Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Hospital admissions double – and it’s got to be down to the vaccines

By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | March 24, 2023

Data from the New Zealand Ministry of Health has revealed a massive 103 per cent increase in hospitalisations among 12 disease categories measured in 2021 following the mRNA rollout. This calls into serious question the safety of medical interventions such as mRNA vaccines which penetrate the cell wall and re-program activity in the cell cytoplasm.

NZ had very few cases of Covid in 2021 due to draconian restrictions. Therefore the only reasonable cause of the disease increase is mRNA vaccination.

There were 38,178 extra hospitalisations in 2021 across the 12 categories compared with 2019 figures. The Ministry of Health tracks 37 disease categories, and figures for the remaining 25, including cancer, have not yet been released. These figures alone mean that New Zealanders had greater than a 1 in 90 chance of hospitalisation within one year of Covid vaccination. You can read a longer discussion of the figures here.

Similar disastrous figures have surfaced in official data from Western Australia (greater than 1 in 100 chance of serious injury).

Last week in the UK, MP Andrew Bridgen again attempted to capture the attention of the House of Commons about severe injury and death following Covid vaccination, but almost all MPs walked out before he had even started his speech. Undeterred, he gave a brilliant, succinct summary of the dangers and huge costs of Covid vaccination as revealed by the UK Government’s own statistics. In essence he explained how Covid vaccines make roughly a thousand people ill enough to send them to hospital in order to prevent one hospitalisation from Covid. In passing he revealed that the members of the committee approving vaccines in the UK own a billion pounds’ worth of vaccine company shares between them. (Please watch him speak here and share).

YouTube kicked off by deleting the video, but public outrage ensured they had to back down. This underlined the fact that we are not engaged in a rational or fair argument. Hundreds of concerned scientists around the world are analysing data and raising questions about Covid vaccine safety, but like Andrew Bridgen we are all speaking to an empty room.

In contrast, vaccine proponents are still speaking freely to a full house, courtesy of a compliant and well-funded media, who seem not only incapable of sorting truth from falsehood, but woefully ignorant about the fundamentals of genetics.

On Sunday we were subjected to a long piece on NZ’s 1News entitled The Gene Genie. The presenter misinformed the nation that right now we are ending disease in New Zealand with a little snip to our DNA. No doubt this news wowed the audience, but the impression it gave was entirely false and misleading.

The programme did not cover the ending of all disease as the presenter appeared to imply. The real story turned out to be a phase one trial of a novel form of RNA gene therapy designed to tackle amyloidosis, a deadly disease that affects some members of families who inherit a single faulty gene (possibly up to around 60 people in NZ). The trial aims to identify whether a novel approach to amyloidosis gene therapy is safe and effective. It will take years to complete.

Just how monumentally ignorant and naive the programme’s producers were was revealed when the interviewer asked the study’s supervisor, Auckland liver specialist Dr Ed Gane, ‘Should we be able to select for height or intelligence when we do gene editing?’ The interviewer was parroting a false idea, planted in the public imagination by commercial hype, that genetic manipulation could cure all diseases and develop desirable looks and abilities. In fact, more than 300,000 genes play a role in a person’s height, not one, and the idea that there are a few specific genes which could increase intelligence is just fantasy.

To understand just how misleading these ideas are, we need to consider some basic concepts of cellular biology. This will enable us to assess just how much and in how many ways vaccine injury might ultimately affect us.

In 1953, when Watson and Crick unravelled the double helical structure of DNA, the world was dazzled by the discovery. Not only did this promise to solve the mysteries of heredity but it was also heralded as the key to understanding the origin of life itself. The whole focus of biology underwent a seismic shift. Henceforth, work on DNA, its code and its functions, would come to dominate biological research and ultimately medicine. Genetic essentialism had been born – the imaginative idea that just about everything concerning life could be reduced to the operation of genes.

Gradually over the last few years, research on epigenetics began to eat away at the edges of the edifice of genetic essentialism. Traits acquired by parents during their lifetime can be inherited by their offspring. Cellular and physiological factors directly influence how DNA expresses itself. In other words, the wider environment of DNA is intimately involved in its operation.

Genetic code is a part of a cellular system. DNA is not the sole source of life. The popular rush to regard DNA as an almost stand-alone reference point for life misses the established scientific reality.

Cells form the building blocks of life: DNA does not function on its own. By implication the whole cell is the source of heredity, not solely DNA.

Human cells are enormously complex; each contains approximately 100trillion atoms which make up more than 42million proteins.

Cellular functions are protected by a cell wall or membrane. Cells are connected to form a single conscious identity. The mRNA vaccines are designed to pierce the protective cell membrane and co-opt functions in order to redirect cellular activity. As such they are in fact parasitic and ultimately damage the functions of the host cell. They disrupt the whole cell and therefore disrupt multiple characteristics of human life, including physiological stability, adaptability, immunity, and possibly even our mental acuity.

Interventions carrying novel genetic instructions which cross the cell membrane put health and consciousness, body and mind at risk of degradation.

Hospitalisation rates have doubled, all-cause deaths are at record levels, and there is an unexplained total disregard on the part of governments.

The full extent of how much mRNA vaccines will ultimately influence mental and physical health remains unknown.

GLOBE is promoting a campaign for Global Legislation Outlawing Biotechnology Experimentation.

The writer is in New Zealand.

March 24, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Covid, imaginary pandemic of the brainwashed

By James Delingpole | TCW Defending Freedom | March 24, 2023

Tell me about your personal experiences of Covid 19. Actually, wait, don’t. I think I may have heard it already, about a million times. You lost all sense of smell or taste – and just how weird was that? It floored you for days. It gave you a funny dry cough, the dryness and ticklishness of which was unprecedented in your entire coughing career. You’ve had flu a couple of times and, boy, when you’ve got real flu do you know it. But this definitely wasn’t flu. It was so completely different from anything you’ve ever known, why you wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it had been bioengineered in a lab with all manner of spike proteins and gain-of-function additives, perhaps even up to and including fragments of the Aids virus . . .

Yeah, right. Forgive me for treading on the sacred, personal domain of your lived experience. But might I cautiously suggest that none of what you went through necessarily validates lab-leak theory. Rather what it may demonstrate is the power of susceptibility, brainwashing and an overactive imagination. You lived – we all did – through a two-year period in which health-suffering anecdotes became valuable currency. Whereas in the years before the ‘pandemic’, no one had been much interested in the gory details of your nasty cold, suddenly everyone wanted to compare notes to see whether they’d had it as bad as you – or, preferably, for the sake of oneupmanship, even worse. This in turn created a self-reinforcing mechanism of Covid panic escalation: the more everyone talked about it, the more inconvertible the ‘pandemic’ became.

Meanwhile, in the real world, hard evidence – as opposed to anecdotal evidence – for this ‘pandemic’ remained stubbornly non-existent. The clincher for me was a landmark article published in January 2021 by Simon Elmer at his website Architects For Social Housing. It was titled ‘Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics: Manufacturing the Crisis’.

In it Elmer asked the question every journalist should have asked but which almost none did: is this ‘pandemic’ really as serious as all the experts, and government ministers and media outlets and medics are telling us it is? The answer was a very obvious No. As the Office for National Statistics data cited by Elmer clearly showed, 2020 – Year Zero for supposedly the biggest public health threat since ‘Spanish Flu’ a century earlier – was one of the milder years for death in the lives of most people.

Let’s be clear about this point, because something you often hear people on the sceptical side of the argument say is, ‘Of course, no one is suggesting that Covid didn’t cause a horrific number of deaths.’ But that’s exactly what they should be suggesting: because it’s true. Elmer was quoting the Age Standardised Mortality statistics for England and Wales dating back to 1941. What these show is that in every year up to and including 2008, more people died per head of population than in the deadly Covid outbreak year of 2020. Of the previous 79 years, 2020 had the 12th lowest mortality rate.

Covid, in other words, was a pandemic of the imagination, of anecdote, of emotion rather than of measured ill-health and death. Yet even now, when I draw someone’s attention to that ONS data, I find that the most common response I get is one of denial. That is, when presented with the clearest, most untainted (this was before ONS got politicised and began cooking the books), impossible-to-refute evidence that there was NO Covid pandemic in 2020, most people, even intelligent ones, still choose to go with their feelings rather with the hard data.

This natural tendency many of us have to choose emotive narratives over cool evidence makes us ripe for exploitation by the cynical and unscrupulous. We saw this during the pandemic when the majority fell for the exciting but mendacious story that they were living through a new Great Plague, and that only by observing bizarre rituals – putting strips of cloth over one’s face, dancing round one another in supermarkets, injecting unknown substances into one’s body – could one hope to save oneself and granny. And we’re seeing it now, in a slightly different variant, in which lots of people – even many who ought to know better – are falling for some similarly thrilling but erroneous nonsense about lab-leaked viruses.

It’s such a sexy story that I fell for it myself. In those early days when all the papers were still dutifully trotting out World Health Organisation-approved propaganda about pangolins and bats and the apparently notorious wet market (whatever the hell that is) in Wuhan, I was already well ahead of the game. I knew, I just knew, as all the edgy, fearless seekers of truth did that it was a lab leak wot done it. If you knew where to dig, there was a clear evidence trail to support it.

We edgy, fearless truth seekers knew all the names and facts. Dodgy Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance was in it up to the neck; so too, obviously, was the loathsomely chipper and smugly deceitful Anthony Fauci. We knew that all this crazy, Frankenvirus research had initially been conducted in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, but had been outsourced to China after President Obama changed the regulations and it became too much of a hot potato for US-based labs. And let’s not forget Ukraine – all those secret bio-research labs run on behalf of the US Deep State, but then exposed as the Russians unhelpfully overran territory such as Mariupol.

And it all made perfect sense because it accorded with everything else we knew about the ‘pandemic’: that it was planned, orchestrated and manipulated at a high level by some of the most devious and evil people on the planet. Also, lots of our fellow sceptics and anti-lockdown, anti-vaccine crusaders in the fields of vaccinology and epidemiology confirmed that this was so, with all manner of abstruse technical detail which we absorbed and became almost-expert on. We learned such terms as ‘gain of function’, ‘cytokine storm’, ‘spike protein’, ‘viral load’ and ‘shedding’. Why, we almost became virologists ourselves!

So why do I no longer believe in lab leak theory? Why do I now share the suspicions of Mike Yeadon that there never was a Covid virus? Well, for me the most obvious clue is that the lab-leak theory is currently being pushed heavily by the very same mainstream media which has been lying to us relentlessly about mask efficacy, vaccine safety, Net Zero, climate change, Ukraine, CBDCs, 15 Minute Cities and the now very obvious threat posed by the New World Order. Sure, it’s theoretically possible that they might suddenly have alighted on a topic where they are not going to push the nefarious agenda of their sinister paymasters. But if they did it would be a first.

Like Patrick Henningsen – more details on our recent podcast – I take the view that if lab-leak is now the officially endorsed conspiracy theory of the US government then we should all be suspicious that there is an underlying agenda. Promoting lab-leak serves a number of purposes: it distracts from the more pressing issue of vaccine injury; it promotes the notion that the world is potentially swarming with rogue, bio-engineered viruses which require urgent defensive measures by supranational bodies such as the World Health Organisation, including compulsory vaccination against new viral strains; it fingers China as an even bigger enemy than it really is, justifying higher defence spending, escalated economic warfare and potential military action, and it creates further division within the sceptical community.

I notice plenty of evidence of the latter in the comments section below Mike Yeadon’s latest piece at TCW, headlined ‘Why I don’t believe there ever was a Covid virus’. Commenters who were previously united in the – correct – view that the ‘pandemic’ was a massive scam and that the ‘vaccines’ are a monstrous and unnecessary assault on public health are now bickering furiously over whether or not they believe in the Covid virus or in viruses generally.

Most of those defending the existence of the Covid virus do so on the basis of the personal health experiences I invoked at the beginning. I’m not disputing that they may have felt all the exotic and unpleasant symptoms they describe, nor even that these were quite unlike any they had had before. What I am questioning is the logical leap which leads them all to infer that these were definitely the result of a novel virus. How could they possibly know? There are any number of other potential causes for these symptoms: radiation or chemical poisoning; the effects of 5G; a fairly routine brand of flu rebadged as Covid – and escalated in their imagination through groupthink into something much worse; terrain theory . . .

I remain open-minded on the cause of those symptoms, as I do on ‘virus theory’ versus ‘terrain theory’, or whether maybe it’s a mixture of both. But it seems evident to me that certain facts about the supposed pandemic of 2020 are now beyond dispute: it was a ‘pandemic’ only because the WHO changed its definition of the word; mortality rates were not above normal; the PCR tests were fraudulent; SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated; the pandemic was wargamed in 2019 at Event 201, and heavily promoted by vested interests (most funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) in the media, academe, the bio-medical establishment and client governments. Given the scale of the dishonesty surrounding this fake crisis, it would hardly constitute an extravagant leap to infer that the ‘virus’, like everything else, was just another fabricated part of the psyop.

And you don’t need to plump fully for terrain theory for this to be the case. Nor are you required to believe that China is a force for integrity and goodness, nor that Fauci and Daszak are stand-up guys, nor that there aren’t lots of black-budget-funded labs experimenting with pathogens. All you need to do is accept that the weight of evidence thus far shows that Mike Yeadon, and brave souls like him, are justified in their scepticism about the existence of a novel, possibly man-made virus called SARS-CoV-2. And the fact that in 2020 you had a nasty dose of flu-like symptoms is really neither here nor there.

March 24, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

‘Never vaccinated’ vs ‘Ever vaccinated’ mortality rate illusion: Survivor bias and how to overcome it

Claims of lower mortality rates for vaccinated may be just a statistical illusion

By Norman Fenton | Where are the numbers | March 21, 2023

In a previous article, we described the concept of survivor bias in studies that claimed better outcomes for covid vaccinated women in pregnancy: since the greatest risk to babies occur early in pregnancy, the babies of women who are vaccinated during pregnancy must already have survived the riskiest period.

In fact, a similar survivor bias more generally affects mortality rates for the vaccinated. If you see a study claiming much higher mortality rates of the ‘never vaccinated’ versus the ‘ever vaccinated’ you need to be sure it’s not just a statistical illusion due to survivor bias. This (7 minute) video provides an animated explanation:

The video shows this particular bias is avoided by using ‘person years in each vaccination category’ rather than people in each category. So a person who first gets vaccinated 6 months into a one year study and lives until the end of the year will be counted as 6 months never vaccinated and 6 months ever vaccinated.

The example is, of course, extremely simplified. Ideally, to calculate the correct number of person years in each category we need to know, for each person in the study, the exact date of each vaccination. And we also need to take account of the varying infection rate at different time intervals. That’s because the survivor bias is further exaggerated if (as was the case in most Western nations for the covid vaccines) the initial vaccine roll-out happened during the winter – meaning that fatality rates would inevitably fall anyway as more people were vaccinated. So, irrespective of the vaccine, more deaths were occuring at a time when more people were unvaccinated. Most of those classified as vaccinated would therefore already have survived the initial death peak when first vaccinated.

The ONS attempt to avoid survivor bias, but most reporting organisations and published studies do not

The ONS data on deaths by covid vaccine status uses person years to avoid this kind of survivor bias (although there are other biases not avoided in the ONS data as explained here). However, most studies and reports comparing mortality rates of vaccinated and unvaccinated (whether it is for covid deaths or all-cause deaths) fail to make the adjustment and are therefore overestimating the mortality rate of the unvaccinated while underestimating the mortality rate of the vaccinated.

Consider, for example, the most widely used web site for covid data, “Our World in Data”. Its page describing the comparison in covid mortality rate for vaccinated and unvaccinated states:

Death rates are calculated as the number of deaths in each group, divided by the total number of people in this group. This is given per 100,000 people.

So, all of the graphs shown there, such as this one for the USA, are subject to survival bias (one of the tell-tale signs of survivor bias is that the overestimation of the unvaccinated mortality rate will be highest during the time when large numbers of people are still being vaccinated and lowest during periods when there are few new vaccinations):

The regular CDC reports such as this most recent one not only fail to adjust for survivor bias but fail to mention this among the many listed limitations of their analysis. Since, as our simple video example shows, survivor bias makes it inevitable that a placebo vaccine can be shown to reduce mortality and will do so the more jabs you have. Therefore, it is unsurprising that these reports all have to assert the following to keep up the illusion:

All persons should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccination

Survival bias is just one of the many biases and flaws that have led to massively exaggerated claims of vaccine efficacy and safety

As we have explained several times before there are many biases and flaws in the way covid data is collected and analysed which (curiously) all favour exaggerated claims of vaccine efficacy and safety:

How to create the illusion your vaccine is 90% effective

…. even when those vaccinated get infected

March 23, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Biden fails to dismiss censorship collusion lawsuit

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | March 21, 2023

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) civil rights group has announced that a federal judge has rejected a motion to dismiss a  lawsuit, Missouri v. Biden, where the government is accused of involvement in censorship.

“The Court finds that the complaint alleges significant encouragement and coercion that converts the otherwise private conduct of censorship on social media platforms into state action, and is unpersuaded by defendants’ arguments to the contrary,” the decision reads.

We obtained a copy of the decision for you here.

The Biden White House thus failed to stop the legal challenge which alleges collusion between the government and Big Tech to suppress information they disapproved of concerning the pandemic and US elections.

The decision not to accept the motion was made in the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana by Judge Terry A. Doughty, a statement from the non-profit said.

The NCLA explained that it represented doctors Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Kheriaty, as well as Jill Hines, and that the suit lifted the lid on the censorship regime that the organization says a number of federal agencies had put in place.

The number in question is “at least” 11 agencies and sub-agencies (including the CDC and the Department of Homeland Security, DHS), the NCLA said, and backed this claim up by information that came out during the discovery process.

Government officials are accused of participating in a lawless censorship campaign that used a wide variety of tools to get social media companies to toe the line, from collusion and coordination, to coercion.

These serious claims laid out in the lawsuit, which Judge Doughty just allowed to proceed, further allege that the result was the censoring, blacklisting and shadow-banning of the clients represented by the NCLA, as well as other methods of silencing them, such as deliberately downranking their content, throttling, etc.

Explaining the decision to deny the motion to dismiss, the judge said that, based on past censorship, the threat of future censorship is “substantial” – rather than being “illusory or merely speculative.”

The NCLA welcomed the ruling, describing it as an important victory in the battle for free speech in the US, and lauded the district court for recognizing the scale and damage of government-orchestrated censorship.

“The Court has seen through the government’s unrelenting efforts to deny responsibility for using its vast power to silence thousands upon thousands of Americans online, often removing factually true information the government did not like,” commented NCLA’s senior litigation counsel, John J. Vecchione.

The case is now headed to a preliminary injunction hearing set for May 12.

March 22, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , | 1 Comment

Is Dr. Malone Invested in Humanity or Transhumanism?

By Karen Kingston | The Kingston Report | March 19, 2023

Dr. Robert Malone describes mRNA ‘vaccines’ as the entry point for transhumanism and the suite of technologies that can modify humans through directed biological and mechanical genetic mutations.

It was decided years ago to lie to global citizens about the end-game use of gene-editing nanotechnologies and the convergence of the digital world with the human body. Biotechnology is quite literally the science of turning technology into new life forms and turning natural life forms into new technologies.

Transhumanism is the sector of the biotechnology industry that integrates Ai nanotechnologies with the human body.

mRNA ‘Vaccines’ are the Gateway to Transhumanism, per Dr. Malone

In a recent interview with Glenn Beck, Dr. Robert Malone describes mRNA ‘vaccines’ as the entry point for the suite of technologies that can modify humans through forced biological and mechanical genetic mutations. This is also known as transhumanism or Directed Evolution.

“Transhumanism is the technology suite, I Think, is the best way to put it, around the idea of the both mechanical and biological modification of humans. The RNA (mRNA)vaccines as an entry point (to transhumanism).” – Dr. Robert Malone

You can watch the clip here.

During the interview, Dr. Malone explains how the mRNA (RNA) ‘vaccines’ are the ‘ethical entry’ point to transhumanism. Dr. Malone describes transhumanism as the suite of nanotechnologies used to force or direct the the evolution of humans with non-human DNA and inorganic material (such as metallic-based electromagnetic molecules).

mRNA Technology, Transhumanism, and the Destruction of Humanity

Let’s be honest, the outcome of the use of mRNA technology in humans can only result in the destruction of the human body (severe disease or death) as part of the process of creating hybrid humanoid bodies that can integrate with the digital realm.

Transcript of Part of Dr. Malone’s Interview with Glenn Beck:

Doctor Robert Malone: It’s not a conspiracy, transhumanism. They talk about the RNA vaccines as an entry point, just kind of opening that space ethically and otherwise. So, that’s part of the push for why these particular products (mRNA vaccines), is it relates to that transhumanism agenda.

Glenn Beck: Explain for anybody who doesn’t know, transhumanism, explain it break it down?

Doctor Robert Malone: So, transhumanism is the technology suite, I think, is the best way to put it, around the idea of the both mechanical and biological modification of humans.

So there you have it. mRNA technology was invented for and being used to destroy humanity and create a new hybrid humanoid species.

If Humans are NOT Being Destroyed with mRNA, Why is Elon Musk Predicting We Will Be Replaced with Humanoids (Biodigital Humans)?

As Dr. Malone stated in the interview, transhumanism is both the biological and mechanical modifications of humans using mRNA vaccines as an entry point. The creation of a biodigital humanoid species (transhumanis) is not a conspiracy and Dr. Malone’s mRNA ‘vaccine’ technology is the entry point, per Dr. Malone’s own words!

In a recent Yahoo! Finance article, Elon Musk says that humanoids will eventually outnumber humans (homo sapiens) resulting in devastating economic impact.

“I think we might exceed a one-to-one ratio of humanoid robots to humans. It’s not even clear what an economy is at that point.” – Elon Musk

Here’s another question, if humans are in charge of manufacturing humanoid robots, how on earth would humanoids outnumber 7.5 billion humans? Why would we intentionally create a global threat to humanity and our economy by manufacturing our human replacements?

Hint: The Humanoids are not being made in a factory.

One of the following 3 scenarios have to be true for Elon Musk’s humanoid replacement of humans to be true.

  1. Humans are being exterminated to reduce the 1/1 humanoid replacement ratio down from 7.5 billion to something more manageable.
  2. Humans are being converted into humanoids using mRNA technology and biosynthesis to produce hybrid biodigital cells inside of humans (transhumanism), (as Dr. Malone explains in his interview with Glenn Beck).
  3. 1 and 2 are both true and we all need to call mRNA technology a bioweapon.

Experimentation on Innocent Children and Adults with Gene-Editing Nanotech Under the Guise of ‘mRNA Vaccines’ is NOT Ethical

I hate to break it to the inventors of mRNA ‘vaccine’ technologies, including Dr. Malone, who believe that when they are falsely representing gene-editing nanotechnologies that are being used for the purposes of forcibly directing the evolution of humans to merge with digital technologies and express DNA from insects and reptiles, this is not ethical. mRNA ‘vaccines’ are grossly unethical, demonic in nature, and an act of global biowarfare.

mRNA ‘vaccine’ technology research, development, and now deployment on the global civilian population is for the purposes of biowarfare. mRNA technology has no clinically proven benefit to prevent infection, disease, or death. If you don’t believe me, the Russian Military Chief of Nuclear and Biowarfare, Lieutenant General Krillilov, cites my work and affirms that the mRNA vaccines are, by definition, agents of biowarfare per 18 USC 175.

Words Influence the Way We Think

Dr. Malone has embarked on a 2 -year campaign to persuade us to call this evil invention something good, like a vaccine or therapy. Words influence the way we think. The last thing the inventors of transhumanistic mRNA nanotechnologies want us to do is to accurately identify mRNA technology as a bioweapon. If we were successful in calling mRNA what it is, a bioweapon, people would then be able to think clearly about how evil and devastatingly harmful mRNA technology is and articulate the crimes that have been committed against them.

I will not call mRNA technology a ‘vaccine’ or ‘gene-editing therapy’. Vaccines and medical therapies are supposed to be used for the good of humanity. mRNA technology is a demonically-inspired bioweapon that is being used for the destruction of God’s greatest creation, humanity.

TRUTH WINS

Be wise. Be well. Challenge the lies and false narratives.

March 22, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | 1 Comment

Why I don’t believe there ever was a Covid virus

By Dr Mike Yeadon | TCW Defending Freedom | March 22, 2023

I’ve grown increasingly frustrated about the way debate is controlled around the topic of origins of the alleged novel virus, SARS-CoV-2, and I have come to disbelieve it’s ever been in circulation, causing massive scale illness and death. Concerningly, almost no one will entertain this possibility, despite the fact that molecular biology is the easiest discipline in which to cheat. That’s because you really cannot do it without computers, and sequencing requires complex algorithms and, importantly, assumptions. Tweaking algorithms and assumptions, you can hugely alter the conclusions.

This raises the question of why there is such an emphasis on the media storm around Fauci, Wuhan and a possible lab escape. After all, the ‘perpetrators’ have significant control over the media. There’s no independent journalism at present. It is not as though they need to embarrass the establishment.  I put it to readers that they’ve chosen to do so.

So who do I mean by ‘they’ and ‘the perpetrators?  There are a number of candidates competing for this position, with their drug company accomplices, several of whom are named in Paula Jardine’s excellent five-part series for TCW, Anatomy of the sinister Covid project. High on the list is the ‘enabling’ World Economic Forum and their many political acolytes including Justin Trudeau and Jacinda Aderne.

But that doesn’t answer the question why are they focusing on the genesis of the virus. In my view, they are doing their darnedest to make sure you regard this event exactly as they want you to. Specifically, that there was a novel virus.

I’m not alone in believing that myself at the beginning of the ‘pandemic’, but over time I’ve seen sufficient evidence to cast strong doubt on that idea. Additionally, when considered as part of a global coup d’état, I have put myself in the position of the most senior, hidden perpetrators. In a Q&A, they would learn that the effect of a released novel pathogen couldn’t be predicted accurately. It might burn out rapidly. Or it might turn out to be quite a lot more lethal than they’d expected, demolishing advanced civilisations. Those top decision-makers would, I submit, conclude that this natural risk is intolerable to them. They crave total control, and the wide range of possible outcomes from a deliberate release militates against this plan of action: ‘No, we’re not going to do this. Come back with a plan with very much reduced uncertainty on outcomes.’

The alternative I think they’ve used is to add one more lie to the tall stack of lies which has surrounded this entire affair. This lie is that there has ever been in circulation a novel respiratory virus which, crucially, caused massive-scale illness and deaths. In fact, there hasn’t.

Instead, we have been told there was this frightening, novel pathogen and ramped up the stress-inducing fear porn to 11, and held it there. This fits with cheating about genetic sequences, PCR test protocols (probes, primers, amplification and annealing conditions, cycles), ignoring contaminating genetic materials from not only human and claimed viral sources, but also bacterial and fungal sources. Why for example did they need to insert the sampling sticks right into our sinuses? Was it to maximise non-human genetic sequences?

Notice the soft evidence that our political and cultural leaders, including the late Queen, were happy to meet and greet one another without testing, masking or social distancing. They had no fear. In the scenario above, a few people would have known there was no new hazard in their environment. If there really was a lethal pathogen stalking the land, I don’t believe they’d have had the courage or the need to act nonchalantly and risk exposure to the virus.

Most convincingly for me is the US all-cause mortality (ACM) data by state, sex, age and date of occurrence, as analysed by Denis Rancourt and colleagues. The pattern of increased ACM is inconsistent with the presence of a novel respiratory virus as the main cause.

If I’m correct that there was no novel virus, what a genius move it was to pretend there was! Now they want you only to consider how this ‘killer virus’ got into the human population. Was it a natural emergence (you know, a wild bat bit a pangolin and this ended up being sold at a wet market in Wuhan) or was it hubristically created by a Chinese researcher, enabled along the way by a researcher at the University of North Carolina funded by Fauci, together making an end run around a presidential pause on such work? Then there’s the question as to whether the arrival of the virus in the general public was down to carelessness and a lab leak, or did someone deliberately spread it?

I also need to point out that the perpetrators have hermetic control of the mass media via a Big Tech and government stranglehold documented in part here, here and here. That’s why they’ve found it so easy to censor people like me. If a story appears on multiple TV networks, it’s because they’re either OK with it or it has been actively planted. It won’t be genuine. They never tell the truth. I don’t think they’ve told the truth since this coup began and probably much earlier. Most so-called journalists have lost sight of what truth ever was. I believe that the perpetrators (who could be all or any of Gates, Fauci, Farrar, Vallance, CEPI, EcoHealth Alliance, DARPA and numerous others) planted the controversy about the origins of SARS-CoV-2  because a little embarrassment of the establishment was a small price to persuade most of us that there surely must be a novel virus when there isn’t. (And they have got away with it to date.)

I have colleagues who do not believe what we’ve been told (i.e. that a virus has been experimentally constructed) is even possible technologically. I don’t have the background to assess that idea. But the rest hangs together for me in a way that no other explanation does.

To this point, an ex-pharmaceutical industry executive Sasha Latypova, speaking with Robert F Kennedy Jr on his podcast of last Thursday, March 16, describes the extensive evidence of the contracts and relationships that were in place before the Covid era. Contracts were signed for billions of dollars in February 2020. Not only would the required production never happen (from a standing start, to sign such a large commitment is ridiculous) but it cannot be done. She estimated that approximately one kilogram of DNA was required. There isn’t that much medicinal grade DNA on the planet at any one time. That’s because it’s hard to do, very expensive, wholly bespoke and difficult to store for long periods. Also, the amounts of any specific DNA sequence required and held in store by commercial suppliers would be milligrams or perhaps grams at a stretch. So it was always completely unfeasible, regardless of how much money was thrown at the problem, to have accomplished what they claim to have done in a short time.

Consequently, no other conclusion is supported by the facts than that it’s a huge crime, extensively planned. In itself, that rules out a natural emergence of a pathogen, unless divine providence occurred. Logically we’re left with a leak or, as I argue, a lie plus a PsyOp. The former may or may not be possible, but what isn’t arguable is that something like this could be done and would be likely to run smoothly, with a real pathogen. Almost any outcome but the one presumably wanted is likely if a pathogen is released. I can reach no other conclusion than that it’s fake.

In closing, I’m not saying people weren’t sick or that they didn’t die in huge numbers. I’m arguing only about the causes of illnesses and deaths. People were made sick and some killed by all the pre-existing causes, amplified by fear, resulting in immunosuppression and then a host of revolting actions. Note even the official overlap of signs & symptoms of ‘Covid-19’ and existing illnesses. Notably, they chopped antibiotic prescriptions in the US by 50 per cent during 2020. They ensured large numbers of frail elderly people were mechanically ventilated, a procedure which, in such subjects, is close to contraindicated. Some were administered remdesivir, which is a poison for the kidneys. In care homes, they were given midazolam and morphine, respiratory depressant drugs which in combination are all but contraindicated in patients with breathing difficulties. If used, close monitoring is required, most usually automated alarm systems attached to vital cardiorespiratory monitoring, including fingertip monitoring for blood gases. That didn’t happen in care homes.

I believe the main reason for the lies about the novel virus is a desire for total predictability and control, with the clearly articulated intention of transforming society; beginning by dismantling the financial system through lockdowns and furlough, while the immediate practical goal of lockdown was to provide the causus belli for injecting as many people as possible with materials designed not to induce immunity, but to demand repeat inoculation, to cause injury and death, and to control freedom of movement. I’m sure they’re pretty content with getting at least one needle into 6,000,000,000 people.

Note that though an estimated 10-15 million have been killed with poisonous ‘vaccines’, these are the but first of many mRNA injections to come. The indications are that ways to force you to accept ten more have been anticipated, because that’s the number of doses your government has agreed to purchase. Purchasing what? Well, it’s already been mooted that all existing vaccines are to be reformatted as mRNA types. If this happens, I don’t believe anyone injected ten more times is likely to escape death or severe, life-limiting illnesses. Inducing your body to manufacture non-self proteins will axiomatically induce an autoimmune attack by your own body. Your disease will be related to where the injected dose goes and of course the consistency of that injected product. They’ve been horribly erratic so far. It’s not certain they ever could have been made and launched if they had been subject to the usual quality requirements and not granted ’emergency use’ authorisations. Of course, as we now know, the regulators played an important role beyond lying for the US military, the organisation which made the original orders for ‘vaccines’, and set all the contractual conditions for companies such as Moderna and Pfizer.

The chickens are coming home to roost right now in the banking system.

As I always say, I cannot know much for sure. I don’t have a copy of the script of this, the greatest crime in history. But, whatever Covid actually is, I don’t believe that what was called influenza disappeared conveniently in early 2020. It’s another lie. It’s what they do. It’s all they do.

To those who sense that all is not well but are unwilling to make the psychological leap to the diabolical world I believe we’re now living in, I point out the asymmetry of risk. If you follow the official narrative and I’m right, you and your children will lose all your freedoms and probably your lives. If you believe what I’m saying and I’m wrong, you’ll be laughed at. These options aren’t faintly balanced. A rational actor should cease believing what we’re being told. It’s not a safe position, keeping your counsel and your head down. It’s the most dangerous thing you could do.

March 22, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | | 3 Comments

Irreversible Fake News At The Washington Post

Tony Heller | March 17, 2023

March 22, 2023 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

UCSF orders their doctors to ignore COVID vaccine injuries

They don’t file VAERS reports either. That’s a violation of federal law.

By Steve Kirsch | March 20, 2023

I sent a list of questions to UCSF media relations on March 20 at 10am PST. I also emailed and called the head of media relations at UCSF to let her know about my questions.

Their response: silence.

You know what that means, don’t you?

The questions I sent them

  1. The UCSF Chief Medical Officer has issued a verbal directive that medical staff (doctors, nurses, techs, etc.) are specifically instructed NOT to associate the COVID vaccine to any injuries. So even if they believe the vaccine caused the injury they are NOT allowed to talk to the patient about it. Can you explain how this is in a patient’s best interest? World health authorities such as Karl Lauterbach, Federal Minister of Germany for Health, have publicly admitted that the rate of severe vaccine injury is 1 in 10,000 and the V-safe data in the US shows the rate of severe injury (requiring medical care) is actually 100X higher: 8 SEVERE INJURIES per 100 fully vaccinated people. So why is the UCSF medical staff forbidden to make an association??
  2. I’ve been told that the staff are told not to ask if the person was recently vaccinated with the COVID vaccine because that would suggest to the patient that the COVID vaccine might have caused their medical condition. Is this true? So the patient must offer it to the doctor because the doctor isn’t allowed to ask? How does that improve clinical outcomes?
  3. I’ve been told that 70% of the Radiology Department (in Marin specifically) requested and were granted religious exemptions after seeing what happened to people who received the COVID vaccine. If it wasn’t 70%, what is the number?
  4. I’ve been told that the placentas of a majority of vaccinated women who give birth are not normal (calcified, blood clots, etc.). This started happening after the shots rolled out. Can you tell me what percentage was observed and why nobody at the hospital is speaking out to the press about this situation?
  5. Most troubling to me is that I was not able to find anyone who currently works at UCSF (including doctors, nurses, and lab techs) who would talk to me on the record for fear of being fired. Why would these doctors and nurses have such a fear? Will you guarantee in writing that any staff member who speaks out about any of the points above will be protected and not be fired just for speaking out? Have you fired anyone for speaking the truth? Who?
  6. With all the chatter about fear and intimidation tactics, have you issued WRITTEN assurances to the staff that 1) it is OK to ask about COVID vaccine status, 2) that it is OK to write vaccine exemptions when warranted such as allergic reactions, 3) that if they believe the vaccine caused an injury that they are free to talk about it with the patient and 4) that staff members who talk publicly about what they are seeing in the clinic with respect to vaccine-associated injuries/deaths and don’t violate any confidentiality/HIPAA rules will be protected from being fired? I want to know whether TRUE speech is protected and whether UCSF has notified staff of this in WRITING. If not, why not? Do fear and intimidation tactics yield better health outcomes?
  7. My friend Tim Damroth told me he suffered a cardiac arrest 2 minutes after getting his first COVID shot. He was in such pain since the shot that his UCSF doctors prescribed a nerve block shot. But in order to get the nerve block shot, UCSF required him to be fully vaccinated (i.e., 2 shots)! He asked for a vaccine exemption, but the UCSF doctors told him that UCSF doesn’t allow them to write any vaccine exemptions, even for people who almost died after getting the shot. So Tim got another shot in order to get the medical care he needed but this made his pain much worse. Can you confirm whether COVID vaccination is still required to get certain medical care at UCSF? If it isn’t still required, when did the requirement end? Can you explain the rationale for requiring vaccination to give a shot? Do you deny treatment to people with life threatening conditions if they are not fully vaccinated? How vaccinated must they be to be treated? 2 shots? 3 shots? I just talked to Tim and he will be delighted to sign a HIPAA consent to allow UCSF to talk about his case and all his medical records publicly so everyone can learn what happened to him. Are you proud of the way he was treated? Do you have any regrets?
  8. If you believe that COVID vaccine and masks are effective, why would you subject a patient to have to be vaccinated before receiving medical care? This is nonsensical in light of the Cleveland Clinic study which clearly showed that vaccines increase risk of getting COVID which would seem to put the staff at higher risk. You are clearly ignoring that study. On what basis? Nobody has been able to debunk the study. The precautionary principle of medicine requires that you hold off your vaccine requirement until you can resolve the ambiguity.
  9. How many UCSF staff have died within 6 months of receiving a COVID vaccine shot? Were autopsies done? Did they do the histopathology studies to rule out the COVID vaccine as a cause of death? Can we see the slides?
  10. How many UCSF staff have been seriously injured from the COVID vaccine?
  11. Why didn’t any doctor at UCSF file a VAERS report on the vaccine injuries of <redacted>, Jan Maisel, and Angela Wulbrecht. This is required by law. <redacted> was a former Chief Medical Officer at UCSF. Maisel is Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at UCSF. Wulbrecht was a top UCSF nurse. All of their injuries were required by law to be reported, yet no VAERS reports were filed. Why not? What are you doing to correct the problem?
  12. UCSF ultrasound technicians with decades of experience have seen an unprecedented number of menstrual irregularities in women who have been vaccinated. Why aren’t any of them warning the public about this? Is the public better off if nobody knows about this?
  13. I talked to one of the funeral homes used by UCSF. They are seeing a 20X higher rate of perinatal deaths after the COVID vaccines rolled out. This is a disaster. Why isn’t anyone saying anything about this? Why did the funeral director decline to be named for fear of being fired? Why isn’t UCSF just publishing the numbers to warn the community? How does keeping this information secret result in superior clinical outcomes?
  14. Nearly all of the UCSF neurologists know that the COVID vaccines have caused serious injuries to huge numbers of UCSF patients. Can you explain why none of them are speaking out publicly about what they are observing in the clinic?
  15. Why not make public health information from the hospital public? The information can be easily anonymized to protect privacy. Wouldn’t making medical records such as age/admission date/COVID vaccine dates/reason for admission be a huge public service? If the vaccine really works, everyone would know it. If the vaccine doesn’t work, everyone would know it. Why don’t we have data transparency?
  16. Is anyone at UCSF calling for data transparency from the CDC? If the death-vax records were public, we could instantly know whether the shots are beneficial or harmful. Is there a reason these records are not public and nobody at UCSF is calling for these records to be made public? Do we get better health outcomes when the CDC keeps the data from public view? The data can be easily anonymized to satisfy any HIPAA requirements. I personally released a subset of the death-vax records from Medicare. So I know it can be done. Oh, and it showed the vaccine were causing an enormous amount of excess deaths.
  17. How long do you think you can get away with hiding all these vaccine injuries from public view?
  18. Is this really in the public interest to keep all this stuff secret and engage in fear and intimidation tactics? Is there a paper in a peer-reviewed medical journal showing superior patient outcomes when the public is kept in the dark about vaccine injuries?

Summary

These should be easy questions for UCSF to answer, but they are ducking my questions for some reason. I just can’t figure it out. I don’t want to spread misinformation, and I’ve offered to correct any questions if they will supply evidence that I’m wrong, but all I hear is silence.

It’s not just me who wants answers to these questions. Pretty much all my readers want to know the answer too.

More importantly, I’d guess that most of the people who work at UCSF would want to know the answer to these questions as well.

But apparently UCSF management and the mainstream media don’t think any of these questions are important.

I wonder if any members of the UCSF Health Leadership Team are curious about the answer to any of these questions. And if not, why not? Do all of them think secrecy is the best way to go? Which questions do they not want to have answered and why? I’ve emailed Dr. Adler and I hope he will respond.

They can’t keep running from the truth. The longer they avoid answering these questions, the worse they look.

Some day there will be accountability. You can bank on that.

March 21, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

U.N. Is A Climate “Disinformation Threat Actor”

By Michael Shellenberger | March 20, 2023

The United States government’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), within the Department of Homeland Security, is raising the alarm about the threat of “foreign influence” that is “leveraging misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.” CISA defines “malinformation” as information “based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” In 2021, CISA, along with the White House and private sector partners, successfully persuaded Facebook and Twitter to censor accurate information about the origins of the SARS-2 coronavirus and covid vaccines.

And yet CISA is failing to do its job when censoring malinformation, misinformation, and disinformation about climate change, including by “threat actors,” often funded or employed by foreign governments. A Google survey of over 2,300 people conducted last year by the nonpartisan research organization Environmental Progress, which I founded and lead, found that 53% of people surveyed in the U.S. agree with the false statement, “Climate change is making hurricanes more frequent,” while 46% agree with the false statement, “Climate change threatens human extinction.”

I strongly oppose efforts by the U.S. government to censor American citizens by ordering social media platforms to remove content, sometimes while threatening to end Section 230, the federal law that makes companies like Facebook and Twitter possible. Such censorship is a violation of the First Amendment. The journalist Matt Taibbi, former State Department official Mike Benz, and I have all pointed to the emergence since 2016 of a censorship-industrial complex operated and funded by the U.S. government. It should be defunded.

But it’s notable that the censorship-industrial complex has shown no interest in censoring climate misinformation that has led people to believe that climate change is making hurricanes more frequent and threatening human extinction. “An example of malinformation is editing a video to remove important context to harm or mislead,” writes CISA. And yet that is precisely what foreign disinformation threat actors like Greta Thunberg, her allies at the German government-funded Potsdam Institute, and even the U.N.’s own Secretary-General Antonio Guterres routinely do when they share videos of people in poor countries suffering from flooding, which is a direct result of lack of flood management infrastructure, not slightly more precipitation from climate change.

Moreover, the censorship-industrial complex has sought to censor accurate information about climate change and energy. Last June, former Biden Administration Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy demanded censorship of those who criticized the failure of weather-dependent renewables during the blackouts in Texas in February 2021, even though such criticisms were factual. “The tech companies have to stop allowing specific individuals over and over again to spread disinformation,” said McCarthy.

In her interview, she went on to falsely claim that critics of renewables are funded by “dark money” fossil fuel companies — the same false claim that Democrats made of the world’s most influential scientist studying hurricanes and climate change, Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado. As such, McCarthy spread disinformation in order to undermine the legitimacy of her opponents.

The U.N. continues to wage its disinformation campaign against the people of the world, as today’s headlines about its new report show. “‘The climate time-bomb is ticking,’” reads the CNN headline. “Scientists release ‘survival guide’ to avert climate disaster,” says BBC. “Earth to hit critical warming threshold by early 2030s, climate panel says.” The U.N. most journalists are implying that scientists have determined that a temperature increase beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels would be catastrophic.

The U.N. report is malinformation. The supposed 1.5-degree “threshold” is political, not scientific, as Pielke and others have shown. Global warming causes incrementally greater risk. Temperatures are expected to rise less than most thought as recently as 10 years ago, thanks to abundant natural gas. And humankind’s physical security is assured, given our success at adapting to more extreme weather and producing more food on less land.

All of this raises a question. Why, if the U.N. and U.S. governments are so committed to censoring disinformation, are they themselves spreading it? Why, in other words, do U.N. officials perfectly fit their own definition of “disinformation threat actors,” and often foreign ones at that?

March 20, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

Heavily Criticised Pro-lockdown Paper Cited Far More Than Anti-lockdown Papers

BY NOAH CARL | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | MARCH 13, 2023

Formal scientific institutions took a battering during the pandemic, and deservedly so. From the wildly inaccurate predictions of SAGE modellers to the denial of natural immunity by signatories of the John Snow Memorandum, ‘Science’ (uppercase ‘s’) has not had a good three years.

A particularly striking illustration of this is citation patterns in the scientific literature. If things were working well, the best studies would get cited the most. Unfortunately, that appears not to be the case: citations have flowed disproportionately to studies that uphold The Narrative.

In June, 2020, researchers from Imperial College London (including our old friend Neil Ferguson) published a paper in the prestigious journal Nature titled ‘Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe’.

They concluded – on the basis of a complex model-fitting exercise – that lockdowns had saved the lives of 3.1 million people across 11 European countries. That’s right, 3.1 million lives saved, and during the first three months of the pandemic alone.

Doesn’t sound very plausible, does it? After all, Sweden didn’t lock down, and they saw about as many deaths – or even fewer – than the countries that did lockdown. So how did the researchers get to the figure of 3.1 million lives saved?

As Philippe Lemoine notes, they just assumed that death numbers would have been far greater in the absence of lockdowns, and then took the difference between those numbers and the ones that were actually observed, and concluded the difference was due to lockdowns. Okay, but what about Sweden?

Well, the researchers fit a model in which the effect of different interventions could vary from country to country. And while Sweden didn’t have a lockdown, they did have a ban on public gatherings (of more than 500 people). So in the researchers’ model, Sweden’s ban on public gatherings ended up having the same impact as lockdown in all the other countries.

They were effectively claiming that, in France, Italy, the UK etc., lockdowns succeeded in preventing hundreds of thousands of deaths, but in Sweden, the same effect was achieved by simply banning public gatherings. Like I said, not very plausible. In fact, it’s preposterous.

The paper has been heavily criticised. However, that hasn’t stopped it being cited 2779 times! Most researchers don’t get that many citations in their entire career, let alone on a single paper.

Now let’s look at the number of citations accrued by papers finding that lockdowns didn’t have much effect.

Simon Wood’s paper ‘Did COVID-19 infections decline before UK lockdown?’ concluded that “infections were in decline before full UK lockdown”. It has been cited a total of 40 times (across two different versions).

Christian Bjørnskov’s paper ‘Did Lockdown Work? An Economist’s Cross-Country Comparison’ found “no clear association between lockdown policies and mortality development”. It has been cited a total of 57 times.

Eran Bendavid and colleagues’ paper ‘Assessing mandatory stay-at-home and business closure effects on the spread of COVID-19’ did “not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs”. It has been cited a total of 205 times.

Christopher Berry and colleagues’ paper ‘Evaluating the effects of shelter-in-place policies during the COVID-19 pandemic’ did “not find detectable effects of these policies on disease spread or deaths”. It has been cited a total of 68 times.

While none of these papers is perfect, they’re all vastly more rigorous than the Imperial College study published in Nature. Despite this, none of them has garnered even 1/10th as many citations as that study.

Something has gone seriously wrong when a flawed study gets almost three thousand citations, while more rigorous studies only pick up a few dozen. As to what explains this disparity, I can only speculate that most scientists haven’t come to terms with the fact that the ‘experts’ dropped the ball.

March 19, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Courage of the teacher who refused to make his pupils wear masks

By Harry Hopkins | TCW Defending Freedom | March 14, 2023

Right from the outset of the ‘plandemic’ there have been those who recognised the evil in what was going on and who, in their own ways, have been making every effort to resist. Across the world many people have lost their jobs and their businesses, but perhaps giving up one’s livelihood on principle is the supreme act that a person with moral courage can do to oppose the enemy that confronts us.

There have been many such brave souls and Mark (not his real name) is such a person. A teacher at a large secondary school in Yorkshire, he realised that he would have difficulty doing his job when testing and then masking of his pupils was mandated. These instructions came from the local authority and were expected to be introduced without question. There were other teachers, too, who had grave misgivings, but they were in the minority and were openly mocked.

All teachers were given instructions about the distribution of testing kits and to organise pupil seating plans which had to be adhered to. All staff were expected to wear a face covering; there was no consultation about this. In the spring term of 2021 a box of testing kits arrived in Mark’s classroom, which he left untouched as the holiday was just about to start. On return from holiday he decided to write to the head teacher about his concerns, and you can read his email here.

Not only did the head not reply to this letter, but he didn’t speak to Mark again. Instead, he sent a teaching assistant, who was full on-narrative and was wearing two masks plus a visor, to admonish him for not complying. In Mark’s own words:

‘She commenced by bellowing instructions to maskless pupils to cover their faces. She glanced at me, clearly expecting a reaction. How could I possibly allow these potential vectors of death to be in school without covering their faces? I had never, and still have never instructed a child to obstruct their airways. It is a line I simply cannot cross. I suspect my response was neither wanted nor expected, since it appeared to make her address the children with yet more venom. I turned and smiled at the children instead who smiled back me. These confused souls seemed to prefer my smile to this clown’s anger, despite not being able to see her face.

‘I’m not seeking praise or recognition or anything at all here, I simply cannot in good conscience do it. As the school year progressed, things didn’t improve. Every few weeks she would arrive to carry out the task, a task that she clearly felt I should be doing and one I had no grounds to refuse. After she left the room, the masks would come down and an ever-increasing number of testing kits were discarded by the kids into the bin each time. My attitude was clearly causing an issue for some members of staff; many would blank me as we crossed in the corridor, and entering the staffroom sometimes felt like the scene from the movie An American Werewolf in London when the tourists walk into the Slaughtered Lamb pub and everyone suddenly stops talking to stare.’

When you read these words, describing the experience of a dedicated teacher who was untouched by the brainwashing that resulted in utter cruelty being inflicted on children across the country, it makes you shudder in disbelief. For Mark to maintain his moral stance in the face of such disgraceful behaviour from his colleagues surely speaks volumes for his strength of character. How on earth he managed to carry on, day after day, in the face of such hostility is a credit to his courage and steadfastness, not to mention his dedication to his pupils.

In July the headmaster was off work because he had tested positive for Covid. In his absence his deputies, clearly relishing the authority, upped the ante from passive-aggression to a decidedly more unpleasant tack. Mark’s pupil-centred teaching technique was deemed unsafe because he was not wearing a mask, did not sport PPE and was doing his best to help the kids in his charge by behaving in a ‘normal’ manner. He was told to go home, take a test or, if he preferred not to get tested, then allow other teachers to cover his classes for two weeks.

Confronted with such stupidity and total lack of any humanity regarding the care of pupils, Mark was pushed over the edge when another masked deputy began haranguing him about following ‘the science’. An argument ensued. It was the final straw and he collected his belongings and left for good.

It’s interesting to note that the decision to impose masks on schoolchildren in England was not ‘following the science’ at all but rather was purely for political expediency: ‘Face masks introduced in English secondary schools to avoid “argument” with Sturgeon’.

Mark gave up a career that he enjoyed tremendously because he would not subject his pupils to the Covid madness. The welfare of the children in his charge was always at the centre of his actions and he could not, in all conscience, inflict the insanity of masks, tests and distancing on his young charges.

As a conclusion, it is heartening to say that Mark now works as a supply teacher and devotes much time to opposing the narrative with practical actions. The wonderful thing from his point of view is that he stood by his conscience and has the satisfaction of going forward knowing that he kept his soul intact. One wonders how his headmaster, his deputies and other teachers who inflicted these despicable practices on young, impressionable youngsters justify their behaviour now that the truth about the Covid crimes is breaking by the day. Did they keep their souls intact? I think not.

March 19, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries