Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Four Pillars of Medical Ethics Were Destroyed in the Covid Response

By Clayton J. Baker, MD | Brownstone Institute | May 12, 2023

Much like a Bill of Rights, a principal function of any Code of Ethics is to set limits, to check the inevitable lust for power, the libido dominandi, that human beings tend to demonstrate when they obtain authority and status over others, regardless of the context.

Though it may be difficult to believe in the aftermath of COVID, the medical profession does possess a Code of Ethics. The four fundamental concepts of Medical Ethics – its 4 Pillars – are Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-maleficence, and Justice.

Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-maleficence, and Justice

These ethical concepts are thoroughly established in the profession of medicine. I learned them as a medical student, much as a young Catholic learns the Apostle’s Creed. As a medical professor, I taught them to my students, and I made sure my students knew them. I believed then (and still do) that physicians must know the ethical tenets of their profession, because if they do not know them, they cannot follow them.

These ethical concepts are indeed well-established, but they are more than that. They are also valid, legitimate, and sound. They are based on historical lessons, learned the hard way from past abuses foisted upon unsuspecting and defenseless patients by governments, health care systems, corporations, and doctors. Those painful, shameful lessons arose not only from the actions of rogue states like Nazi Germany, but also from our own United States: witness Project MK-Ultra and the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.

The 4 Pillars of Medical Ethics protect patients from abuse. They also allow physicians the moral framework to follow their consciences and exercise their individual judgment – provided, of course, that physicians possess the character to do so. However, like human decency itself, the 4 Pillars were completely disregarded by those in authority during COVID.

The demolition of these core principles was deliberate. It originated at the highest levels of COVID policymaking, which itself had been effectively converted from a public health initiative to a national security/military operation in the United States in March 2020, producing the concomitant shift in ethical standards one would expect from such a change. As we examine the machinations leading to the demise of each of the 4 Pillars of Medical Ethics during COVID, we will define each of these four fundamental tenets, and then discuss how each was abused.

Autonomy

Of the 4 Pillars of Medical Ethics, autonomy has historically held pride of place, in large part because respect for the individual patient’s autonomy is a necessary component of the other three. Autonomy was the most systemically abused and disregarded of the 4 Pillars during the COVID era.

Autonomy may be defined as the patient’s right to self-determination with regard to any and all medical treatment. This ethical principle was clearly stated by Justice Benjamin Cardozo as far back as 1914: “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.”

Patient autonomy is “My body, my choice” in its purest form. To be applicable and enforceable in medical practice, it contains several key derivative principles which are quite commonsensical in nature. These include informed consent, confidentiality, truth-telling, and protection against coercion.

Genuine informed consent is a process, considerably more involved than merely signing a permission form. Informed consent requires a competent patient, who receives full disclosure about a proposed treatment, understands it, and voluntarily consents to it.

Based on that definition, it becomes immediately obvious to anyone who lived in the United States through the COVID era, that the informed consent process was systematically violated by the COVID response in general, and by the COVID vaccine programs in particular. In fact, every one of the components of genuine informed consent were thrown out when it came to the COVID vaccines:

  • Full disclosure about the COVID vaccines – which were extremely new, experimental therapies, using novel technologies, with alarming safety signals from the very start – was systematically denied to the public. Full disclosure was actively suppressed by bogus anti-“misinformation” campaigns, and replaced with simplistic, false mantras (e.g. “safe and effective”) that were in fact just textbook propaganda slogans.
  • Blatant coercion (e.g. “Take the shot or you’re fired/can’t attend college/can’t travel”) was ubiquitous and replaced voluntary consent.
  • Subtler forms of coercion (ranging from cash payments to free beer) were given in exchange for COVID-19 vaccination. Multiple US states held lotteries for COVID-19 vaccine recipients, with up to $5 million in prize money promised in some states.
  • Many physicians were presented with financial incentives to vaccinate, sometimes reaching hundreds of dollars per patient. These were combined with career-threatening penalties for questioning the official policies. This corruption severely undermined the informed consent process in doctor-patient interactions.
  • Incompetent patients (e.g. countless institutionalized patients) were injected en masse, often while forcibly isolated from their designated decision-making family members.

It must be emphasized that under the tendentious, punitive, and coercive conditions of the COVID vaccine campaigns, especially during the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” period, it was virtually impossible for patients to obtain genuine informed consent. This was true for all the above reasons, but most importantly because full disclosure was nearly impossible to obtain.

A small minority of individuals did manage, mostly through their own research, to obtain sufficient information about the COVID-19 vaccines to make a truly informed decision. Ironically, these were principally dissenting healthcare personnel and their families, who, by virtue of discovering the truth, knew “too much.” This group overwhelmingly refused the mRNA vaccines.

Confidentiality, another key derivative principle of autonomy, was thoroughly ignored during the COVID era. The widespread yet chaotic use of COVID vaccine status as a de facto social credit system, determining one’s right of entry into public spaces, restaurants and bars, sporting and entertainment events, and other locations, was unprecedented in our civilization.

Gone were the days when HIPAA laws were taken seriously, where one’s health history was one’s own business, and where the cavalier use of such information broke Federal law. Suddenly, by extralegal public decree, the individual’s health history was public knowledge, to the absurd extent that any security guard or saloon bouncer had the right to question individuals about their personal health status, all on the vague, spurious, and ultimately false grounds that such invasions of privacy promoted “public health.”

Truth-telling was completely dispensed with during the COVID era. Official lies were handed down by decree from high-ranking officials such as Anthony Fauci, public health organizations like the CDC, and industry sources, then parroted by regional authorities and local clinical physicians. The lies were legion, and none of them have aged well. Examples include:

  • The SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in a wet market, not in a lab
  • “Two weeks to flatten the curve”
  • Six feet of “social distancing” effectively prevents transmission of the virus
  • “A pandemic of the unvaccinated”
  • “Safe and effective”
  • Masks effectively prevent transmission of the virus
  • Children are at serious risk from COVID
  • School closures are necessary to prevent spread of the virus
  • mRNA vaccines prevent contraction of the virus
  • mRNA vaccines prevent transmission of the virus
  • mRNA vaccine-induced immunity is superior to natural immunity
  • Myocarditis is more common from COVID-19 disease than from mRNA vaccination

It must be emphasized that health authorities pushed deliberate lies, known to be lies at the time by those telling them. Throughout the COVID era, a small but very insistent group of dissenters have constantly presented the authorities with data-driven counterarguments against these lies. The dissenters were consistently met with ruthless treatment of the “quick and devastating takedown” variety now infamously promoted by Fauci and former NIH Director Francis Collins.

Over time, many of the official lies about COVID have been so thoroughly discredited that they are now indefensible. In response, the COVID power brokers, backpedaling furiously, now try to recast their deliberate lies as fog-of-war style mistakes. To gaslight the public, they claim they had no way of knowing they were spouting falsehoods, and that the facts have only now come to light. These, of course, are the same people who ruthlessly suppressed the voices of scientific dissent that presented sound interpretations of the situation in real time.

For example, on March 29, 2021, during the initial campaign for universal COVID vaccination, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky proclaimed on MSNBC that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus” or “get sick,” based on both clinical trials and “real-world data.” However, testifying before Congress on April 19, 2023, Walensky conceded that those claims are now known to be false, but that this was due to “an evolution of the science.” Walensky had the effrontery to claim this before Congress 2 years after the fact, when in actuality, the CDC itself had quietly issued a correction of Walensky’s false MSNBC claims back in 2021, a mere 3 days after she had made them.

On May 5, 2023, three weeks after her mendacious testimony to Congress, Walensky announced her resignation.

Truth-telling by physicians is a key component of the informed consent process, and informed consent, in turn, is a key component of patient autonomy. A matrix of deliberate lies, created by authorities at the very top of the COVID medical hierarchy, was projected down the chains of command, and ultimately repeated by individual physicians in their face-to-face interactions with their patients. This process rendered patient autonomy effectively null and void during the COVID era.

Patient autonomy in general, and informed consent in particular, are both impossible where coercion is present. Protection against coercion is a principal feature of the informed consent process, and it is a primary consideration in medical research ethics. This is why so-called vulnerable populations such as children, prisoners, and the institutionalized are often afforded extra protections when proposed medical research studies are subjected to institutional review boards.

Coercion not only ran rampant during the COVID era, it was deliberately perpetrated on an industrial scale by governments, the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical establishment. Thousands of American healthcare workers, many of whom had served on the front lines of care during the early days of the pandemic in 2020 (and had already contracted COVID-19 and developed natural immunity) were fired from their jobs in 2021 and 2022 after refusing mRNA vaccines they knew they didn’t need, would not consent to, and yet for which they were denied exemptions. “Take this shot or you’re fired” is coercion of the highest order.

Hundreds of thousands of American college students were required to get the COVID shots and boosters to attend school during the COVID era. These adolescents, like young children, have statistically near-zero chance of death from COVID-19. However, they (especially males) are at statistically highest risk of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-related myocarditis.

According to the advocacy group nocollegemendates.com, as of May 2, 2023, approximately 325 private and public colleges and universities in the United States still have active vaccine mandates for students matriculating in the fall of 2023. This is true despite the fact that it is now universally accepted that the mRNA vaccines do not stop contraction or transmission of the virus. They have zero public health utility. “Take this shot or you cannot go to school” is coercion of the highest order.

Countless other examples of coercion abound. The travails of the great tennis champion Novak Djokovic, who has been denied entry into both Australia and the United States for multiple Grand Slam tournaments because he refuses the COVID vaccines, illustrate in broad relief the “man without a country” limbo in which the unvaccinated found (and to some extent still find) themselves, due to the rampant coercion of the COVID era.

Beneficence

In medical ethics, beneficence means that physicians are obligated to act for the benefit of their patients. This concept distinguishes itself from non-maleficence (see below) in that it is a positive requirement. Put simply, all treatments done to an individual patient should do good to that individual patient. If a procedure cannot help you, then it shouldn’t be done to you. In ethical medical practice, there is no “taking one for the team.”

By mid-2020 at the latest, it was clear from existing data that SARS-CoV-2 posed truly minimal risk to children of serious injury and death – in fact, the pediatric Infection Fatality Rate of COVID-19 was known in 2020 to be less than half the risk of being struck by lightning. This feature of the disease, known even in its initial and most virulent stages, was a tremendous stroke of pathophysiological good luck, and should have been used to the great advantage of society in general and children in particular.

The opposite occurred. The fact that SARS-CoV-2 causes extremely mild illness in children was systematically hidden or scandalously downplayed by authorities, and subsequent policy went unchallenged by nearly all physicians, to the tremendous detriment of children worldwide.

The frenzied push for and unrestrained use of mRNA vaccines in children and pregnant women – which continues at the time of this writing in the United States – outrageously violates the principle of beneficence. And beyond the Anthony Faucis, Albert Bourlas, and Rochelle Walenskys, thousands of ethically compromised pediatricians bear responsibility for this atrocity.

The mRNA COVID vaccines were – and remain – new, experimental vaccines with zero long-term safety data for either the specific antigen they present (the spike protein) or their novel functional platform (mRNA vaccine technology). Very early on, they were known to be ineffective in stopping contraction or transmission of the virus, rendering them useless as a public health measure. Despite this, the public was barraged with bogus “herd immunity” arguments. Furthermore, these injections displayed alarming safety signals, even during their tiny, methodologically challenged initial clinical trials.

The principle of beneficence was entirely and deliberately ignored when these products were administered willy-nilly to children as young as 6 months, a population to whom they could provide zero benefit – and as it turned out, that they would harm. This represented a classic case of “taking one for the team,” an abusive notion that was repeatedly invoked against children during the COVID era, and one that has no place in the ethical practice of medicine.

Children were the population group that was most obviously and egregiously harmed by the abandonment of the principle of beneficence during COVID. However, similar harms occurred due to the senseless push for COVID mRNA vaccination of other groups, such as pregnant women and persons with natural immunity.

Non-Maleficence

Even if, for argument’s sake alone, one makes the preposterous assumption that all COVID-era public health measures were implemented with good intentions, the principle of non-maleficence was nevertheless broadly ignored during the pandemic. With the growing body of knowledge of the actual motivations behind so many aspects of COVID-era health policy, it becomes clear that non-maleficence was very often replaced with outright malevolence.

In medical ethics, the principle of non-maleficence is closely tied to the universally cited medical dictum of primum non nocere, or, “First, do no harm.” That phrase is in turn associated with a statement from Hippocrates’ Epidemics, which states, “As to diseases make a habit of two things – to help, or at least, to do no harm.” This quote illustrates the close, bookend-like relationship between the concepts of beneficence (“to help”) and non-maleficence (“to do no harm”).

In simple terms, non-maleficence means that if a medical intervention is likely to harm you, then it shouldn’t be done to you. If the risk/benefit ratio is unfavorable to you (i.e., it is more likely to hurt you then help you), then it shouldn’t be done to you. Pediatric COVID mRNA vaccine programs are just one prominent aspect of COVID-era health policy that absolutely violate the principle of non-maleficence.

It has been argued that historical mass-vaccination programs may have violated non-maleficence to some extent, as rare severe and even deadly vaccine reactions did occur in those programs. This argument has been forwarded to defend the methods used to promote the COVID mRNA vaccines. However, important distinctions between past vaccine programs and the COVID mRNA vaccine program must be made.

First, past vaccine-targeted diseases such as polio and smallpox were deadly to children – unlike COVID-19. Second, such past vaccines were effective in both preventing contraction of the disease in individuals and in achieving eradication of the disease – unlike COVID-19. Third, serious vaccine reactions were truly rare with those older, more conventional vaccines – again, unlike COVID-19.

Thus, many past pediatric vaccine programs had the potential to meaningfully benefit their individual recipients. In other words, the a priori risk/benefit ratio may have been favorable, even in tragic cases that resulted in vaccine-related deaths. This was never even arguably true with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

Such distinctions possess some subtlety, but they are not so arcane that the physicians dictating COVID policy did not know they were abandoning basic medical ethics standards such as non-maleficence. Indeed, high-ranking medical authorities had ethical consultants readily available to them – witness that Anthony Fauci’s wife, a former nurse named Christine Grady, served as chief of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, a fact that Fauci flaunted for public relations purposes.

Indeed, much of COVID-19 policy appears to have been driven not just by rejection of non-maleficence, but by outright malevolence. Compromised “in-house” ethicists frequently served as apologists for obviously harmful and ethically bankrupt policies, rather than as checks and balances against ethical abuses.

Schools never should have been closed in early 2020, and they absolutely should have been fully open without restrictions by fall of 2020. Lockdowns of society never should have been instituted, much less extended as long as they were. Sufficient data existed in real time such that both prominent epidemiologists (e.g. the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration) and select individual clinical physicians produced data-driven documents publicly proclaiming against lockdowns and school closures by mid-to-late 2020. These were either aggressively suppressed or completely ignored.

Numerous governments imposed prolonged, punishing lockdowns that were without historical precedent, legitimate epidemiological justification, or legal due process. Curiously, many of the worst offenders hailed from the so-called liberal democracies of the Anglosphere, such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and deep blue parts of the United States. Public schools In the United States were closed an average of 70 weeks during COVID. This was far longer than most European Union countries, and longer still than Scandinavian countries who, in some cases, never closed schools.

The punitive attitude displayed by health authorities was broadly supported by the medical establishment. The simplistic argument developed that because there was a “pandemic,” civil rights could be decreed null and void – or, more accurately, subjected to the whims of public health authorities, no matter how nonsensical those whims may have been. Innumerable cases of sadistic lunacy ensued.

At one point at the height of the pandemic, in this author’s locale of Monroe County, New York, an idiotic Health Official decreed that one side of a busy commercial street could be open for business, while the opposite side was closed, because the center of the street divided two townships. One town was code “yellow,” the other code “red” for new COVID-19 cases, and thus businesses mere yards from one another survived or faced ruin. Except, of course, the liquor stores, which, being “essential,” never closed at all. How many thousands of times was such asinine and arbitrary abuse of power duplicated elsewhere? The world will never know.

Who can forget being forced to wear a mask when walking to and from a restaurant table, then being permitted to remove it once seated? The humorous memes that “you can only catch COVID when standing up” aside, such pseudo-scientific idiocy smacks of totalitarianism rather than public health. It closely mimics the deliberate humiliation of citizens through enforced compliance with patently stupid rules that was such a legendary feature of life in the old Eastern Bloc.

And I write as an American who, while I lived in a deep blue state during COVID, never suffered in the concentration camps for COVID-positive individuals that were established in Australia.

Those who submit to oppression resent no one, not even their oppressors, so much as the braver souls who refuse to surrender. The mere presence of dissenters is a stone in the quisling’s shoe – a constant, niggling reminder to the coward of his moral and ethical inadequacy. Human beings, especially those lacking personal integrity, cannot tolerate much cognitive dissonance. And so they turn on those of higher character than themselves.

This explains much of the sadistic streak that so many establishment-obeying physicians and health administrators displayed during COVID. The medical establishment – hospital systems, medical schools, and the doctors employed therein – devolved into a medical Vichy state under the control of the governmental/industrial/public health juggernaut.

These mid- and low-level collaborators actively sought to ruin dissenters’ careers with bogus investigations, character assassination, and abuse of licensing and certification board authority. They fired the vaccine refuseniks within their ranks out of spite, self-destructively decimating their own workforces in the process. Most perversely, they denied early, potential life-saving treatment to all their COVID patients. Later, they withheld standard therapies for non-COVID illnesses – up to and including organ transplants – to patients who declined COVID vaccines, all for no legitimate medical reason whatsoever.

This sadistic streak that the medical profession displayed during COVID is reminiscent of the dramatic abuses of Nazi Germany. However, it more closely resembles (and in many ways is an extension of) the subtler yet still malignant approach followed for decades by the United States Government’s medical/industrial/public health/national security nexus, as personified by individuals like Anthony Fauci. And it is still going strong in the wake of COVID.

Ultimately, abandonment of the tenet of non-maleficence is inadequate to describe much of the COVID-era behavior of the medical establishment and those who remained obedient to it. Genuine malevolence was very often the order of the day.

Justice

In medical ethics, the Pillar of justice refers to the fair and equitable treatment of individuals. As resources are often limited in health care, the focus is typically on distributive justice; that is, the fair and equitable allocation of medical resources. Conversely, it is also important to ensure that the burdens of health care are as fairly distributed as possible.

In a just situation, the wealthy and powerful should not have instant access to high-quality care and medicines that are unavailable to the rank and file or the very poor. Conversely, the poor and vulnerable should not unduly bear the burdens of health care, for example, by being disproportionately subjected to experimental research, or by being forced to follow health restrictions to which others are exempt.

Both of these aspects of justice were disregarded during COVID as well. In numerous instances, persons in positions of authority procured preferential treatment for themselves or their family members. Two prominent examples:

According to ABC News, “in the early days of the pandemic, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo prioritized COVID-19 testing for relatives including his brother, mother and at least one of his sisters, when testing wasn’t widely available to the public.” Reportedly, “Cuomo allegedly also gave politicians, celebrities and media personalities access to tests.”

In March 2020, Pennsylvania Health Secretary Rachel Levine directed nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients, despite warnings against this by trade groups. That directive and others like it subsequently cost tens of thousands of lives. Less than two months later, Levine confirmed that her own 95 year-old mother had been removed from a nursing home to private care. Levine was subsequently promoted to 4-star Admiral in the US Public Health Service by the Biden Administration.

The burdens of lockdowns were distributed extremely unjustly during COVID. While average citizens remained in lockdown, suffering personal isolation, forbidden to earn a living, the powerful flouted their own rules. Who can forget how US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi broke the strict California lockdowns to get her hair styled, or how British Prime Minister Boris Johnson defied his own supposedly life-or-death orders by throwing at least a dozen parties at 10 Downing Street in 2020 alone? House arrest for thee, wine and cheese for me.

But California Governor Gavin Newsom might take the cake. At first glance, given both his BoJo-esque, lockdown-defying dinner with lobbyists at the ultra-swanky Napa Valley restaurant The French Laundry, and his decision to send his own children to expensive private schools which were fully open for 5-day in-school learning during the prolonged California school closures, one might think of Newsom as a COVID-era Robin Hood. That is, until one realizes that he presided over those same punishing, inhumane lockdowns and school closures. He was actually the Sheriff of Nottingham.

To a decent person with a functioning conscience, this level of sociopathy is difficult to comprehend. What is crystal clear is that anyone capable of the hypocrisy that Gavin Newsom displayed during COVID should not be anywhere near a position of power in any society.

Two additional points should be emphasized. First, these egregious acts were rarely, if ever, called out by the medical establishment. Second, the behaviors themselves show that those in power never truly believed their own narrative. Both the medical establishment and the power brokers knew the danger posed by the virus, while real, was grossly overstated. They knew the lockdowns, social distancing, and masking of the population at large were kabuki theater at best, and soft-core totalitarianism at worst. The lockdowns were based on a gigantic lie, one they neither believed nor felt compelled to follow themselves.

Solutions and Reform

The abandonment of the 4 Pillars of Medical Ethics during COVID has contributed greatly to an historic erosion of public trust in the healthcare industry. This distrust is entirely understandable and richly deserved, however harmful it may prove to be for patients. For example, at a population level, trust in vaccines in general has dramatically reduced worldwide, compared to the pre-COVID era. Millions of children now stand at increased risk from proven vaccine-preventable diseases due to the thoroughly unethical push for unnecessary, indeed harmful, universal COVID-19 mRNA vaccination of children.

Systemically, the medical profession desperately needs ethical reform in the wake of COVID. Ideally, this would begin with a strong reassertion of and recommitment to the 4 Pillars of Medical Ethics, again with patient autonomy at the forefront. It would continue with prosecution and punishment of those individuals most responsible for the ethical failures, from the likes of Anthony Fauci on down. Human nature is such that if no sufficient deterrent to evil is established, evil will be perpetuated.

Unfortunately, within the medical establishment, there does not appear to be any impetus toward acknowledgement of the profession’s ethical failures during COVID, much less toward true reform. This is largely because the same financial, administrative, and regulatory forces that drove COVID-era failures remain in control of the profession. These forces deliberately ignore the catastrophic harms of COVID policy, instead viewing the era as a sort of test run for a future of highly profitable, tightly regulated health care. They view the entire COVID-era martial-law-as-public-health approach as a prototype, rather than a failed model.

Reform of medicine, if it happens, will likely arise from individuals who refuse to participate in the “Big Medicine” vision of health care. In the near future, this will likely result in a fragmentation of the industry analogous to that seen in many other aspects of post-COVID society. In other words, there is apt to be a “Great Re-Sort” in medicine as well.

Individual patients can and must affect change. They must replace the betrayed trust they once held in the public health establishment and the healthcare industry with a critical, caveat emptor, consumer-based approach to their health care. If physicians were ever inherently trustworthy, the COVID era has shown that they no longer are so.

Patients should become highly proactive in researching which tests, medications, and therapies they accept for themselves (and especially for their children). They should be unabashed in asking their physicians for their views on patient autonomy, mandated care, and the extent to which their physicians are willing to think and act according to their own consciences. They should vote with their feet when unacceptable answers are given. They must learn to think for themselves and ask for what they want. And they must learn to say no.

Clayton J. Baker, MD is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.

May 14, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Challenging the Premise of Our Destruction

By Edward Ring | American Greatness | May 9, 2023

The most powerful and destructive perception in the world today is that using fossil fuels will cause catastrophic climate change. This belief, marketed by every major government and corporate institution in the Western world, is the foundational premise underlying a policy agenda of stunning indifference to the aspirations of ordinary people.

The war on fossil fuel is a war on freedom, prosperity, pluralism, independence, national sovereignty, world peace, domestic tranquility, and, most ironically, the environment itself. It is a war of rich against poor, the privileged against the disadvantaged, corporate monopolies against competitive upstarts, Malthusians against optimists, regulators against innovators, and authoritarians against freedom-loving people everywhere.

But this war cannot be won unless the perception is maintained. If fossil fuel is allowed to compete against other energy alternatives for customers as a vital and growing part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy, this authoritarian political agenda falls apart.

It is reasonable to question the assertion that eliminating fossil fuels will inevitably result in an impoverished society subject to punitive restrictions on individual behavior. But the numbers are compelling and can be distilled to two indisputable facts: First, fossil fuel continues to provide over 80 percent of all energy consumed worldwide. Second, if every person living on planet Earth were to consume half as much energy per year as the average American currently consumes, global energy production would need to double.

Several inescapable conclusions derive from these two facts, if one assumes that energy is the driver of prosperity. Just in case that is not obvious, imagine Americans living with half as much energy as they use today. Where would the cuts occur? Would they drive their cars half as much? Heat their homes half as much? Operate manufacturing, farming, and mining equipment half as much? They would need to do all those things and more. The economy would collapse.

These consequences don’t escape the intelligentsia who promote “net zero” policies. These consequences explain the policies they advocate. The recent promotion of “15-minute cities” that will inform rezoning and redevelopment to put all essential services within a 15-minute walk of every residence. The rise of “congestion pricing” to charge automobiles special tolls if they drive into an expanding footprint of urban neighborhoods. “Smart growth.” “Infill.” “Urban Service Boundaries.” Bike lanes. “Smart buildings,” “smart meters,” and “smart cities.”

These innovations, all in progress, only begin to describe what is coming. By restricting new development and systematically reducing the use of fossil fuels, the global middle class will shrink instead of grow. The wealthiest elites will buy their way out of the smart slums. Everyone else will be locked down. This is how energy poverty will play out in the modern era. It cannot be emphasized enough: If energy production is restricted, this will happen. It’s algebra. It is objective fact.

Hardly less speculative is the reaction outside the Western world. What are our elites thinking? Do they intend to start World War III? Perhaps they do. Because nothing short of war is going to stop the Chinese, Indians, Indonesians, Pakistanis, Brazilians, Nigerians, or Bangladeshis from developing every source of energy they possibly can. Just those seven nations account for half the world’s population. That’s 4 billion people. Will they stop developing energy until they at least achieve half the per capita energy consumption that Americans currently enjoy? Not a chance. Will they get there by relying exclusively on wind and solar? Dream on.

Sadly, the seductive pitch America’s climate crisis lobby lobs at the elites running the aspiring nations of the world may find the strike zone. It goes like this: Let us help you keep your people in poverty and misery because we will make sure you stay rich while our military helps you stamp out insurrections. And as we prevent your nations from achieving food and energy security, we will drown you in debt to pay for imported food aid and “renewables” projects. But as one of us, you will not suffer with your people. You will have a Swiss bank account and a mansion in Malibu, where you will be feted by stars who honor you for helping prevent a climate catastrophe.

Fossil Fuel Will Not Cause a Climate Catastrophe

If you only believe half of the preceding arguments, you must realize that Americans have been backed into a corner. If anyone calls for abundant energy—or abundant anything, since energy, and fossil fuel in particular, is the prerequisite for virtually all goods and services—they are shouted down as “climate deniers.” And the way to upset the entire edifice is not to merely argue that fossil fuel is essential to the survival of civilization. Because the counterargument is that eliminating fossil fuel is essential to the survival of the planet.

That is an unwinnable argument. It is not possible to reason with an opponent of fossil fuel if you concede their fundamental premise: that burning fossil fuel will cause catastrophic climate change. You either become a “denier,” or you submit to energy poverty.

This is the tough decision facing Americans. And it’s accurate to also say it is a decision facing Republicans since literally every prominent, mainstream, housebroken, accommodating establishment Republican will not challenge the assertion that we’re experiencing a “climate crisis,” even though most of them know better. But this should be a bipartisan issue. For Republicans, this is an opportunity to show some backbone by rejecting the most destructive and fraudulent premise of our time. In so doing, they would unify their party, attract independent voters, and realign the nation.

Claiming that climate change is not catastrophic and unprecedented, or that fossil fuel is necessary to power civilization, remains today the territory of outliers. Tagged as contrarians at best, more often as eccentrics, lunatics, fanatics, shills, dupes, and morons, the “denier” community remains on the fringes. Joining this community risks losing personal credibility and the ability to work with every self-styled moderate, serious activist that just wants to recognize the political and commercial reality in America and get along.

And then there’s Donald Trump.

Alone among major politicians in America, Trump openly proclaims that anthropogenic carbon dioxide causing a climate catastrophe is a poorly supported theory, not a fact that is supposedly beyond debate. He’s right, but he’s given the climate crisis crowd another label with which to stigmatize deniers with guilt by association. Now they’re MAGA Nazis, part of the terrifying plot to engineer a fascist coup and plunge America into a dark age.

The irony is stupefying. Without fossil fuel, America will enter a dark age, and the only way to control a restive population that’s seen its standard of living plummet will be through the establishment of a technology-driven police state. They are the fascists. The so-called climate deniers are fighting for prosperity and freedom.

Matching the irony here in its shocking, stupefying absurdity is the arrogance and certainty of the climate alarmists. From the brainwashed ignoramuses pouring out of public education year after year, to pseudointellectuals marinated for decades in NPR newspeak, to brilliant scientists who spend their entire careerist careers bouncing around in a brilliant echo chamber without ever considering opposing scientific viewpoints, listening to these minions recite the approved narrative is reminiscent of a cult. The climate cult. The useful, smothering, sanctimonious, intolerant, indignant, self-righteous, energized, pacified, out-of-control but controlled and manipulated, Kool-Aid guzzling climate cult, driving humanity off the cliff.

If you want to save civilization, be a denier. Say it loud and without reservations, and say it every chance you get. Demand that politicians publicly refute climate alarmism. It isn’t necessary to claim that the powers behind the climate cult want to enslave the world. We don’t know what motivates them. Some just want to get rich on renewables. Some want to use climate change to advance American global hegemony. But all of them rely on a fundamental moral justification: By eliminating fossil fuel, we are saving the planet from certain destruction. Focusing on the possible ulterior motives of climate alarmist leaders without first challenging their core moral argument is a fool’s errand.

The scientific body of evidence against climate alarmism is robust, but you won’t find much if you search Google. You have to dig it up piece by piece. One good denier database can be found here. Organizations and individuals posting useful climate contrarian material and links on Twitter include Climate Dispatch, Patrick Moore, Climate Realist, Steve Milloy, and Pierre Gosselin, and many, many more. Like all movements, the climate contrarian movement has its share of hacks and hyperbole. So be careful and diligent, but be resolute. Examine the data. Check and recheck sources. Make up your own mind. And make yourself heard.

There are plenty of environmental challenges. Being an environmentalist is a good thing. But there has to be balance, and there has to be debate. Claiming that anthropogenic CO2 will not cause catastrophic climate change is a credible, necessary point of view backed up by scientific evidence. If more people make that claim, the climate cult can be broken, and civilization can be rescued from oblivion.

May 14, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

DR. MCCULLOUGH – PANDEMIC OF MENTAL CONTAGION, AUTISM, PLAGUE OF IMMORALITY

https://www.bitchute.com/video/cggmYNYFd1qA/

Bitchute

May 14, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

Teacher Sacked After Refusing to Use Eight Year-Old’s Trans Pronouns and Raising Safeguarding Concerns

BY WILL JONES | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | MAY 12, 2023

A primary schoolteacher has lost her job and is facing a raft of investigations from various regulatory bodies for questioning the advice from Stonewall and Mermaids to encourage a ‘gender transition’ of an eight year-old pupil without any medical evidence.

The child, who cannot be identified for legal reasons and is known only as ‘Child X’, believed she was born in a wrong body and wanted to be treated as a boy.

Based on the advice from trans rights organisations such as Mermaids and Stonewall, the council instructed all school staff always to refer to the child by male pronouns and her chosen male name and that she should use boys’ toilets, dressing rooms and dormitories as requested.

The teacher known as ‘Hannah’ (not her real name) invoked the school’s and the council’s whistleblowing procedure to argue that this approach was not based on medical evidence or compliance with the safeguarding procedures and was putting the child’s health and welfare at risk.

Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, Hannah relied on several expert reports from scientists and doctors highlighting the dangers of encouraging ‘gender transition’ in young children.

After her concern was brushed aside, Hannah brought a claim for judicial review against the school and the council.

The court ordered that the local council, the school and all its staff must remain anonymous to ensure this does not lead to a jigsaw identification of the child.

In response to Hannah’s legal action, the school summarily dismissed her for divulging confidential information to her lawyers and to the court.

The school reported Hannah to the Information Commissioner for a criminal offence under the Data Protection Act. The Information Commissioner has concluded there was no evidence of a criminal offence and decided to take no further action.

The school also reported Hannah to the professional regulator, Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA), for an alleged confidentiality breach. The TRA is currently investigating the case. If found guilty of professional misconduct, Hannah may face a lifelong ban from the profession.

Reporting Hannah to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), the school sought to bar her from teaching. The DBS, however, has declined to impose a ban pending further enquiries following an investigation.

After a life-long career as a professional teacher, Hannah has been forced to find a job in a sandwich bar.

She has now brought a claim in Employment Tribunal against the school for victimising her for whistleblowing, unfair dismissal and religious discrimination.

She has alleged that the school dismissed her, and reported her to a raft of regulators, for blowing the whistle on the school’s practice which endangered the child’s safety, health and welfare.

The Employment Tribunal is expected to hear the claim in August 2024.

Hannah has this week written to Education Secretary, Gillian Keegan, requesting a meeting to discuss her case.

Her case and the TRA investigation come despite a scathing report published last month by think tank Policy Exchange.

The report reveals the disturbing extent of extreme transgender and gender identity ideology in U.K. schools. In the foreword to the report Rosie Duffield MP writes: “A generation of children are being let down, because well-established safeguarding standards are being compromised.”’

The report goes on to say that in relation to sex and gender issues: “Safeguarding principles are being routinely disregarded in many secondary schools, which are neglecting their safeguarding responsibilities in favour of a set of contested beliefs in a way that risk jeopardising child wellbeing and safety.”

Hannah said:

Like all teachers at the school, I owed a safeguarding duty to Child X. From day one I believe that I acted in Child X’s best interests as I had a legitimate belief that the treatment of Child X amounted to a serious safeguarding issue.

I followed all the correct procedures, I backed all of my concerns with expert evidence and believed the action I took was in the public interest.

It is because I care so much about children that I am taking this action. This isn’t about me simply trying to prove that I am right, but about the safety of a seriously distressed child.

I could not participate in causing harm to Child X. The tragic stories of ‘detransitioners’, the Policy Exchange report and clear expert scientific evidence, back and vindicate me.

Teachers are being bullied not to question trans affirming policies when evidence shows that the actual result of the approach is to put the welfare of children at serious risk.

I am determined to pursue justice over how I have been treated, but my number one concern and motivation is to protect this child and other children in this country from harm.

May 13, 2023 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Mental Healthcare Burden of Transgender Youth Before and After Gender-Affirming Treatment

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | May 11, 2023

The explosion of transgender medicine (TGD) as a new clinical segment of internal medicine is aimed at treating gender dysphoria. Does sex change really make gender dysphoria go away? One proxy for the psychological impact for better or worse is mental health care costs. A recent study reported shocking results in the wrong direction.

Hisle-Gorman et al from Department of Pediatrics, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD published a retrospective cohort (N=3754) study using military healthcare data from 2010-2018 identifying mental healthcare diagnoses and visits, and psychotropic medication prescriptions among TGD youth who received care for gender dysphoria before age 18, and their siblings.

Hisle-Gorman E, Schvey NA, Adirim TA, Rayne AK, Susi A, Roberts TA, Klein DA. Mental Healthcare Utilization of Transgender Youth Before and After Affirming Treatment. J Sex Med. 2021 Aug;18(8):1444-1454. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.05.014. Epub 2021 Jul 8. PMID: 34247956.

Sadly, TGD adolescents were more likely to have a mental health diagnosis (OR 5.45, 95% CI [4.77-6.24]), use more mental healthcare services (IRR 2.22; 95% CI [2.00-2.46]), and used psychotropic medications (IRR = 2.57; 95% CI [2.36-2.80]) compared to normal siblings. Diagnoses included adjustment, anxiety, mood, personality, psychotic disorders, and suicidal ideation/attempted suicide. Among 963 TGD youth (age ~18 yrs) using gender-affirming pharmaceuticals, mental healthcare did not significantly change (IRR = 1.09, 95% CI [0.95-1.25]) and psychotropic medications increased (IRR = 1.67, 95% CI [1.46-1.91]) following gender-affirming pharmaceutical initiation.

These data suggest transgender medicine makes the overall burden of psychiatric disease worse and clearly increases the costs of psychiatric care. Parents should understand that transgender medicine is not effective in handling the psychiatric drivers of gender dysphoria in their teenagers.

Hisle-Gorman E, Schvey NA, Adirim TA, Rayne AK, Susi A, Roberts TA, Klein DA. Mental Healthcare Utilization of Transgender Youth Before and After Affirming Treatment. J Sex Med. 2021 Aug;18(8):1444-1454. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.05.014. Epub 2021 Jul 8. PMID: 34247956.

May 13, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

HART response to incorrect statements from Fraser Myers, published by Spiked

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | May 12, 2023

Spiked has published a spiteful article by Fraser Myers that claims HART is “notorious for its anti-vax statements”. This follows a debate between him and Andrew Bridgen MP on GB News in which Bridgen brought along facts and Myers repeated the phrase “anti-vax conspiracy theory” numerous times. In turn, the debate had come about after Myers had published a shoddy attack — short on facts and heavy on invective — on Bridgen a week previously. The Spiked article was brutally dismembered by Will Jones at Daily Sceptic.

Perhaps stung by this, Myers produced the offending article, bringing HART into the picture after we asked for clarification about funding that Spiked had previously received from Pfizer. Nick Dixon, also of Daily Sceptic, has attempted to triangulate the state of play. We have written a longer piece about this episode; numerous others have opined on the matter. David Paton stated that Myers “would have more credibility in this debate if Spiked addressed their inexcusable support for sacking unvaccinated care workers” having supported this policy in July 2021.

Myers’ unpleasant statement about HART sits alongside various incorrect facts. We are happy to put the record straight and — as Myers has stated that this is his final word on the matter — we are pleased that this debate can be put to bed… unless, of course, Myers was just shooting from the hip with that statement and intends to continue the discussion.

  1. Myers claims it is wrong to call the vaccines experimental. The injections were always experimental, which was why Pfizer’s Chief Scientific Officer described Israel as a “sort of laboratory” for the covid vaccines and why the world eagerly awaited evidence that they might work. The Pfizer phase 3 trial for safety does not officially conclude until 31st December 2023, but they destroyed the control by offering them the vaccine so the proper phase 3 safety studies will never complete. The safety aspect of Pfizer’s pregnancy, immunocompromised and myocarditis/pericarditis studies do not complete until 31st March 2026. The appropriate phase 0 pre-clinical work to measure the amount of spike protein produced in the body and how long it lasts has still not been done, or has not been made public.
  2. Myers claims it was wrong to call the injections a gene therapy simply because they are not thought to alter a person’s DNA. According to Moderna’s filing in June 2020 “mRNA has been characterised as a Gene Therapy Medicinal Product.” BioNTech agreed in a filing in March 2020 saying, “mRNA therapies have been classified as gene therapy medicinal products.” Do these companies not know what they’re talking about?
  3. Myers quotes early safety data saying that there were 139 adverse reactions in the vaccine arm and 97 in the placebo arm, claiming that it “isn’t an enormous difference”. These figures are from table 2 of the paper he references but he has not read the whole of table 2. This works out at an extra 12.5 events per 10,000 participants, which is 1 in 800 and exactly what Bridgen claimed. In the UK that would account for 52,000 such injuries after the second dose alone and would be properly defined as “uncommon” not “rare”. It is worth remembering that this terminology is designed for describing the harms from drugs given for treating people who are already sick. Serious harm caused to healthy people at a rate of 1 in 800 is totally unacceptable. Remember these were only the worst adverse events –  life changing events, hospitalisations or deaths – which had all occurred during the short period of follow up at the very beginning of the safety trials. There had only been a median of 2 months follow-up at that point. For some participants the ink was metaphorically still wet on their consent forms. Any events that occurred after the cut off were not included in the study. He is right that others have criticised that paper but none of the critics have attempted their own analysis to estimate the scale of harm. It is also worth noting that this is a very high rate of serious adverse events — more frequent than 1 in 1,000 is properly termed ‘uncommon’ rather than ‘rare’ and certainly not ‘very rare’. Assuming a similar adverse reaction rate for later doses, such a rate would amount to over a hundred thousand such serious adverse events in the UK after 151 million jabs.
  4. Myers then complains that 1 in 800 refers to the number of events, not the number of people affected. The same paper points out that the published trial data is inadequate to make that assessment. FDA data showed twice as many vaccine recipients had multiple adverse events as placebo participants which further suggests a genuine issue here.
  5. Myers then claims the number needed to vaccinate (“NNV”) calculations from UKHSA were based on 2023 data. That is not correct: they were based on data from July 2022. At the time vaccines were still being pushed on the whole population. The estimates they calculated of thousands to hundreds needing to be vaccinated to prevent a serious hospital admission tally well with the estimates HART carried out for the NNV to prevent a single death from the Delta wave, using UKHSA’s own data.

HART can cite multiple other sources to evidence the claim that the covid injections were harmful and caused deaths, but what do we know? Myers has, after all, declared that HART is “notorious for its anti-vax statements”. But at least we’ve looked into the matter and attempted to shed light on some very iffy claims made by the authorities. If that has saved one person from suffering an unnecessary adverse effect, our consciences are clear — we will sleep well knowing we did what we could.

Others, however, will have to look themselves in the mirror for evermore and know what they have done.

May 13, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Florida’s Letter to the CDC and the FDA Exposes Vaccine Quackery

BY IGOR CHUDOV | MAY 11, 2023

Florida’s Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo sent an open letter to the FDA and the CDC. The letter asks all the right questions about COVID vaccines – and exposes the FDA and the CDC as charlatans engaging in medical quackery.

Here’s the letter:

A very nice statement at the bottom summarizes the state of things:

Ladapo: Your organizations are the main entities promoting vaccine hesitancy – Florida promotes the truth. It is our duty to provide all information within our power to individuals so they can make their own informed health care decisions. A lack of transparency only harms Americans’ faith in science.

Vaccine Medical Quackery

Reminder: promoting unproven, untested, and non-working medications is called medical quackery, and promoters of such are called charlatans.

Ladapo exposes this medical quackery by asking several questions, each showing that the FDA (and the CDC) attempted to hide facts that reveal the dangers and ineffectiveness of Covid vaccines. Summary follows:

  • Why were randomized clinical trials not conducted for “Covid boosters” (such trials were necessary to establish that they are safe and effective)
  • Why did the FDA ignore many subclinical myocarditis reports and allow Pfizer to postpone its report on subclinical myocarditis?
  • Why were vaccine side effects intentionally ignored in V-Safe?
  • Why did the FDA allow Pfizer to hide the results of its clinical trial of Covid vaccines in pregnant women, that ended in 2022?
  • Why are the FDA and the CDC hiding negative effectiveness of Covid vaccines?

All these questions demonstrate that the FDA and the CDC intentionally conspired with vaccine manufacturers to hide adverse events of Covid vaccines and violated their own rules.

Covid Reckoning Instead of “Pandemic Amnesty”

The questions, growing more pointed daily, show that the long-hoped-for Covid reckoning is coming, as I explained:

Covid Reckoning is Underway: Texas to Join Florida in Investigating Big Pharma and “Covid Science” Fraud

Florida’s Surgeon General, Dr. Ladapo, is working hard to protect Floridians from Covid vaccines. However, he is not stupid and probably angling to become the next United States Surgeon General.

Asking questions such as the above will hopefully help enact “regime change” and allow new players, not tarnished by reckless “Warp Speed” vaccine programs or by vaccine mandates, to take over.

While I do not expect an honest answer from the FDA or the CDC, I wish Dr. Ladapo all the best and hope to see him appointed the US Surgeon General in 2024.

May 13, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

FDA ordered to produce all Moderna C-19 vaccine & Pfizer adolescent C-19 vaccine data by mid-2025

BY AARON SIRI | INJECTING FREEDOM | MAY 12, 2023

As you may recall, we obtained a court order in January 2022 forcing FDA to produce all of its data on Pfizer’s covid vaccine for those 16 years and older at a rate of 55,000 pages per month, as opposed to the 75 years FDA sought. That production should be completed in a few more months.

In a second lawsuit we brought, the same judge just ordered FDA to produce the documents it relied on to license and Moderna’s covid vaccine AND Pfizer’s covid vaccine for 12-to-15-year-olds at an average rate of at least 180,000 pages per month.

In this second lawsuit, this time also on behalf of the parents of Maddie de Garay, a young girl grievously injured in Pfizer’s clinical trial for 12-to-15-year-olds, we explained to the Court the importance of timely production. Once again, FDA claimed it would be “impractical” to release the estimated 4.8 million pages at more than between 1,000 to 16,000 pages per month, or in other words at least 23.5 years. We countered, demanding FDA produce all documents by mid-2025.

The federal judge, in an amazing decision, started by stating that “Democracy dies behind closed doors” and ordered them to produce the files – millions of pages – in just 2 years, amounting to a rate of at least 180,000 pages per month.

Indeed, it is another blow for transparency and accountability. The Judge’s decision is just that good that I am including below a copy of the entire decision – it is a short four pages.

May 13, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Influenza Vaccine Fails to Stop Hospitalization and Death

Large Japanese Study Shows No Benefit on Hard Outcomes

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | May 12, 2023

Influenza vaccination has become a mainstay in American medicine largely as measure to protect the elderly. However in recent decades the FluShot has been pushed on healthcare workers, the general adult public, and starting in 2017 the CDC ACIP Panel stated: “Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons age 6 months and older who do not have a contraindication.” I wondered if the FluShot even did what it was supposed to do originally in the elderly — protect against hospitalization and death. I was disappointed by real world data.

Uemura and coworkers from the Department of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Interfaculty Initiative in Information Studies, University of Tokyo, Japan reported on 83,146 individuals who were aged 65 years or older at baseline and were followed up between April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2020.

Uemura K, Ono S, Michihata N, Yamana H, Yasunaga H. Duration of influenza vaccine effectiveness in the elderly in Japan: A retrospective cohort study using large-scale population-based registry data. Vaccine. 2023 May 5;41(19):3092-3098. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.03.066. Epub 2023 Apr 10. PMID: 37045684.

The multivariable analysis showed a lower incidence of influenza in vaccinated individuals (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.51; P < 0.001), however the incidence of hospitalization for influenza did not differ significantly by vaccination status (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.53-1.18; P = 0.249). Protective effectiveness against incidence waned quickly after 4 or 5 months.

These data suggest the massive effort on vaccination in the general population is a waste of time and effort. If the frail and elderly get no overall direct reduction in hospitalization and death, influenza vaccination should be individualized based on pulmonary and systemic risks.

Uemura K, Ono S, Michihata N, Yamana H, Yasunaga H. Duration of influenza vaccine effectiveness in the elderly in Japan: A retrospective cohort study using large-scale population-based registry data. Vaccine. 2023 May 5;41(19):3092-3098. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.03.066. Epub 2023 Apr 10. PMID: 37045684.

May 12, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

FBI Contractor Created Fake Online IDs to Join Chatrooms Run by Groups Organizing Against Vaccine Mandates

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | May 12, 2023

An FBI surveillance contractor infiltrated the chatrooms of two airline industry groups opposed to vaccine mandates to collect intelligence on the groups’ organizing activities, investigative journalist Lee Fang reported.

The contractor, Flashpoint, which in the past infiltrated Islamic terror groups, now focuses on “anti-vaccine” groups and other domestic political organizations, according to Fang.

In a webinar presentation for clients last year, which Fang analyzed on his Substack, Flashpoint analyst Vlad Cuiujuclu demonstrated his company’s methods for identifying and entering encrypted Telegram chat groups.

He explained how the company attempted to join chatrooms of transportation workers resisting the COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Fang described the presentation:

“‘In this case, we’re searching for a closed channel of U.S. Freedom Flyers,’ said Cuiujuclu. ‘It’s basically a group that opposed vaccination and masks.’

“As he clicked through a database, Cuiujuclu showed a chat group on Telegram sponsored by Airline Professionals For Justice, another group formed by airline industry workers opposed to the mandate. The forum, he added, provided useful insights, including Zoom links for meetings of the grassroots organization.

“‘Private chats,’ said Cuiujuclu, ‘require for you to have an invite link,’ which he noted can often either be found by scrolling through public forums or by ‘engag[ing] the admin of that channel.’”

Flashpoint also offers clients artificial intelligence and internet scraping tools.

According to Fang, the firm is a leader in the “threat intelligence industry,” a growing number of security and surveillance firms that create fake online identities to infiltrate Discord chats, WhatsApp groups, Reddit forums and dark web message boards to gather information for clients, including corporations and the FBI, to monitor potential threats.

Joshua Yoder, president of US Freedom Flyers, said he is aware that Flashpoint infiltrated private chat groups associated with his organization.

Yoder told The Defender :

“Tradecraft and other strategies are often used to gain inside knowledge of conservative organizations with the intent to disrupt, mislead and otherwise thwart effective campaigns.

“Infiltration is a tactic used by the deep state to prevent the truth from being told by attempting to destroy the advancement of the message. The team at US Freedom Flyers has been successful in recognizing these attacks and we have taken decisive actions to protect the organization and our members.”

Aviation industry workers were some of the most vocal and organized against COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

They wrote an open letter to the aviation industry signed by thousands of organizations, physicians and pilots. They also organized research on the risks of vaccines for pilots, spoke publicly about the “culture of fear and intimidation” around the mandates in the industry, and filed multiple lawsuits in Canada, the Netherlands, and the U.S.

US Freedom Flyers brought a lawsuit against Atlas Air, one of the largest air cargo carriers in the aviation industry, in May 2022.

Fang told The Defender the targeting of American citizens resisting the vaccine mandates fits into a long history of surveillance being used to subvert democracy. He said:

“There is a long sordid history of informants and surveillance contractors working to undermine democratic engagement in this country.

“The push against regular citizens opposed to COVID-19 vaccine mandates has come in many forms: censorship, demonization and in this case, surveillance.”

The growing market for spying on domestic dissent

Flashpoint advertises its surveillance success on its website, providing examples of its work undermining environmental activism, G20 protests and protests against the aviation industry.

The webpages describing these activities were taken down after Fang published his investigation, but they can be found on the Wayback Machine internet archive.

For example, Flashpoint described its capacity to monitor activists organizing against pollution and the aviation industry. The website said:

“By monitoring the situation and assessing tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP’s), Flashpoint was able to assess the impact of upcoming protests, and determine that these groups would likely continue to protest and attempt to impede airport construction and expansion projects through direct action. …

“Based on this information, Flashpoint customers were able to take actions to help control the impact to business operations, and to ensure the safety of their employees and facilities as well as the safety of those protesting.”

Flashpoint was founded by Evan Kohlmann, former NBC News contributor who investigated Islamic terror groups and whom The Intercept described as “the U.S. government’s go-to expert witness in terrorism prosecutions.”

Jack Poulson of Tech Inquiry, a group that researches the surveillance industry, told Fang that “Flashpoint has been selling its chatroom infiltration services to companies and governments for years.”

But, he said, it has shifted its focus from “surveilling Muslims after September 11” and “followed the money into both the Pentagon’s information warfare programs and the business of monitoring domestic protest groups.”

Last year, Flashpoint acquired Echosec Systems, another intelligence contractor, and last month it formalized a partnership with Google Cloud.

These acquisitions come in addition to “a steady stream of contracts to Flashpoint in recent years from the FBI, the Department of Defense, Treasury Department, and Department of Homeland Security, among other agencies,” Fang wrote.

Fang also spoke to Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., Ph.D., professor of medicine at Stanford University, research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research and one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration.

Bhattacharya said:

“This kind of domestic spying violates the implicit protection Americans have in these kinds of settings.

“This isn’t terrorism, this doesn’t have anything to do with national security.

“This is a private set of employees, workers who are trying to maintain their jobs in the face of unscientific demands for COVID vaccinations.”

Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

May 12, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | Leave a comment

Robert Kennedy Jr. is the only presidential candidate to still be banned from Instagram

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | May 12, 2023

Robert Kennedy Jr., a Democratic candidate for the 2024 United States presidential election, revealed that his account is till banned from Instagram and accused the tech giant of preventing him from accessing the site, despite him being a contender for the White House.

This makes him the only 2024 US presidential candidate that’s unable to post to the influential social media platform and currently being subjected to direct Big Tech censorship.

Former President Donald Trump, who is running for president in 2024 as a Republican candidate, was suspended from Instagram on January 6, 2023 and banned on January 7. However, his ban was lifted on January 25, 2023.

The other 2024 presidential candidates, Joe Biden (D), Marianne Williamson (D), Larry Elder (R), Nikki Haley (R), Asa Hutchinson (R), Vivek Ramaswamy (R), and Corey Stapleton (R), all have active Instagram accounts.

Kennedy was banned from Instagram in February 2021 for violating the platform’s strict speech rules related to the coronavirus and vaccines. The ban came after several Democratic senators and 12 state attorneys general demanded that Kennedy and other Covid vaccine skeptics be deplatformed by Big Tech. Before the ban, Kennedy had over 800,000 Instagram followers.

Instagram’s failure to reinstate Kennedy since announcing his presidential campaign means that he won’t be able to directly post his message to the social media platform’s sizeable audience of two billion monthly active users.

May 12, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

COVID Was Not Dangerous to Unvaccinated Pregnant Women

BY IGOR CHUDOV | MAY 11, 2023

Remember the endless media hysterics about COVID being “dangerous to unvaccinated pregnant women”?

A recent report MBRRACE-UK throws doubt on such statements. It covers 2018-2020, so the year of 2020 was a part of the COVID pandemic.

In the UK, in 2020 (before COVID vaccines), only NINE women died from (or with) COVID-19 during pregnancy or up to six weeks after giving birth.

Remember that in 2020, all pregnant women in the UK were unvaccinated. COVID was at its worst in 2020.

COVID was quite rampant in the UK at the time. According to Our World in Data, the UK had 94,194 COVID deaths in 2020. However, only nine deaths out of those involved pregnant women.

ONS reports that England and Wales had 613,936 live births in 2020.

So,

  • Pregnant women’s COVID deaths (9 total) were less than one in ten thousand overall COVID deaths.
  • Pregnant women’s deaths (9 total) were less than one in 68,000 (sixty-eight thousand) births.
  • In other words, for every pregnant woman who died of COVID in 2020, over 68,000 did NOT die.

Every death is a tragedy, especially those of future mothers. Those nine deaths were tragic for the families involved. I am very sorry for each of the nine women who died with COVID in the UK in 2020. I am relieved, however, that the number of deaths among pregnant women was far less than what the media intimated.

Was COVID a great danger to pregnant women? The numbers above suggest that the chance of dying from COVID for unvaccinated women in 2020 was very remote, as there was less than one COVID death per 68,000 births.

To me, this cannot be considered “particularly dangerous.” Pregnant women are young (most are under 40), and Covid is not particularly deadly to that age category.

So, those who believed that COVID-19 puts future mothers’ lives at tremendous risk were lied to. Pregnant women were given false information to nudge them to get vaccinated.

We finally have the proof.

May 11, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »