hacker breaches the system and accesses sensitive information? When health insurers start demanding QR codes to Covid-19 related testing in order to reassess the cost of people’s premiums?

French people are known for taking to the streets at the slightest provocation. The now defunct Yellow Vest movement, a casualty of Covid-19 era mass gathering bans, initially ignited over a mere gas tax increase. The creeping sanitary authoritarianism evidenced by the recent Covid app update isn’t as alarming to people as a gas tax because it’s being soft-pedalled, introduced too incrementally to provoke a backlash. No one really cares right now if you need a negative PCR test scanned into your phone to board a plane to Corsica, except the relatively few people going there. And that’s not enough to raise a ruckus.

But the government is deliberately calling it an ‘experiment in progress’ for a reason. It obviously isn’t going to end there. Macron said as much to CBS News. He’s also creating a false dichotomy. Macron is suggesting that the certificates – which he has previously said would be optional (unless you want to leave the house, I guess) – would allow the virus to be controlled, while lifting domestic restrictions and allowing international tourism to resume. The alternative is to be forced to maintain restrictions.

But look, the restrictions will end when we, the people, say they will. And far too many citizens have yet to wake up to that fact.

The insecurity of governments regarding their capacity to contend with a virus, or terrorism, or any other perceived threat, isn’t our personal problem. And it certainly shouldn’t be a reason to invade people’s private lives without a court ordered warrant.

Demanding that everyone provide a Covid test as proof of sanitary ‘innocence’ is radically dystopian. If people want to be vaccinated, that’s their choice. If they don’t, then that’s their choice, too. They may choose to take their chances on catching Covid, and developing natural immunity.

The schizophrenic EU and its member states, like France, which constantly claim that personal privacy is a non-negotiable core value, need to pick a lane. Is Europe going to be a technology-enabled sanitary dictatorship? Or are you going to protect us from creeping fascism? Pick one. Because you can’t have both.

Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist and host of an independently produced French-language program that airs on Sputnik France. Her website can be found at rachelmarsden.com

April 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

Medical Tyranny on US College Campuses

By Stephen Lendman | April 23, 2021

It’s the wrong time for US youths with higher education aspirations in mind.

On increasing numbers of US campuses, it’s hazardous to their health and well-being to enroll at colleges and universities whose policies may irreversibly harm them near-or-longer-term.

After Rutgers in March required students to be jabbed with experimental, high-risk, unapproved, rushed to market, DNA altering Pfizer or Moderna mRNA technology that risks irreversible harm to health, a dozen or more US schools of higher education went the same way.

By mandating the above, they’re putting their student body in harm’s way — irresponsibly and recklessly endangering them.

Affected students should transfer to a school that respects their health, and legal right to decide all things related to their well-being.

Schools mandating covid jabs are in breach of federal law and the Nuremberg Code.

The former requires that individuals may “accept or refuse administration of” experimental, unapproved drugs.

According to the Nuremberg Code, voluntary consent is required on all things related to health.

By ignoring the above, US schools that require students to be involuntarily jabbed for covid are in flagrant breach of these standards and contemptuous of the health and rights of their student body.

They include Rutgers, Northeastern, Fort Lewis College, St, Edward’s, Roger Williams, Nova Southeastern, Brown, Cornell, Yale, Columbia, and Columbia College, Chicago.

My esteemed alma mater Harvard University strongly urges students to be jabbed for covid, short of mandating it so far, saying:

“We continue to strongly recommend that you seek vaccination opportunities from all sources available to you to prevent further delay,” falsely adding the following:

“The safety of (covid jabs) is a top government priority (sic).”

Fact: Polar opposite is true, what Harvard suppressed.

Fact: Government mandates and recommendations since last year are intended to inflict harm on individuals following them, not the other way around.

Fact: They’re all about instituting draconian control.

Fact: Experimental covid mRNA technology and vaccines are bioweapons to depopulate the US and other nations of individuals dark forces want eliminated.

Covid jabs “will help protect you from getting” the viral infection (sic).

Fact: Jabs increase the likelihood of being infected. Harvard falsely claimed otherwise.

“(Y)ou may experience some side effects after receiving the injection (sic).

“This is a normal sign that your body is building protection (sic).”

Fact: Toxic jabs risk serious harm to health and no protection.

Fact: The more jabs, the greater the risk.

Fact: Jabs risk contraction of any number of serious diseases short-term or later on.

Fact: For the elderly with weak immune systems, allergic individuals and others, they can kill.

“The cost of the vaccine is covered by the government.”

Fact: To encourage mass-jabbing, US dark forces are incentivizing uninformed Americans to self-inflict harm.

Covid jabs “are one of many important tools to help us stop this pandemic (sic).”

“Once you’ve received your jab, continue to wear your mask and socially distance in public places (sic).

Fact: No pandemic exists, just normal annual outbreaks of seasonal flu-renamed covid to scare us into self-inflicting harm by following draconian mandates and recommendations.

Fact: Masks don’t protect and risk serious harm to health when worn longterm.

Fact: Social distancing provides no protection. It undermines normal interactions — essential to every day life.

Fact: It’s unnecessary and destructive of interpersonal relations, while providing nothing beneficial.

Voice of America, part of the US worldwide propaganda system, falsely said the following:

“The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved use of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines (sic).”

False on two counts! These drugs are NOT vaccines.

They’re hazardous, experimental, unapproved DNA altering mRNA technology — given emergency use authorization when no emergency exists.

According to American College Health Association’s Covid Task Force co-chair Gerri Taylor:

“We would love for all our students to be vaccinated before they go home to either places in the US or places in other countries, because if they go there unvaccinated, they could actually carry the virus to their families and communities (sic).”

All of the above claims are part of the most widespread ever state-sponsored mass deception campaign to convince maximum numbers of unwitting people to follow a high-risk with no reward protocol.

Protecting and preserving health requires rejecting it.

Above all, it’s vital to health and well-being to refuse being jabbed with what’s unneeded and may cause irreversible harm if used as directed.

When I was on campus long ago — circa 1950s — nothing remotely like the above existed.

In college and graduate school, I recall no health-related mandates of any kind.

None should exist today beyond encouraging students not to self-inflict harm by following good health practices — not the other way around like what’s going on today.

A Final Comment

According to draconian Yale and Columbia diktats, students unwilling to be jabbed for covid will be barred from classrooms and prohibited from coming on campus — except for those with medical, religious or other exemptions.

Unacceptable policies instituted by the above colleges and universities may likely be mandated at many others in the coming weeks and months.

Instead of protecting students, they’ll be harmed near-or-longer-term, proving what’s unthinkable.

In the US, higher education is becoming hazardous to students instead of protecting and preparing them for endeavors they seek to pursue.

April 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

NYU Professor Fights Back Against the Academic Crybullies

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Mark Crispin Miller teaches a course on Mass Persuasian and Propaganda at the NYU Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development for 20 years. He is now suing 20 department colleagues for libel after they signed a letter to the dean of his school demanding a review of Miller’s conduct. Today we talk to Miller about his course, his views, his libel suit, and the state of free speech in the era of increasing COVID tyranny.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Minds / Odysee / YouTube or Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES:

MarkCrispinMiller.com

“Masks Don’t Work” by Denis Rancourt

Change.org petition: Under attack at NYU, Mark Crispin Miller needs your support for academic freedom

MCM’s libel lawsuit, complete (thus far)

Help Mark Crispin Miller sue for libel (GoFundMe)

Nope, Aristotle Did Not Say, “It Is the Mark of an Educated Mind to Entertain a Thought Without….”

Conspiracy Theory in America by Lance Dehaven-Smith

Masking ourselves to death: Part 1 of 3

The Gray Lady Winked

April 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Johnson’s proposed spy-law reveals an unsustainable double standard in how dissent is treated at home and abroad

By Kevin Karp | RT | April 21, 2021

The PM’s proposals for a US-style Foreign Agents Registration Act and strengthening of powers under the Official Secrets Act claim to be about protecting against ‘foreign interference’, but really only stifle freedoms in Britain.

Boris Johnson is set to announce a raft of legislative proposals aimed at curtailing activities of foreign agents in Britain at the forthcoming Queen’s Speech on May 11.

Within the draft bill is a requirement for any individual working on behalf of a foreign government to register with British authorities or face criminal prosecution. This appears to be modelled after the foreign agent registry the United States brought in using the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).  The proposals also include an expansion of the Official Secrets Act to allow foreign cyberattackers targeting the UK to be prosecuted and a significant widening of what type of intelligence theft is punishable under law.

Though Johnson claims the reason for expanding these powers is the ever present spectre of Russia – the “most acute threat” to British security in Europe, apparently – the real threat to British citizens’ security comes from how the UK government and the governments of its allies are using, and could use, this type of legislation.

According to the current version of the Official Secrets Act, which traces its origins back to 1911, stealing “any sketch, plan, model or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy” is forbidden. The proposed new designation changes that to any “document, information or other thing” and replaces “enemy” with  “foreign powers.” What the Johnson government is really doing here is diverting scrutiny away from its own stifling of individual freedoms under the pretext of battling foreign interference. Here’s how.

The House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee’s (ISC) report of 2020, which has formed the basis for much of Johnson’s recent proposals, probed claims of Russian state-supported interference in the British electoral process. This is exactly the type of alleged interference the new bill would presumably address. That report stated, “The UK is clearly a target for Russia’s disinformation campaigns and political influence operations and must therefore equip itself to counter such efforts.”

The problem is, British authorities have already shown themselves to be woefully biased and inept in assessing what is foreign-backed interference. For example, the ISC report alleges that “Russia’s promotion of disinformation and its attempts at broader political influence overseas” and included Russian broadcasters RT and Sputnik in that bracket. But the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, referred to as a source in the report, merely cites examples of these outlets broadcasting content critical of the European Union. This coverage, which the Commons report documents as having occurred during the run-up to the 2016 EU referendum, was grouped under the heading “anti-EU bias” simply for presenting opinions that differed from those of then-Prime Minister David Cameron.  This was the same David Cameron whose government so vociferously supported the Remain side of the referendum: he spent £9 million of public money sending out pro-EU propaganda pamphlets to every home.

By this spurious definition of ‘disinformation’ the views of a majority of Britain at the time – i.e., those who supported Brexit – could be considered to have been potentially “fomented by Russian subversion” for contradicting the then-government’s official stance. Johnson’s (who incidentally, supported Leave) proposals, if they used that definition, could open the door to classing any oppositional view as a piece of “information or other thing” useful to “foreign powers,” merely for dissenting with an official stance from Whitehall or Westminster.

But of course Johnson himself is no stranger to spreading the odd bit of ‘disinformation’. At the end of the last decade mainstream British papers and US government-funded troll artists smeared Jeremy Corbyn using tactics the prime minister hopes to enshrine in law. As public support grew for the supposedly socialist economic program of the then-Labour leader, media and government attempts to discredit him as a Russian agent intensified as the December 2019 UK General Election approached.

When in November of that year the Corbyn campaign revealed a lengthy dossier pointing toward the Johnson government’s alleged plans to privatize the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) as part of a Brexit deal – despite Johnson’s public promise to the contrary – both the Telegraph and the Guardian released stories that claimed Russian involvement in the dossier’s leak.

Their source for the allegation was Ben Nimmo, a former fellow at the NATO funded Atlantic Council, which has a long standing animosity toward Russia, and director of data-consulting firm Graphika, none of which qualifies him to espouse on where the NHS dossier may have come from.

Even Alba Party leader Alex Salmond – as Boris Johnson has already adamantly refused another referendum on Scottish independence even if nationalist parties win a majority in the Holyrood elections in May – could be classed an abettor of a foreign power under these new laws for working for RT. The 2020 ISC report also details a section on supposed Russian interference in the 2014 Scottish-independence referendum, citing a study by none other than the Russia-baiting Ben Nimmo as a dubious primary source.

Oppositional journalism itself would be under threat if these laws ever came into effect. For example, the British and US thumbscrews already being applied to WikiLeaks and its imprisoned founder Julian Assange could be twisted even tighter.  Washington’s ongoing attempt to extradite him from London, on the basis of his leaking classified documents on American war crimes, comprises 18 charges under the US Espionage Act, which is a broadly similar law to the UK’s Official Secrets Act.

An expanded Official Secrets Act would make it even harder for whistleblowing organizations like WikiLeaks and individuals like Assange to conduct their work in the UK or even just while in contact with UK-based individuals. The judge who refused Assange’s extradition to the US on grounds it would exacerbate his mental distress has already indicated that, if Assange had been operating within the jurisdiction of the UK, he would have violated the Official Secrets Act as it currently stands.

Broadening the definition of an “official secret” could accordingly strengthen a British case against Assange and the operations of WikiLeaks, further undercutting what scant protections the British legal system currently offers him. Under the increased powers Johnson wants to go after foreign hackers, Assange and those like him could be grouped as cyberattackers operating from abroad against the UK, whether or not their operations took place on British soil.

Abroad, meanwhile, Johnson’s legal juggernaut is an attempt to smother Moscow and Beijing’s exposure of illegal British operations overseas by whipping up indignation over “foreign interference” in Britain. Johnson remarked in Parliament recently that “the Russian state used a chemical weapon in Salisbury” to poison former Russian spy Sergei Skripal in 2018, despite lacking substantiated evidence to prove the claim.

Johnson is launching verbal salvoes like these because Moscow and Beijing’s exposure of dirty Western tactics has been getting uncomfortable for leaders like him.  The Western-backed opposition figure, Alexey Navalny, whose alleged poisoning by the Russian state led the UK, EU, and US to impose a fresh round of sanctions on Russia, was labeled by Vladimir Putin in December 2020 as having “the support of the special services, those of the United States in this particular case.”

In a joint statement delivered in March, Wang Yi and Sergey Lavrov, the foreign ministers of China and Russia, expressed solidarity against Western interference in the sovereign affairs of their respective countries. Wang made the statement even more explicit, noting that “[Western powers] should know that the days of inadvertently interfering with Chinese internal affairs by inventing lies have already passed.”

Russia and China released this statement right after the US, the EU, the UK, and Canada approved sanctions against Chinese state officials over alleged human-rights abuses of Uighurs in Xinjiang.  Yet a slew of pro-Xinjiang organizations are actually funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which is itself funded by the US government, making these movements, which call for Xinjiang to form a separatist state, effectively agents of Washington.

All of which points to the dangerous dichotomy being furthered in Johnson’s forthcoming bill: while presuming that all manifestations of “pro-Western” illegal activity against rivals like Moscow and Beijing are legitimate and lawful, the UK and US are recklessly smearing legitimate and lawful domestic dissent as criminal fifth-columnist subversion.

Kevin Karp is a commentator, screenwriter, and former political adviser in the House of Commons and the European Parliament. As an EU adviser based in Brussels and Strasbourg, he specialized in international trade, European populism, and Brexit. Find his website at moon-vine-media.com.

April 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Feds On Vitamins and COVID: Shut Up or Pay Up!

Alliance for Natural Health | April 22, 2021

More lunacy from the federal government threatens doctors with $10,000 fines if they tell you the science about how vitamins and minerals can help with COVID.

The Department of Justice (DoJ) recently announced the first enforcement action against “deceptive marketing” of COVID treatments. The case involves a Missouri chiropractor who is alleged to have advertised that a vitamin D and zinc supplement could prevent or treat COVID—claims that are well-supported in the scientific literature. This is a disturbing and outrageous escalation in the federal government’s actions against doctors and health professionals that inform the public about natural ways of staying healthy during the pandemic, underscoring the need to change the law to allow the free flow of information about foods and supplements.

Previously, the FDA and FTC sent hundreds of warning letters to doctors and clinics discussing the role of natural medicines promoting public health during the pandemic. Then a strategy was put in place to enable the FTC to go after these health professionals with more force. The COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act was introduced on December 20th in the House and Senate, then added to an appropriations bill on December 21. On December 27th it was signed into law.

That’s right: right before the Christmas holiday, when the government knew focus would be elsewhere, this law was introduced, buried in a spending bill to further conceal it, and signed into law—all within seven days.

The law “prohibits deceptive acts or practices associated with the treatment, cure, prevention, mitigation or diagnosis of COVID-19,” violation of which can result in civil penalties. Statute allows the FTC to assess $10,000 for each violation; multiple fines can be doled out based on a single claim. State consumer protection laws could also come into effect, allowing potential class actions.

This is a clear warning to those in the natural health profession: either push vaccines and drugs for COVID-19, or keep your mouth shut.

The DoJ’s actions are astounding. For one, we are in the midst of a pandemic and don’t have time to wait for the ongoing RCTs—which can take years—when strong clinical evidence shows that supplements that pose little risk can be helpful. And the evidence we have for things like vitamin D and zinc is strong. We recently reviewed the evidence for vitamin D’s role in COVID, noting the dozens of studies that show COVID patients with higher vitamin D have better outcomes, not to mention vitamin D’s key role in immune function. There are also clinical trials confirming vitamin D’s ability to prevent upper respiratory infections.

Zinc is also incredibly important for immune function. Although more common in the developing world, 12 percent of Americans are estimated to be at risk for zinc deficiency. We know that immune function is compromised with zinc deficiency; indeed, those with low levels of zinc are at much greater risk of being hospitalized and experiencing severe COVID disease. There is increasing evidence for the role of zinc in reducing the severity of COVID-19 disease and also in COVID prevention.

It is incredibly irresponsible for the federal government to target healthcare professionals who disseminate information about these vital nutrients. We can help right this wrong with our legislation that allows the free flow of information about supplements. … Continue

April 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Airlines Won’t Call Digital ID A ‘Vaccine Passport’ Because “It Carries Too Many Connotations”

By Steve Watson | Summit News | April 21, 2021

A report from Yahoo News notes that airlines won’t be calling the imminent vaccine passports by that name because “It carries too many connotations,” according to one aviation CEO.

The forthcoming ‘digital certificates’ that will show COVID-19 vaccination status won’t be referred to as vaccination passports says Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian, because that would turn people off.

Bastian declared that airlines are “more focused on a credential, travel credential, if you will, to indicate that you’ve been vaccinated and or tested based on the regulatory requirements.”

The CEO added that he expects “Either a vaccination or a test,” to be a requirement to travel, and airlines are “working with a number of technology providers to be able to facilitate that in an open source way.”

Right. A vaccine passport then.

That is exactly what the ID will be, but never mind, just call it something else to placate the sheeple and hope they remain only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.

It’s the exact same policy that the UK government is adopting for the system which is slated not only for international travel but also domestically. We are also reliably informed that the vast majority of Brits are willing to accept vaccine passports in order to engage in basic day to day activities, and that they are willing to go along with the digital ID card system PERMANENTLY.

Recent surveys also indicate that almost half of Americans support the introduction of vaccine passports in order to get “back to normal.”

Airline consultant Mike Boyd warned that the companies “would rather not deal with this, but they need to express their points of view very carefully,” adding that creating a global protocol to enforce vaccine passports “could resemble a DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles] on steroids.”

The EU is already ensconced on the vaccine passport road, with a bloc wide ‘Digital Green Certificate’ system set to be rolled out in June.

April 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

Mandatory Covid Mass-Jabbing of Students at Columbia College, Chicago

By Stephen Lendman | April 21, 2021

In late March, Rutgers University president Jonathan Holloway explained the following:

Students arriving on campus this fall will be required to be jabbed for covid.

According to Holloway, it’s to “provide a safer and more robust college experience for our students (sic).”

There’s nothing remotely safe and effective about experimental, unapproved, hazardous mRNA technology or vaccines.

Covid is seasonal flu renamed.

Despite years of research, scientists never located an alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus claimed responsible for causing covid.

If not found, perhaps it doesn’t exist.

How then can what may not exist produce a virus or anything else harmful to health?

Covid and seasonal flu/influenza are two names for the same viral illness.

Their symptoms include coughing, shortness of breath, fatigue, sore throat, runny nose, muscle pains, body aches, headache, loss of taste, appetite, and/or smell, and at times vomiting and diarrhea.

Symptoms can be mild or more serious, the latter more likely for individuals over age-70.

Serious complications can include pneumonia, respiratory failure, sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cardiac injury, multiple organ failure, worsening of chronic medical conditions, inflammation of heart, brain or muscle tissues and secondary bacterial infections.

When occur, the elderly or others with weakened immune systems are most vulnerable.

Years earlier when flu killed up to 650,000 people worldwide in a six-month season, no shutdowns, quarantines, masks, social distancing, and mass-jabbing were called for and heavily promoted by media propaganda.

Yet all of the above and other draconian policies have been in place in the West and elsewhere since seasonal flu underwent a name change early last year.

In mid-April, Chicago-based Columbia College announced the following covid mass-jabbing policy:

For the fall semester beginning September 7:

Students residing on campus are required to be jabbed for covid before “mov(ing) in (to their) residence halls” this September.

All “Fall 2021” students must be jabbed for covid.

“International students already vaccinated in another country with a vaccine not approved by the (FDA) will not be required to be (jabbed), but (jabbing) will be made available to them.”

“The college’s health experts at Rush University Medical Center… advised… that it is safe (sic) for a person (jabbed) with another (covid drug) to be re-(jabbed) with (an) existing USFDA-approved” one.

There are none at this time, and Columbia failed to explain — FDA emergency use authorization alone when no emergency exists.

“International students who arrive (unjabbed) from another country will be required to begin a (jabbing) course upon arrival to campus.”

“(T)he college expects to start offering (covid mass-jabbing) on campus over the next two weeks.”

“The college anticipates its initial batch of doses to be the Pfizer” experimental, rushed to market, high-risk, DNA-altering mRNA technology Columbia falsely called a “vaccine.”

“Future doses may be Moderna(’s) (mRNA technology) or Pfizer.”

“Use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is currently suspended by federal and local health authorities.”

According to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), nearly 800 — potentially life-threatening — blood clots were experienced by individuals in the US jabbed with Pfizer, Moderna, or J & J covid drugs.

Overall from mid-December to April 8, over 68,000 adverse events and more than 2,600 deaths were reported.

According to HHS, these numbers captured “fewer than 1% of injuries.”

Actual numbers of adverse events over 100-times more than reported totals — harm on a massive scale, rising exponentially as long as this uncontrolled madness continues.

Columbia College added that “faculty and staff will not be required (to be jabbed for covid), but will be strongly encouraged.”

As explained to me by a Columbia faculty member on April 20, “compuls(ory) weekly PCR testing (will be) institute(d) for (unjabbed) faculty and staff…who will be on campus.”

What Rutgers announced weeks earlier, Columbia is now instituting — perhaps many more US colleges, universities, and public schools to follow.

Instituting this policy breaches federal law 21 USC § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III).

It requires that individuals may “accept or refuse administration of” experimental, unapproved drugs.

According to the Nuremberg Code, voluntary consent is required on all things related to health.

The FDA’s Fact Sheet on Pfizer’s mRNA technology states:

“It is your choice to receive or not receive (it). Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care.”

The same holds for other experimental covid jabs.

The Congressional Research Service states:

Private businesses (and other entities) are subject to civil liability unless they comply “with applicable directions, guidelines, or recommendations by the (HHS) secretary…”

Mandating covid jabs with experimental, unapproved drugs flagrantly breaches US federal law and the Nuremberg Code.

Yet unjabbed Columbia students — as well as faculty and staff not complying with weekly PCR tests — most likely will be barred from campus.

These policies — and today’s brave new world regimen — show indifference to health and well-being by ignoring the legal right of individuals to choose on all things related to health and well-being.

A Final Comment

Columbia College, my residential building, and other public places follow draconian/harmful to health federal, state of Illinois, as well as Chicago guidelines and mandates.

They include:

Masks that don’t protect and risk harm to health from longterm use.

PCR tests not designed to diagnose viral infections.

Social distancing that disrupts normal interactions.

Restrictions on numbers of people permitted to gather in public.

Disinfecting public places.

Travel restrictions.

Personal hygiene requirements and recommendations.

Workplace requirements.

Testing, jabbing and tracking.

Federal, state, and local policies are all about instituting social control, along with manipulating people to self-inflict harm.

They’re unrelated to protecting and preserving public health.

If that aim was prioritized, none of the above policies would have been instituted.

Not intended to be short-term, they’re highly likely to be in place longterm — perhaps permanently.

Forever mass-jabbing was planned, promoted by Pharma and their media press agents.

Two jabs aren’t enough. Drug companies called for annual or semi-annual booster jabs instead of flu shots — no longer needed after renaming the seasonal illness covid.

Left unexplained is that repeated jabs increase the risk of serious harm to health near-or-longer-term.

Protecting and preserving health requires refusal to play fast and loose with what’s too precious to lose.

April 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Sound The Alarm!

Scott Jensen | April 16, 2021

Immoral vaccine passports serve the purpose of creating a biosecurity state with both government and private sector invasion of our rights.

April 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »