Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Here’s what I found at the reported ‘mass grave’ near Mariupol

A first-hand look at the location where Kiev claims trenches hold thousands of bodies

© Eva Bartlett
By Eva Bartlett | Samizdat | April 28, 2022

According to recent Western media, Russian forces have buried up to 9,000 Mariupol civilians in “mass graves” in a town just west of the Ukrainian city. These reports use satellite imagery as supposed evidence and repeat the claims of officials loyal to Kiev that “the bodies may have been buried in layers” and “the Russians dug trenches and filled them with corpses every day throughout April.”

I went to the site in question and found no mass graves.

On April 23, I joined RT journalist Roman Kosarev on a visit to the location, in the town of Mangush. What I saw were new, orderly grave plots including some still empty ones – an extension of a cemetery that already exists at the spot. No mass pit. Many of the graves have placards with the names and dates of birth of the deceased when available, and the remaining plots were numbered according to burial.

Since the media is essentially copy-pasting from the same source – the former mayor of Mariupol, Vadym Boichenko (who seems to be far from the city now) – I’ll cite from the Washington Post’s article.

Boichenko, the article notes, “called the site the ‘new Babyn Yar,’ referring to one the largest mass graves in Europe located in the outskirts of Kyiv, where 33,000 Jews where killed by Nazis in 1941 during World War II.”

This is ironic on several levels. A mayor who is whitewashing the neo-Nazis who have run amuck in his city – notably those from the Azov Battalion, who have used civilians as human shields, occupied and militarized civilian infrastructure, point-blank executed civilians – is comparing an alleged (non-existent) mass grave to a Nazi massacre of WWII.

Meanwhile, the Kiev regime has re-written history, making WW2 Nazis and their collaborators heroes of the nation. The most notorious example being the WWII figure Stepan Bandera.

Boichenko’s other alarming claim was that the alleged “mass grave” was “the biggest war crime of the 21st century.” We are only 22 years into it, but we’ve already seen the US-led invasion and destruction of Iraq, the levelling of Syria’s Raqqa, Saudi Arabia’s ongoing war in Yemen – all of which are much stronger contenders than the nowhere-to-be-found “mass graves” of Mangush.

In reality, the site has around 400 individual plots, including nearly 100 empty ones. The 9,000 bodies and “biggest war crime of the 21st century” were unverified claims made by a mayor who fled his city, promoted by media which down the page admitted they could independently verify the claims – but by then, the damage had been done.

Gravediggers disprove mass grave claims

While walking around the site, two men responsible for burials arrived, and when presented with the former mayor’s accusations of mass graves they vehemently rejected the claims.

“This is not a mass grave and no one is throwing bodies into a pit,” one told me.

© Eva Bartlett

According to them, they bury each person in a coffin and separate grave, details are logged in the morgue, and when any documents regarding name and age are given, the plot is marked with a placard containing those details. Otherwise a number is used.

Interestingly, they also noted that a section of the new graves included buried Ukrainian soldiers. “They’re human, too” one of the men said.

For those in doubt as to the location, see Roman’s report: his drone footage shows that it’s precisely the same location as shown in the satellite images used by Western media.

Meanwhile, as Roman noted while walking, mass graves is something Ukraine has previously been accused of. He cited DPR leader Denis Pushilin as having stated that at least 300 such sites have been discovered since 2014.

He also spoke of what he witnessed. “In 2014 or 2015, mass graves were discovered as Azov or Aidar fighters retreated from the Donetsk region. I even saw a woman, she was dug up, she had her arms tied behind her back, she was in the late stages of pregnancy and she had a hole in her head, so that means she was executed.”

American journalist George Eliason, who has lived in Lugansk for many years, has written about these alleged atrocities. In a documentary on the issue, he said: “I’m here for five minutes and then I’m told the first five people they found, it was five decapitated heads. They were all civilians. Who does this to people?”

This story of a mass grave in Mangush is another fake from the Western corporate media, which previously pushed incubator babies being thrown on the floor by Iraqi soldiers, pushed lies about WMDs in Iraq, and carried reports of a chemical attack in Douma that never happened, to name but a few of their litany of hoaxes.

Meanwhile, when I was in Mariupol on April 21 and 22, yes there was destruction – thanks to those Neo-Nazi & regular Ukrainian forces occupying upper floors of residential buildings and using them as military positions, thus drawing return fire on the buildings – but I also saw people in the streets, and the beginning of the cleaning up process before rebuilding can occur.

I’ll repeat what I’ve said on Western media reporting on Syria (which in my experience, from on the ground in that country, is largely dishonest): those who promote these hoaxes and war propaganda have blood on their hands.

After the countless lies emanating from Western corporate media, I would hope people would exercise critical thinking whenever a new claim is pushed, particularly when it is repeated in chorus by the usual suspects.

April 28, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Video | | Leave a comment

The Guardian inadvertently shakes up Bucha narrative

By Drago Bosnic | April 28, 2022

When the events in Bucha were first reported, Ukrainian and Western mainstream media were unanimous – Russian Armed Forces were the alleged “perpetrators of the Bucha massacre”, while some even called it a “genocide”. The Ukrainian side claims Russian troops killed at least 412 people, while so-called “independent” sources state there were 50 victims. The peculiar claims were completely unsupported by any actual official investigation by any neutral side. The Kiev regime and their Western sponsors flatly refused to allow an international investigation, while any claims contrary to the official narrative were immediately suppressed. If anyone dared to question the narrative, they would be labeled “conspiracy theorists”, “genocide deniers” and “Putin’s propagandists”.

It is more than clear that such a blunt approach to the events in Bucha is designed to silence not just those opposing the official narrative, but even those who are not invested with either side and simply want answers to legitimate questions regarding the veracity of mainstream media reports. This completely removes any sort of public debate, limiting it to one-sided talkshows where so-called “pundits” are called to brainwash the public into thinking that the Russian military is entirely composed of alleged rapists, murderers, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. By pushing this narrative, the mainstream media are “normalizing” Russophobia and anyone trying to denounce it is promptly silenced.

However, lies are still lies. And they are significantly harder to sustain than the truth. The truth is just truth, it stands by itself. Lies require the liar to circumvent and twist facts. In other words, more lies are necessary to sustain just one. It’s a neverending rabbit hole which inevitably spirals out of control. And precisely this happened on 24 April, when The Guardian published an article about new findings regarding the events in Bucha. According to the UK-based daily, “independent” investigators found evidence of fléchettes used by artillery (supposedly Russian) in Bucha.

“Independent” pathologists and coroners who are carrying out postmortems on bodies found in mass graves in the region north of Kyiv, where “occupying” Russian forces have been accused of alleged atrocities, said they had found small metal darts, called fléchettes, embedded in people’s heads and chests, the report stated.

“We found several really thin, nail-like objects in the bodies of men and women and so did others of my colleagues in the region,” Vladyslav Pirovskyi, a Ukrainian forensic doctor, told The Guardian. “It is very hard to find those in the body, they are too thin. The majority of these bodies come from the Bucha-Irpin region.”

“Independent” weapons experts who reviewed pictures of the metal arrows found in the bodies, seen by The Guardian, confirmed that they were fléchettes, an anti-personnel weapon widely used during the First World War.

These small metal darts are contained in tank or field gun shells. Each shell can contain up to 8,000 fléchettes. Once fired, shells burst when a timed fuse detonates and explodes above the ground. Fléchettes, typically between 3cm and 4cm in length, release from the shell and disperse in a conical arch about 300m wide and 100m long. On impact with a victim’s body, the dart can lose rigidity, bending into a hook, while the arrow’s rear, made of four fins, often breaks away causing a second wound.

“According to a number of witnesses in Bucha, fléchette rounds were fired by Russian artillery a few days before forces withdrew from the area at the end of March,” the report added.

As with all cases of Western-reported alleged crimes, there are always numerous witnesses, independent international experts, anonymous whistleblowers, etc. We just never get to see them. Which means we should simply take the claims of these people, whose very existence we cannot verify, at face value. And any sort of view opposing this narrative is immediately shut down.

According to Neil Gibson, another “Independent” weapons expert at the UK-based Fenix Insight group, who has reviewed the photos of the projectiles seen, they include the 122mm 3Sh1 artillery round, in use by Russian artillery and which are filled with fléchettes. What Mr. Gibson conveniently “forgot” to mention is that these same shells are used in all post-Soviet countries, including Ukraine. More specifically, the shells fit the D-30 howitzers, which are in service with both Russia and Ukraine, as well as dozens of other countries.

A spokesperson for the Ukrainian Ground Forces was quick to state that Ukraine’s military “does not use shells with fléchettes”. However, facts beg to differ, as surgeons in eastern Ukraine have reported the use of fléchettes by Ukrainian artillery in Donbass warzone since at least 2014. It’s obvious the Ukrainian and Western media find it convenient to use Soviet-era weapons as “proof” of alleged Russian war crimes, while ignoring the fact that these same weapons are used by Ukraine. What’s more, Ukraine is more likely to use them, since they have produced little to no new weapons and munitions since the collapse of the USSR.

Russian forces left Bucha on March 30. It took only a few days for the “independent” pathologists and coroners to file the reports from Bucha. At first, the reports claimed Russian forces allegedly shot civilians at point-blank range. Satellite image company Maxar Technologies claimed its photos provided “critical evidence that mass killings of civilians in the Ukrainian city of Bucha must have occurred when Russian forces were occupying the territory in mid to late March”. Combined with the report about fléchettes, this would mean the Russian artillery fired at the city while Russian troops were there, which defies any military logic.

If the reports about the usage of fléchettes are true, the only logical conclusion is that the Ukrainian military shelled Russian positions after the decision to withdraw from the Kiev and Chernigov regions. Russian forces deployed in Bucha certainly didn’t shell their own positions. Since we now know that the Ukrainian forces have and use fléchettes in their artillery shells, what conclusion can we draw except that the civilians were killed by the side which shelled the city while Russian troops were there?

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

April 28, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

US Boeing X-37 may carry weapons of mass destruction — Head of Roscosmos

TASS – April 23, 2022

MOSCOW – US Boeing X-37 orbital spacecraft may carry reconnaissance tools or weapons of mass destruction, Director General of Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin said on Saturday.

“It may carry some kind of reconnaissance tools or weapons of mass destruction. This is a new category of carriers of mass destruction weapons. Attacks from space pose the most serious danger,” he said in an interview with Rossiya 24 TV channel, mentioning the vehicle returning from space.

“We do not have any intelligible information from the United States about the purpose and technical capabilities of this device,” he added.

According to Rogozin, the Russian side believes that the United States is trying to launch weapons into space with the help of the Boeing X-37.

April 27, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

They just won’t let go of masks

By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | April 26, 2022

The writer is in New Zealand

AS the pandemic fades, should we meekly accept new restrictions or seek new freedoms?

An article in the New Zealand autumn 2022 AA Directions magazine advises that ‘masks are going to be part of our day-to-day lives for the foreseeable future’, and teaches us how to recognise whether someone is smiling behind their mask.

Yesterday in Stuff, science columnist Dr Siouxsie Wiles finally gets around to admitting that ‘you can’t rely on mRNA vaccines’. Her answer? Be stricter about mask wearing.

Dr Wiles, a British microbiologist who received the 2021 New Zealander of the Year Award for pandemic science communication, cites a new study which she says supports continuing use of masks at gatherings. Click on the link (most people don’t) and you arrive at a study that involves theoretical modelling rather than verified effects.

Mask studies (of which there are many) have not demonstrated large reductions in Covid transmission. They tend to be very technical in nature and focus on the comparative viral loads found in nasal and mask swabs. These measurements can be connected to Covid transmission only via theoretical modelling.

Back in the real world, the near universal combination of vaccination and mask wearing to date in New Zealand has not stopped Omicron transmission.

A study published in ClinMed entitled ‘Adverse Effects of Prolonged Mask Use among Healthcare Professionals during Covid-19’surveyed 343 healthcare professionals in New York City hospitals obliged to wear masks throughout most of their working day. They reported: headaches (71 per cent), skin breakdown (50 per cent), and impaired cognition (24 per cent). Yes, you did read that right, one quarter of medical professionals wearing masks suffer decreased intellectual capacity.

Even costly N95 masks do not stop the passage of air around them essentially negating their purpose and prompting the observation that it is like trying to stop mosquitos with chicken wire. Surgical masks or their equivalent are mainly required in hospitals and dirty environments such as sawmills or building sites to protect the wearer from inhaling human tissue or large particulates.

So will Dr Wiles advise us next week to wear a full deep-sea diving suit? In the crazy world of the new subnormal apparently nothing absurd can be ruled out.

Hiding the truth from the public has become a medical imperative

There is a certain hysteria surrounding the realisation that mRNA vaccines don’t actually work and may be harmful. When my kids were growing up we used to read an amusing book to them, Lies My Mother Told Me. How many lies have we been told? Too many.

For example, the Pfizer mRNA vaccine is:

·         95 per cent effective

·         Completely safe

·         Mostly stays in the upper arm muscle, as most traditional vaccines do

This last is interesting because Pfizer knew before they released the mRNA vaccine that it didn’t stay in the upper arm. They had completed an animal study which suggested that most of the mRNA vaccine spread throughout the body instead of staying at the injection site. The lipid nanoparticles (LNP), which encase the mRNA and help to breach cell walls are highly mobile and ensure that the mRNA spreads rapidly to all the organ systems in the body. If you want the full story see this article by clinical immunologist Dr Byram Bridle.

If we had known this, we would have realised early on that adverse reactions such as liver and kidney damage, strokes, cardiac events, neurological conditions and sudden-onset cancers were not unrelated to vaccination, as many victims were assured at the time by the NZ Ministry of Health, GPs and hospital staff.

Medical professionals assessing the causal connections between mRNA vaccination and subsequent adverse events were relying upon their prior knowledge about traditional vaccines. They thought they knew that vaccine ingredients mostly stayed at the injection site and eventually appeared in lymph nodes as they were cleaned up by the immune system. Pfizer neglected to tell them this was not the case. In fact Pfizer didn’t seem to inform anybody: the damning data was hidden in an obscure study buried in the requirements of the various national regulatory processes supposedly scrutinising safety. Anyone sounding the alarm seemed to be cancelled by the media and relegated to the ranks of conspiracy theorists.

Now that we have some hard NZ data showing that the protective effect of mRNA vaccination is a myth, there appears to be a rush on the part of seasoned and highly decorated Covid science communicators like Dr Siouxsie Wiles, member of the NZ Order of Merit, to throw us a lifeline. We may not actually choose to be saved. We might instead get on with our own lives and make the best of what opportunities we can discover for ourselves. At least we will be rowing our own boat, not sinking in the good ship misinformation.

April 26, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

The NATO Lie

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | April 26, 2022

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought to the forefront the NATO treaty to which the United States is a party. President Biden and the Pentagon have steadfastly maintained that a Russian attack on any NATO member automatically obligates the United States to go to war against Russia. That, of course, would necessarily mean the virtual certainly of all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States, a war that would, needless to say, end up destroying both countries and killing hundreds of millions of people in the process. 

There is one big problem with the Biden/Pentagon position: It’s a lie. In fact, the NATO treaty does not obligate the United States to automatically come to the defense of any NATO member in the event Russia attacks that particular country. That’s because the NATO treaty does not operate to amend the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution is the document that the American people used to call the federal government into existence. The Constitution established a federal government of limited powers. The government was divided into three branches — executive, legislative, and judicial — with enumerated powers being delegated to each branch of government. 

With respect to war, the Framers delegated the power to declare war to Congress and the power to wage war to the president. What that meant was that the president is prohibited from waging war against another nation without first securing a declaration of war from Congress. 

When the U.S. government was converted from a limited-government republic to a national-security state after World War II, a fourth branch was effectively added to the federal government: the national-security branch, consisting of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA.

While it has been said that these entities are actually part of the executive branch, as Michael Glennon has pointed out in his excellent book National Security and Double Government (which I cannot recommend too highly), the national-security section of the federal government, owing to its overwhelming power, is actually the part that is running the show, with the other parts of the federal government operating deferentially in support. 

The Constitution provides for the specific ways to amend the Constitution. Quoting whitehouse.gov: “An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.”

Notice something important: The Constitution does not provide that it can be amended by treaty. The Framers did not want federal officials to have the power to amend the Constitution by simply entering into treaties with other nations that changed the terms and conditions of the Constitution.

Therefore, the NATO treaty cannot operate to amend the constitutional provision that requires a congressional declaration of war before the president can legally wage war. Thus, if Russia attacks, say, NATO member Poland, the Constitution requires the president to secure a declaration of war from Congress against Russia before the president, the Pentagon, and the CIA can wage war against Russia.

Now, take a look at an article entitled “The NATO Treaty Does Not Give Congress a Bye on World War III” by Michael Glennon, who I mentioned above. It’s posted at a website entitled lawfareblog.com. This is one of the most important articles that you will read in your lifetime. I cannot emphasize too highly why you should read this article and, equally important, share it with everyone you know and, equally important, ask them to share it with everyone they know. 

Glennon is professor of international law at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. From 1977-1980, he served as counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You can read more about his credentials on Wikipedia by clicking here. 

Glennon’s article makes the scholarly but easily readable case that the NATO treaty does not — and cannot — automatically obligate the United States to go to war in the event Russia (or any other nation) attacks a NATO member. 

Of course, there is a much more fundamental question that Americans must confront: Why is the United States in NATO at all? NATO was established after World War II to ostensibly protect Western Europe from an attack by the Soviet Union, notwithstanding the fact that there was never any real likelihood that the Soviet Union, which was totally devastated in World War II, had any interest in going to war with Western Europe (and a nuclear-armed United States).

Regardless of whether NATO was necessary or whether it was just part of the Cold War racket, one thing is crystal clear: Once the Soviet Union dismantled, NATO’s mission became moot. At that point, this Cold War dinosaur should have been dismantled and sent into extinction. 

Instead, what the NATO bureaucrats did was keep this dinosauric entity in existence and, even worse, began using it to absorb former members of the Soviet Union, which enabled the Pentagon to establish its nuclear missiles ever closer to Russia’s borders. It was when the Pentagon, operating through NATO, announced an intention to absorb Ukraine that Russia decided to invade Ukraine, as the Pentagon knew it would, in order to prevent the Pentagon from establishing its nuclear missiles (and military bases, troops, tanks, and other weaponry) on Russia’s border. 

Thus, one of the keys to getting America back on the right track — toward liberty, peace, prosperity, and harmony with the people of the world — is to immediately withdraw from NATO, which would bring the immediate dissolution of this Cold War dinosauric entity, as well as bring U.S. troops home from Europe (and everywhere else). It is U.S. foreign interventionism that is a root cause of the loss of liberty and prosperity in America as well as America’s disharmony with the people of the world.

In the meantime, it is in the interest of every American to understand the nature of the NATO lie, a lie that holds that the NATO treaty automatically obligates the U.S. government to go to war against Russia in the event of an attack by Russia on another member of NATO. That’s why, again, I highly recommend reading Michael Glennon’s article and sharing it with everyone you know and asking them to share it with everyone they know.

April 26, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

The Nation’s Top Scientists Lied

By Dr. Scott Atlas | Brownstone Institute | April 13, 2022

This adapted excerpt is from Dr. Scott W. Atlas’ bestselling book, A Plague Upon Our House, published by Bombardier. 

CDC Director Robert Redfield’s congressional testimony on September 23, 2020, immediately caught my attention. I watched in disbelief as Redfield told Congress that “more than 90 percent of the population”—more than three hundred million people in the US—remains susceptible to the illness.

The statement was based on incomplete and outdated data, as well as an apparent lack of understanding of the literature, and it struck me as one of the most erroneous and fear-inducing proclamations of any public health official to that moment. Approximately two hundred thousand Americans had already died from COVID; the last thing the public needed was an exaggeration of the future risks, implying to some that ten times that number could still die.

First of all, the numbers didn’t add up. At that point, confirmed cases in the US already totaled approximately seven million, and the CDC itself had estimated that approximately ten times the number of confirmed cases, a very conservative estimate, were likely to have had the infection. A Stanford seropositivity study back in April had shown that confirmed cases underestimated the total infections by a factor of approximately forty times. It made no sense that only 9 percent, or thirty million Americans, had been infected.

Second, the 9 percent calculation was blatantly wrong. That number came from antibody testing by the states. I looked at the CDC website myself, and sure enough, the data was based on antiquated testing from several states.

Some antibody totals were pulled from several months earlier, before many of those states had experienced a significant number of cases. It therefore grossly underestimated the number of cases that had already occurred. The data was simply not valid, but you needed to pay attention to the details.

More importantly, Redfield’s basic claim was fundamentally flawed. The conclusion that serum antibody testing revealed the entire population of those protected from COVID was counter to an entire body of published literature and contrary to fundamental knowledge of immunology, including other coronavirus infections.

It was well known that antibody tests showed one cross-section in time—they were transient—even though immune protection can last. From studies on SARS-2 and most other viruses, antibody levels change over a span of months. They typically appear in the first couple of weeks, peak in a few months, and then decrease over a span of several months.

The literature on COVID had already shown these patterns. A month before this press conference, a Nature Reviews Immunology study on COVID-19 explicitly stated, “The absence of specific antibodies in the serum does not necessarily mean an absence of immune memory,” and explained, “memory B-cells and T-cells may be maintained even if there are not measurable levels of serum antibodies.”

Japan’s study demonstrated this dramatically. In their study, antibody levels increased from 5.8 percent to 46.8 percent over the course of the summer. The most dramatic increase occurred in late June and early July, paralleling the rise in daily confirmed cases within Tokyo, which peaked on August 4.

Out of the 350 individuals who completed both offered tests, 21.4 percent of those who tested negative became positive, and 12.2 percent of initially positive participants became negative for antibodies. A striking 81.1 percent of IgM-antibody-positive cases at first testing became negative in only one month. They stated that “[antibody tests] may significantly underestimate previous COVID-19 infections.” It had also been widely reported in several major scientific journals that antibody responses are not necessarily detectable in all COVID patients, especially those with less severe forms.

But the flaws in Redfield’s estimate extended deeper. Even those familiar with first-year college biology know that other components of the immune system, memory B-cell and T-cells, provide protection from virus infections. Some T-cells kill the virus, and they also help antibodies form. T-cells develop and provide protection that lasts far longer, even after antibodies disappear—sometimes for years in other SARS viruses.

T-cells for this virus had already been documented, even in people unexposed to SARS-2, meaning that in these cases, cross-protection was present from T-cells originating in response to other coronaviruses. T-cells had also been found in individuals with completely asymptomatic SARS-2 infections.

NIH Director Francis Collins had highlighted that very data in his Director’s Blog a few weeks earlier, writing, “In fact, immune cells known as memory T cells also play an important role in the ability of our immune systems to protect us against many viral infections, including—it now appears—COVID-19.”

Scientists from some of the top research institutions in the world, like Sweden’s Karolinska Institute, San Diego’s La Jolla Institute, Duke University, Berlin, and others had published this evidence. Karolinska demonstrated T-cell immunity in both asymptomatic and mild cases of COVID—even if antibody-negative.

Singapore researchers had noted robust T-cell responses to this virus, SARS2, from seventeen-year-old SARS1 samples. Since T-cells are obviously not discovered by antibody tests, those individuals were not included in Redfield’s count. Yet he apparently had not considered this essential, indeed fundamental, point as he testified to Congress and made headlines.

After watching this debacle on TV, I knew full well what was coming later that day. The media would latch on to this and create even more public panic. I also knew that the responsibility for clarifying this grossly erroneous statement would be mine. There was no question it would come up at the president’s press conference, and even if it did not, it still needed to be explained.

I rushed over to Derek Lyons’s office to update him and to make sure we would alert the president beforehand. A few others in the West Wing were there, so I summarized to them what had been said to Congress.

The mood ranged from amazement to dejection to frustration. An advisor to the president on legal matters warned me, with a smile on his face, “Scott, don’t just bluntly say, ‘Redfield is wrong!’ Say something softer, like ‘He misstated things.’”

I nodded, knowing that I needed to restrain my words, even though this was the same man who had tried to destroy me in the national press a few days earlier. But this wasn’t personal at all. Clarifying the facts about the pandemic and countering the unending barrage of misinformation and pseudoscience about it, in this case coming from within the administration itself, was one of my most important roles in this national crisis.

During the pre-brief in the Oval Office a few hours later, I outlined the issue to the president. It was decided, as expected, that I would answer the question when it came up. And so it did.

A reporter from ABC News directly asked me if Redfield’s statement that more than 90 percent of Americans remained susceptible to the disease was true. I took the friendly advice I had received earlier in the day.

“I think that Dr. Redfield misstated something there,” I said, and then did my best to calmly explain the problems with outdated information and the contribution of cross-reactive T-cells and T-cell protection that would not have been included in his data. I correctly stated what was widely known and factual—that the protection from the virus “is not solely determined by the percent of people who have antibodies.” During my answer, as I fended off interruptions, I tried to explain in understandable language as best I could.

I also made a serious effort to be somewhat delicate, because I felt extremely uncomfortable about having to correct the director of the CDC on the national stage.

Unfortunately, my disgust with the confrontational mood in that press room prevented me from being more diplomatic when that reporter asked, “Who are we to believe?” My reflexive answer was “You’re supposed to believe in the science, and I am telling you the science.” Then I referred him to several expert scientists by name. However, I had the strong sense that he was not really interested in the facts at all. Rather, it was another attempt to amplify discord.

After exiting the press room, I walked alongside the president. He briefly stopped to check the news coverage on the set of TV monitors outside the briefing room, as he typically chose to do. After some banter between the president and the staff standing in the area, we began walking back toward the Oval Office.

President Trump turned to me on his right, smiling wryly but with a genuinely puzzled look on his face. “Is Redfield political or just stupid?” he asked, subtly shaking his head. I looked right back at the president and hesitated. The answer was obvious to both of us.

Needless to say, the media immediately played up the disagreement between me and Redfield. It fed into their narrative of conflict between me and the other Task Force doctors, one that Redfield personally caused with his offensive and unwarranted remark that everything I said was “false.”

Later, Dr. Fauci appeared on TV and criticized my straightforward attempt to clarify important information as “extraordinarily inappropriate.” I wondered if he was more concerned with protecting his bureaucrat colleague’s reputation and undermining mine than ensuring that correct information was being told to the American public.

Martin Kulldorff, the world-renowned Harvard epidemiologist, posted his reaction on Twitter: “Scott Atlas stated the simple fact that immunity is higher than those with antibodies, whereupon Dr. Fauci criticizes him without contradicting what was actually said. Stating a simple scientific fact is not ‘extraordinarily inappropriate.’ What is going on?”

Scott W. Atlas, M.D., is the Robert Wesson Senior Fellow in health care policy at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and a fellow at Hillsdale College’s Academy for Science and Freedom.

April 26, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Christian Drosten, Karl Lauterbach try to block Health Ministry committee set to evaluate lockdowns and other containment measures

Health minister Karl Lauterbach caught maskless on a train
eugyppius | April 25, 2022

In March 2021, the German Bundestag ordered the Ministry of Health to set up an expert committee to evaluate the effectiveness of containment measures in Germany, from lockdowns to masks. They required this committee to complete their evaluation by 30 June 2022, and to publish a report before the end of September.

The committee finally convened on 22 April via video conference, delayed apparently because communicating with Karl Lauterbach’s ministry has been a huge problem. In the hours after that meeting, the committee chair notified its members that he had finally heard from Lauterbach. The health minister had raised the idea of extending the evaluation deadline to 31 December, and suggested that the committee mandate might end up being redefined.

As Welt explains, Christian Drosten had previously voiced staunch opposition to the project of investigating the efficacy of containment measures:

… [A]n internal virtual meeting in March, Charité virologist Christian Drosten argued against individually evaluating the containment measures. In a nine-minute speech, he said there was too little data, it was too early for such a study, and one could end up “in hot water,” according to WELT information. In view of this intervention from Drosten, who has been one of the most important advisers to political decision-makers since the start of the pandemic, the committee turned to the Ministry of Health for further instructions.

Nothing came of that meeting; the committee had a mandate from the Bundestag, the legal force of which does not rest upon Drosten’s feelings.

When Welt asked the health ministry to comment on the latest delays, a Lauterbach spokesman said the experts don’t have sufficient data, and that the ministry is in discussions with the Bundestag about how to handle this. He even denied that there would be any delay in the committee’s work, which is plainly a lie, because Welt has documents and off-the-record statements from committee members to the opposite effect. One such member even complained to their reporter that “It shows great disrespect to try to withdraw our mandate to evaluate containment measures after so many hours of work.”

We are asked to believe that containment measures have been super successful in the past, and that they remain an important tool for future waves. Lauterbach himself has promised the return of containment in the Fall, because he did not get his vaccine mandate. At the same time, nobody must be permitted to evaluate the efficacy of these allegedly crucial measures. We can’t be allowed to know which ones work and which ones don’t. That would be dangerous somehow, even for an expert committee. In fact it would be so dangerous, that Christian Drosten, the public face of mass containment in Germany, felt compelled to deliver a secret lecture warning against any such evaluative process.

What’s really galling about all this, isn’t that they’re lying, but that they’re terrible at it.

April 25, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

“A Magnet for Conspiracy Theories”: Wikipedia Kills Entry for Hunter Biden’s Investment Company

By Jonathan Turley | April 24, 2022

Wikipedia editors are under fire this week for removing the entry for Rosemont Seneca Partners, the investment company connected to Hunter Biden and his alleged multimillion dollar influence peddling schemes. The site bizarrely claimed that the company was “not notable.” The timing itself is notable given the new disclosure that Hunter Biden’s business partner, Eric Schwerin, made at least 19 visits to the White House and other official locations between 2009 and 2015. That included a meeting with then-Vice President Joe Biden despite Biden’s repeated claim that he knew nothing about his son’s business dealings. Schwerin was the president of Rosemont Seneca.

Wikipedia has been accused of raw bias in removing the entry at a time when interest in the company is at its peak, including the possibility of an indictment of Hunter Biden over his financial dealings.  Rosemont Seneca is one of the most searched terms for those trying to understand the background on the Biden business operations.

Yet, an editor known only as “Alex” wrote that the company was simply “not notable” — an absurd claim reminiscent of the recent claim by Atlantic Magazine’s writer Anne Applebaum that she did not cover the scandal because it simply was “not interesting.”

Alex wrote: “This organization is only mentioned in connection with its famous founders, Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz.” That itself is an odd statement. It is mentioned as one of the key conduits of alleged influence peddling money. Alex added that “keeping it around” ran the risk of the page becoming “a magnet for conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden.”

Any Wikipedia page could be a magnet for conspiracy theories, including the page on Hunter Biden himself. The fact is that this is a real company with real dealings that are the subject of a real criminal investigation. Indeed, various Republican members have already pledged to conduct investigations into this and other companies if they secure either house of Congress after the midterm elections.

So Wikipedia killed it just as a United States Attorney is drilling down on financial dealings of Hunter Biden, including money received from foreign sources through Rosemont Seneca.

The bias in the reference to the “conspiracy theories” is glaring. While some clearly misstate the facts of the Hunter Biden dealings (on both sides of the controversy), the central role of the company in these dealings is no conspiracy theory. I have long criticized Hunter Biden and his uncle for engaging in raw influence peddling — a practice long associated with the Biden family.

I have also been highly critical of how media and social media companies killed the Hunter Biden story.  Much like Wikipedia’s explanation this week, they claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story was merely conspiracy theories and Russian disinformation before the election. We are now approaching the midterm elections and suddenly Wikipedia is killing the page on this key company.

Republican senators claim that Hunter Biden was a partner in Rosemont Seneca with Chris Heinz, the stepson of future Secretary of State John Kerry, and their friend, Devon Archer. Archer was recently sent to prison for fraud in a matter that did not involve Hunter Biden.

In 2013, Rosemont Seneca entered into a business partnership with a Chinese investment fund called Bohai Capital. There are references in these transactions to Bohai Harvest RST. “RST” stood for “Rosemont Seneca Thornton,” a consortium of Rosemont Seneca and the Thornton Group, a Massachusetts-based firm.

Hunter Biden’s counsel insists that he did not have an equity interest in RST. However, Rosemont Seneca and RST feature greatly in the controversial transactions with foreign figures. Moreover, the Wall Street Journal reports that:

“Prosecutors have focused in particular, those people said, on the payments from Burisma, which first flowed to a company called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC before going on to Mr. Biden. Between 2014 and 2019, Hunter Biden held a Burisma board seat for which he was paid around $50,000 a month.”

The company has been tied to a series of payments to Hunter Biden from car purchases to cash transfers that are under investigation. Wikipedia does not (and should not) take sides in such allegations. Rather, it can serve as a conduit for those searching the company as part of a major and ongoing controversy.

Yet, “Alex” does not consider any of that “notable” and dismisses references to the company in a federal investigation as mere “conspiracy theories.”

Wikipedia was founded on lofty and even revolutionary goals of empowering the world with free access to sources of knowledge. The key minds behind Wikipedia saw the danger of bias creeping into this work and emphasized the need for strict neutrality.

Larry Sanger declared “Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly.”

Likewise, Jimmy Wales insisted “A general-purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.”

I have long been a fan of Wikipedia and its noble purpose. For that reason, I am saddened by this move which seems to reject the essential pledge of the company. Wikipedia’s editors have been increasingly accused of bias in such decisions. However, this move is particularly raw and inexplicable. Wikipedia will lose the trust of many if it goes down the path of companies like Twitter in allowing staff to use its platform for their own political agendas.

Wikipedia should immediately reverse and disassociate itself from the decision of “Alex” on the Rosemont Seneca page.

April 24, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Anatomy of a Bogus “Disinformation” Smear

Justin Ling, the fearsome Freelance Investigative Journalist
By Michael Tracey | April 23, 2022

Foreign Policy is a publication that specializes in Serious essays about all manner of Serious topics in the realm of foreign policy. If you’ve ever touted your professional credentials as a Serious Foreign Policy Thinker, or if you one day aspire to a Senior Fellow sinecure in Serious Foreign Policy Studies — there’s a good chance you’re a subscriber.

I only just found out that on April 12, this highly prestigious journal ran an article that accuses me of participating in a “Russian disinformation operation.” (Gee, never could have guessed that’d be the accusation. How unexpected.) It took awhile for me to learn of this article’s existence, because I wasn’t contacted ahead of time for any sort of comment or given any chance to reply — apparently a journalistic convention that’s fallen out of favor. Oh well.

The journalist who wrote the article is someone named Justin Ling. I had only ever vaguely heard of this person, but after some modest inquiry, now understand that he self-identifies as a “freelance investigative journalist.” In this capacity, Ling claims to specialize in issues of “misinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremism.” Those who pompously declare themselves to be big media experts in such topics all tend to fit a certain obnoxious mold. Glenn Greenwald has remarked that this newly-concocted journalistic “beat” generally consists of “an unholy mix of junior high hall-monitor tattling and Stasi-like citizen surveillance.” NBC News in particular employs a whole dedicated fleet of these people, who — as Greenwald put it — “devote the bulk of their ‘journalism’ to searching for online spaces where they believe speech and conduct rules are being violated, flagging them, and then pleading that punitive action be taken (banning, censorship, content regulation, after-school detention).”

Justin Ling belongs squarely to this pretentious media clique — he even claims to have been one of its pioneers. And his latest foray into “freelance investigative journalism” apparently entailed scrolling through my Twitter feed. Which you may notice often seems like the main activity of this new breed of journalist; the ones who, like Ling, hold themselves out as seasoned, world-wise “misinformation” debunkers. They really love sitting around on Twitter, waiting to exclaim that a harmful new “conspiracy theory” has emerged. Conveniently, they’ve preemptively endowed themselves with the divine right to adjudicate what does and does not constitute a “conspiracy theory.” Precisely when “information that journalists happen to personally disagree with, or be offended by” magically becomes “disinformation” still remains a mysterious puzzle. Those like Ling who parade around in this fashion can be frequently observed snidely dismissing concerns about online censorship — even as they piously warn how very dangerous it is that uncensored “content” is allowed to proliferate on the internet.

Naturally, Ling also now claims to specialize in Ukraine, and since the invasion has diligently worked to DEBUNK all manner of Ukraine-related disinformation. While the definition is always in flux depending on this media cohort’s latest political imperatives, “disinformation” in April 2022 seems to largely be defined as any information which may run counter to the interests of the Ukraine Government or its patrons, such as the US and Canada — the latter of which Ling is a proud resident.

So when people on the internet started rudely discussing the statement by Victoria Nuland last month that US-funded biological laboratories exist in Ukraine, Ling deployed his amazing investigative skills to purportedly unearth where this “conspiracy theory” had originated. And you won’t believe what he discovered: the whole thing supposedly started with a random account on Twitter. Ling doesn’t actually prove that this “conspiracy theory” originated with the tweet he says he found — he just asserts that it did, and excitedly adds that the account in question had also expressed some belief in QAnon nonsense. Even though Ling presents no tangible proof for his foundational contention, that’s totally fine with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which aired his little segment attributing the whole “biolabs” story — get ready for this shocker — to a nefarious Russian/right-wing “disinformation” network. Ling managed to valiantly map out the network by screenshotting tweets.

To demonstrate that any misgivings about the “biolabs” were reprehensible “disinformation,” Ling conducted a friendly chat with a Pentagon official, Robert Pope, who denied that there was anything untoward going on. This was the extent of Ling’s investigative journalism on the issue; in the segment, Ling is shown doing nothing other than presumptively accept the Pentagon official’s explanation.

Despite airing on the Canadian government’s TV channel, the segment has that annoyingly familiar feel of choreographed and branded “edginess” — reminiscent of VICE, where Ling also once worked. Amidst the sonic backdrop of weird, thumping ambient music, the viewer is for some reason made to follow along with Ling as he adventurously travels throughout Virginia highways and airports.

The CBC’s description of the segment reads: “Investigative reporter Justin Ling exposes how a QAnon conspiracy theory about US-funded ‘biolabs’ in Ukraine morphed into mainstream disinformation.” Which is strange, because a high-ranking US State Department official, Victoria Nuland, is the one who confirmed the existence of the US-funded biolabs — in public Congressional testimony. Given her well-documented history of intimate “meddling” in Ukraine, and her membership in one of the most prominent neoconservative familial dynasties in the US, Nuland’s comment understandably sparked widespread interest. Nonetheless, Ling and the CBC seemed satisfied that they had settled the issue, and successfully pinned the entire thing on the usual nexus of the Kremlin and Fox News.

This is far from Ling’s first battle on the frontlines of the information war. A biography on his Talent Bureau page states: “He is also investigating Russian meddling in Canadian politics, a project that has taken him from inside the headquarters of the Department of National Defence to a NATO training base in Latvia.” Man, I’d love to know how much it costs for a custom Ling speech on that fascinating topic.

Ling identifies as a “queer journalist,” whatever that means exactly, and part of his coverage of the war in Ukraine has been to convene a “panel of queer Ukrainians.” During that panel, Ling said: “I’ve spent a little time in Kiev myself. I’m looking forward to going back someday soon. I have to confess, Kiev has maybe some of the most fierce drag queens I’ve ever seen in my life.” So that’s some background on Ling.

Which brings us to his latest groundbreaking Foreign Policy investigation. Ling again decided to boldly tackle the most taboo of subjects: bad stuff Russia is alleged to have done. Daring to “go there” requires immense bravery on Ling’s part, and he deserves real credit. In the Foreign Policy article, Ling sets his sights on the allegations earlier this month that Russia was guilty of committing horrendous crimes against Ukrainian civilians in the town of Bucha. Based on evidence he saw online, including “radio chatter,” Ling announced his opinion that “it’s not hard to conclude that it was Russian forces who massacred Ukrainian civilians.” Anyone who might be inclined to seek an independent, impartial investigation before reaching firm conclusions about such a grave question — which happens to be the stated position of obscure, inconsequential countries like India and China — had merely fallen victim to “the constellation of disinformation channels” organized by Russia, according to Ling’s thesis. Despite what he calls a “preponderance of the evidence” that instantly showed Russia was 100% culpable, Ling decries:

That is apparently not enough for recently reelected Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who was criticized by his allies in Poland for refusing to accept that Russia perpetrated the killings.

Despite Russia’s flimsy defense, some Westerners have nevertheless chosen to believe it. Writer Michael Tracey tweeted to his 240,000 followers that the photos were “war propaganda” and cast doubt on their authenticity. Conspiracy site Infowars ran breathless coverage touting information, largely cribbed from those pro-Russian Telegram channels, that “exposes the truth” of what happened in Bucha.

Note that I’m sandwiched right between Viktor Orban and Infowars, which basically makes me an ideological Satan for the average Foreign Policy reader. However, you may be shocked to learn that Ling drastically misrepresents what I actually said, and conveniently doesn’t even bother to include a link or full quote so people can judge for themselves.

Contrary to Ling’s bogus assertion, the only thing I “cast doubt” on in the tweet he uncovered was the propriety of mindlessly disseminating a warring party’s propaganda — which journalists and “experts” of all stripes have shown zero reservations about doing since the outset of this conflict. So long as it’s the warring party to which they’re politically and emotionally committed, they’re more than happy to present the propaganda as verified fact. It seems self-evidently ludicrous, for instance, that CBS would simply take PR material directly from Zelensky and blast it out on air with no corroboration — but that’s exactly what they’re doing. And that’s the practice I was “casting doubt” upon. You’d think this would almost be a banal point — with many journalists at least in theory claiming to be cognizant of how the “fog of war” distorts the news-gathering process. But that the point has become so intensely controversial speaks to how normal standards of rational thought have been thoroughly obliterated over the past two months.

Ling further accuses me of “believing” the Russian government, which is just straightforwardly stupid. He cites no evidence for this accusation — Foreign Policy editors obviously don’t care whether anything he blurts out has even the slightest hint of corroboration behind it. For the record: not on the day of the tweet in question, nor at any point since the war started, have I ever expressed uncritical “belief” in anything a Russian government official has said. Again, Ling has absolutely nothing to back up his malignant accusation. As far as that one tweet supposedly at issue, I didn’t need the Russian government or anyone else to tell me what should’ve been plain as day to anyone who cares to maintain some semblance of critical faculties. What I was calling “war propaganda” were materials that had been directly propagated by Ukraine government officials, on Twitter and other social media channels:

This stuff was literally coming straight from the Ukraine Ministry of Defense — the PR wing of a foreign military in the middle of waging war. While it was also furiously lobbying the US and other governments to provide heavier armaments for use in that war. How is this not the textbook definition of “war propaganda”? What would be the definition of “war propaganda” — if not this? Sure enough, the government-disseminated propaganda materials were immediately cited by journalists to demand outright US/NATO military intervention in Ukraine. I had linked to one example in the very tweet that Ling claims was evidence of my participation in a “Russian disinformation operation”:

It’s understandable that these concepts might be confusing for Ling. Because around the same time as he was carefully monitoring my Twitter feed for incriminating signs of “disinformation” offenses, take a wild guess at what Ling was also doing. Go ahead. If you guessed “uncritically disseminating the propaganda of a warring party” — you would be correct. Here’s the intrepid investigative journalist in action, dutifully amplifying a call from one of Zelensky’s official advisors for provision of more US/NATO weaponry:

Here’s Ling applying his indefatigable freelance investigative journalism skills by simply reposting images that had been published directly by Zelensky:

Here’s Ling disseminating the totally uncorroborated claims of a full-fledged spy agency, the UK’s GCHQ. It’s unclear if Ling would regard this practice — simply repeating the claims of unvarnished spymasters whose very job is to manipulate public opinion — as “disinformation.”

Maybe he’s of the belief that “Western” spy agencies are definitionally incapable of perpetuating disinformation, and only hated enemy states such as Russia are capable of such a thing. I asked him to explain, but strangely he’s not returning my messages at the moment, despite having previously been so eager to accuse me of heinous affronts. None of this I take personally, though. Given his track record, it makes sense that Justin Ling would have severe difficulty comprehending what “war propaganda” means.

This is of much less significance, but also notice that Ling intentionally does not refer to me as a “journalist” in his petty gibe, and instead merely as a “writer.” Which is fine — I honestly don’t care one way or another what this Ling creature chooses to call me — but it’s a perfect example of the little passive-aggressive sniping tactics that journalists constantly use to police the boundaries of their snotty social club. I’m more than happy to call Ling a “journalist” — because to my mind, the word “journalist” doesn’t connote any kind of moral rectitude, or even competence. Being a journalist is very much consistent with being a self-righteous sleaze-peddler, so Ling can certainly fit the bill.

Another severe difficulty of Ling’s, which raises fundamental questions about his ability to cover his declared beat, is recognizing what “disinformation” even is. Maybe Ling missed it, but earlier this month Ken Dilanian of NBC News — one of the most faithful mouthpieces of the US national security state — went on air and openly revealed that the US Government is mounting a full-fledged “information warfare” campaign related to Ukraine. A key component of which is feeding fake information to the media. Dilanian cited one particular fake story that had been deliberately planted to journalists by intelligence officials — despite those officials knowing it was fake. Weirdly though, all the newly emboldened, “disinformation” debunking journalists like Ling don’t seem to regard that campaign of unconcealed information warfare as within their job’s purview.

Ling also appears to have missed a recent revelation reported at CNN of all places, in which an anonymous “Western” official is quoted saying this about the current PR activities of Ukraine government officials: “It’s a war — everything they do and say publicly is designed to help them win the war. Every public statement is an information operation, every interview, every Zelensky appearance broadcast is an information operation.” And yet despite the admitted existence of this “information operation,” Ling is gleeful to participate in it, by giddily spreading around the Ukraine officials’ photos, videos, and claims without a shred of independent corroboration — all under the veneer of Ling’s tough, adversarial journalism. Russia is obviously engaged in its own “information operation,” but so too is Ukraine. Will Ling report on himself next as a “disinformation” culprit?

Of course he won’t, because despite his bogus pretensions, Ling has made it perfectly clear that he has no problem at all with “disinformation” as such. In fact, he actively supports disinformation tactics when it’s in service of his desired political objectives. He publicly demanded that the “intelligence service” of his own government, Canada, ought to be “doing a lot more” to proactively counter Russia by utilizing more robust information warfare techniques. So that’s Justin Ling for you: a “disinformation” reporter who loves disinformation.

If you want to understand why there is so little deviation today from the burgeoning pro-war consensus, it’s got a lot to do with media functionaries like Ling. Most journalists would be utterly mortified to be accused, in a “Serious” outlet like Foreign Policy, of abetting a “Russian disinformation operation.” And their fear would probably be rational: this could genuinely be a career-killer, particularly in the current war-fevered climate. All bets are off in terms of what retribution tactics are potentially on the table. They could be socially shunned, professionally ostracized, and have their material well-being seriously imperiled. The self-appointed “disinformation” pontificators such as Ling, posturing as these tenacious public-spirited watchdogs, really could destroy them.

Ling is an especially blatant joke and fraud, but the media industry is increasingly dominated by creeps like him. Fortunately, they can’t do much to me — except to provide occasional amusement at how pathetic they are.

April 23, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

How to lie with statistics – Vaccine efficacy edition

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | April 23, 2022

Just a quick post to show another method of how to increase vaccine efficacy. This time looking at data from Switzerland and Liechtenstein (S&L).

By mid December 2021, S&L were at the peak of their third wave. It was ok though because 67% of the country had been fully vaccinated, 17% with a booster. 32% of selfish people had still not been vaccinated however.

As the vaccines stop people from going to hospital this would show up in the stats.

Yes, as predicted, there was a slight increase in hospitalisations for fully vaccinated citizens (Moderna – red line, Pfizer – light blue line) but a massive spike in hospitalisations for those pesky unvaccinated (dark blue line).

Job done, vaccine efficacy proven.

But hold on a second, there is another category. “Vaccine unknown, fully vaccinated”. Let’s add this to the graph.

They don’t really want you to see this line so have made it a faint grey colour. However much they would like to pretend it wasn’t there, it is. And it shows a lot of fully vaccinated people going to hospital, and continuing to go to hospital, until March 2022, well after the peak for unvaccinated individuals.

Lot’s of fully vaccinated people going into hospital who have forgotten which vaccines they had. Did they forget or were they too ill? Is this an admin issue or are these people who had a combination of vaccines and so couldn’t be put in one category?

Either way, this grey lined category shifts a lot of people out of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinated categories. It makes vaccine efficacy look much better than it actually is by saying only this many Pfizer or Moderna vaccinees were hospitalised.

Another great example of how to lie with statistics.

April 23, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

EU commission sued over Covid-19 vaccine secrecy

Samizdat | April 23, 2022

Five Green MEPs are suing the European Commission over its ultra-secretive vaccine contracts, arguing that the heavily redacted versions released by the EC “made it impossible to understand the content of the agreements,” in a statement published Friday.

“Secrecy is a breeding ground for distrust and skepticism, and it has no place in public agreements with pharmaceutical companies,” Margrete Auken, a Danish MEP involved in the suit, declared, adding that “the European Commission’s refusal to provide transparency on its vaccine contracts affects the public’s confidence in the EU’s ability to obtain the best possible outcome for its citizens.”

The MEPs are demanding the details of the contracts the EC signed with vaccine-makers BioNTech, Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax, including price per dose, advance payments, conditions for vaccine donations, liability, and indemnification matters.

“Purchases made with public money should come with public information, definitely in matters of health,” Dutch MEP and party to the lawsuit Kim van Sparrentak said in the group’s statement, noting that “confidentiality under the guise of trade secrets only fuels uncertainty and fear.”

In addition to Auken and van Sparrentak, the MEPs signing on to the suit are Tilly Metz (Luxembourg), Jutta Paulus (Germany), and Michele Rivasi (France), the chair of the parliament’s committee on Covid-19.

The lawsuit, filed in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, comes as EC President Ursula von der Leyen revealed that every EU member state would be required to adopt EU Digital Covid Certificates, a digital health passport issued to those with proof of vaccination, a negative PCR test, or proof of recovery from Covid-19. While the validity period for such certificates was due to lapse at the end of June, the EC is not only renewing it another year, but making it mandatory for all 27 EU countries from July 1. Only 15 are currently using it, according to von der Leyen.

The move comes despite many EU states winding down their Covid-19 restrictions, moving away from some of the stricter measures imposed in the first 18 months of the pandemic. Germany, which had initially sought to require all citizens over the age of 60 to receive a Covid-19 vaccine, has been forced to axe those plans after they were voted down in the Bundestag, though the country’s health minister has warned that the government may reimpose mask mandates, as he expects infections to increase in the fall.

In response to the lawsuit, the EC has insisted it cannot reveal the contracts it signed with the vaccine-makers back in 2020, claiming “the commission is in the business of respecting contracts.” At the time, EU lawmakers who wanted to see the contracts were prohibited from taking notes and forced to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Much of the world seemed to be headed for mandatory Covid-19 vaccination six months ago. However, the realization that despite their manufacturers’ initial promises, the vaccines were no magic bullet – not only incapable of stopping the spread, but incapable of preventing further infection – has cooled public fervor for mandates. Health concerns and complaints of discrimination against the unvaccinated have also contributed to the backlash. However, the manufacturers, as well as most officials, continue to insist that the vaccines are “safe and effective.”

April 23, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception | , , | Leave a comment

“Operation Thermostat”: Energy rationing & the pivot from Ukraine to climate?

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | April 22, 2022

Italy is officially becoming the first country to start rationing energy after cutting their supply of Russian gas and oil.

From next month, until at least March 2023, public buildings across the nation will be banned from running air conditioning at lower than 25 degrees, or heating higher than 19 degrees.

The plan, termed “Operation Thermostat” in the press, is being sold as a way for ordinary people to show “solidarity” with the people of Ukraine, with Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi saying:

Do we want to have peace or do we want to have the air conditioning on?”

I’m not exactly sure how adjusting your thermostat is going to achieve ‘peace’, but hey we’re living in the age of sentimental manipulation over reason, so – just believe.

For example, the Guardian is illustrating the story with pro-peace artwork allegedly done by Italian schoolchildren (in English, for some reason).

There’s no talk yet of this kind of energy-rationing rule extending to private businesses or homes, but a marker has been set down. Expect other nations to follow suit.

After that of course will come the opinion pieces asking questions like “we rationed gas to fight Putin, why not climate change?”, and headlines saying that “Europe-wide gas rationing was good for the planet” or something similar.

… Oh wait, it’s already happening.

Honestly, when I originally wrote the above paragraph I had no idea the Wall Street Journal had published this opinion piece for Earth Day, headlined:

This Earth Day, We Could Be Helping the Environment—and Ukraine”

It argues that rationing energy to fight Putin is just like digging for victory to fight Hitler, and – just as I predicted – would also be good for the planet:

During the Second World War, victory demanded more oil […] In the wars dominating the globe today — Putin’s land grab in Ukraine, and the global land grab caused by rising sea levels and spreading deserts — victory demands getting off fossil fuels as fast as we possibly can.

It even hints at a quasi-lockdown – this time for the sake of beating Putin and combating climate change:

Everyone who can work from home could continue to do so, at least on, say, Mondays, knocking a day off the national commute. Carpools could be organized, taking special advantage of the fact that there are now two million electric cars on the road. More bike paths could be made available, and, when air-conditioning season begins, Americans could turn their thermostats up a degree.

Remember lockdowns were marketed as planet-saving almost from the moment they were put in place, despite it making almost zero sense. The agenda was pretty obvious right from the start.

It’s interesting that “operation thermostat” should be announced on April 22nd – Earth Day – despite having zero to do with climate change. It’s also noteworthy that climate protests groups have piggy-backed on the idea to call for an EU-wide boycott of Russia’s fossil fuels.

We already know they planned a “pivot from covid to climate”, and moves like this mean they can easily “pivot from Ukraine to climate” too.

April 22, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »