Time to return to the beginning. End formal science papers and let scientists talk freely amongst themselves.
Here’s why.
Heard about the formal peer-reviewed paper “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases” by Suzanna Diaz & J. Michael Bailey in the Archives of Sexual Behavior?
It was canceled.
Or, in science speak, retracted. Because why? Not because of any gross error. Because “activists” (i.e. true believers) hated it.
Rapid onset gender dysphoria is the kind of madness that for instance strikes classrooms full of girls, who, under the tutelage of a purple-haired “educator”, or even on their own, suddenly all “discover” they are boys.
Article says “Parents reported that they had often felt pressured by clinicians to affirm their AYA [adolescents and young adults] child’s new gender and support their transition. According to the parents, AYA children’s mental health deteriorated considerably after social transition.”
Which is no surprise to any sane person. But truth is not a beloved entity in our Regime. So the paper had to go.
Even more amusing is that “Suzanna Diaz” is a fake name. Imagine. A scholar so frightened of other academics she, or he, had to use a nom de guerre. (There is no typo here.)
You can read all about the cancelling elsewhere. Which is one among many.
Now you and I, dear reader, have looked at hundreds of papers over the years, nearly all bad. Most with mistakes so egregious even Kamala Harris would blush at them. All of them committing scientific sins far in excess in any found in the Rapid Gender Madness paper. None of them have been retracted.
Indeed the opposite has been true. Those atrocious papers were used to forward the Regime line, in one way or another. Or to tout lousy theory, false ideas, wild over-certainties, and insane preposterousities.
All of these papers are held up, waved frenetically in our faces by hersterics and rulers who chant “Research shows we must trust The Science!”
End it. Formal publishing is not just useless, it’s downright harmful. And there is no need of it.
Science began with highly intelligent men writing letters to each other, and showing the copies around. A fine practice.
It kept the noise to a minimum. Formal publishing is now almost entirely noise. There are more than 8 million papers published a year now, a number going up and up and up. Nobody reads them. Why should they? They are almost all useless. Nearly all exist because, and only because, academics must publish or perish. Must.
If we eliminated formal publications, much of this persiflage would dry up, and our best and brightest would be able to concentrate on their own work, and not be harassed with “peer review” requests.
The only people who have respect for peer review are those who have never experienced it. As I always say, there is no surer enforcer of banal tepid watery content than peer review. Nothing better ensconces error and mandates Consensus. I cannot say it better than Alan Savory, who recognized peer review is academia and not science.
The hell with academia. We care about science, the search for truth about the world. Academia is no longer the best method to conduct this search. Academia is now more akin to journalism, which is the propagation of the party line.
What’s needed for intellectual progress, the late-great David Stove correctly told us, is leisure and a library. That leisure was available to the Founders. It is not so much available today, or is, but it is not cherished. We do have libraries, but they are crammed full of journals which are never read. Nor should be.
Do you know how much it costs a library to stock, in paper or electronic form, those journals? I’d tell you, but you might have a seizure. The sums are vast. Money pissed away. Money better spent on books.
Of course, you could subscribe yourself personally to these journals, each costing hundreds a year. But that’s asinine, since you’d never read any but a few of the papers. Which are anyway scattered across journals. And who is going to subscribe to a dozen or two journals? So you might buy individual copies of papers you want. But each ten- or twelve-page paper is ridiculously expensive.
Why do they cost anyway? Scientists do the writing, giving it free to the journals, who then charge for it. Scientists sign away their copyright to a publisher who squeeze scientists (through their employers) to read what they wrote! It’s even more bizarre when you consider the papers were almost all funded on the public dime. Academic journal publishing is a brilliantly evil system.
There is no longer any need for publishers. Dump them.
We now have places like the arxivs and their ilk. More should be encouraged. Scientists can write whatever they want, upload their work onto any of many systems, and anybody who wants can read the papers. True, these sites require maintenance fees, but their costs are orders of magnitude less than journals. (I put my work here on the blog, which is always free for readers.)
Enterprising editors can still cobble together their own newsletters or magazines of what they think is the best writing, paying their writers in some way.
Scientists, knowing their work would disappear in a flood of flotsam and jetsam could, like the Founders, communicate directly with each other, and can ignore the fluff. That happens now to a great extent in physics, with arxiv.
Nobody loses in this system. Except vampiric publishers.
Because of scientism, we have all become inveterate quantifiers. That’s why we have teenage-girl-inspired metrics like “h-indexes”, which track popularity. Yes. If you’ve never heard of these, they are exactly like counting “likes” on social media. You want to experience true cringe? Then listen to academics compare their paper metrics. Pathetic.
But the cry will naturally arise, “Now we’ve eliminated journals, how can we reward and rate how good scientists are?”
Sigh.
That call is the spirit of academia. Which must be crushed, extinguished, hounded from polite company. It is that spirit that canceled the Gender Insanity paper. Which, because it’s still there and can be read by all, is nothing more than a scarlet letter. Which exists only for midwits to snort at and congratulate themselves over. You read that retracted paper? How dare you.
While the American healthcare industry is happy to give confused children puberty blockers and lop off various offending body parts, the European medical community is having second thoughts.
According to the Wall Street Journal, five countries – the U.K., Sweden, Finland, Norway and France – are now cautioning doctors to exercise caution in their treatment of minors, citing a lack of evidence that the benefits of transgender therapy outweigh the risks.
Earlier this month, the UK’s National Health Services restricted the use of puberty blockers to clinical trials, effectively banning their use in children.
“These countries have done systematic reviews of evidence,” said transgender care researcher Leor Sapir at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute think tank. “They’ve found that the studies cited to support these medical interventions are too unreliable, and the risks are too serious.”
American politicians have taken notice
“It’s beneficial to see European countries coming to their senses,” said Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) in an interview, referring to the UK’s systematic evidentiary reviews of puberty blockers. According to the report, Republicans plan to make transgender-care issues part of their 2024 election platform.
“This is the issue of our time. This is a hill we’re gonna die on,” said Crenshaw.
Democrats, meanwhile, say Republicans are simply scoring cheap political points.
“They are telling parents that Republican politicians know better than they do what is best for their child,” said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), echoing comments made by former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R).
According to a poll taken late last year and published in May by the Washington Post and KFF, 68% of respondents oppose the use of puberty blockers in children aged 10-14. Since then, over a dozen GOP-run states have restricted medical interventions as part of transgender care – including Texas, which will yank a doctor’s license for providing puberty blockers, surgeries or hormone treatments to most transgender minors.
The U.S. medical community hasn’t wavered in its support for medical interventions and continues to recommend puberty blockers and hormones for minors as a clinical option. Unlike the concerns expressed by many authorities in Europe, U.S. medical associations often treat the science behind such medical interventions as settled.
Last week, delegates at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association endorsed a resolution—co-sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and others—that reiterated support for access to medical interventions, saying that GOP claims about transgender care “do not reflect the research landscape.” -WSJ
On the other hand, blue states such as New York have issued guidance allowing teachers to keep a child’s gender transition a secret from their parents. According to the guidance, some students “have not talked to their families about their gender identity because of safety concerns or lack of acceptance and may begin their transition at school without parent/guardian knowledge.”
Of course, this is a big business we’re talking about, so we’ll see how this plays out.
In his latest episode, Tucker Carlson discussed the media’s absolute hatred for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was immediately attacked by the press upon his announcement that he would run against President Joe Biden in 2024.
“CBS News viewers likely were appalled in its coverage of Kennedy’s announcement. CBS denounced the candidate’s views as ‘misleading’ and ‘dangerous,'” noted Carlson, adding “The LA Times called him a threat to democracy.”
“At the offices of National Public Radio in Washington, a full-blown category-5 hysteria typhoon broke out. NPR devoted an entire segment to savaging Kennedy – not just as a candidate, but as a human being,” Carlson continued. “NPR described him as someone who, for his own perverse reasons, has made “debunked and false and misleading claims that undermine trust in vaccines. And who, in his spare time, provides moral support to crazed extremists who “rally under the banner of what they call liberty, or freedom.””
“People Magazine didn’t even bother to report a single word of anything Kennedy said!” Carlson exclaimed, “and instead wrote an entire story about his relatives hate him.”
“Kennedy Jr. faced censorship on Instagram and YouTube for expressing his views,” he continued, adding that RFK Jr. raised questions about “the rise in allergies, asthma, autism, and other conditions related to vaccines,” while “the media and medical establishment vilified Kennedy Jr. for his views, calling him a lunatic, Nazi, and extremist supporter.” … Full article & transcript
When it comes to error correction, the USA’s 50 sovereign states offer more opportunity for an authoritative challenge to the misuse of power than we enjoy in the UK. Dr Joseph Ladapo, the Florida Surgeon General, has made public a letter excoriating federal health officials over their promotion of the mRNA Covid vaccines. The government, he said, ‘has relentlessly forced a premature vaccine into the arms of the American people with little or no concern for the adverse ramifications’.
The letter was to Drs Robert Califf, head of the Food and Drug Administration, and Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Lapado wrote: ‘Your ongoing decision to ignore many of the risks associated with mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, alongside your efforts to manipulate the public into thinking they are harmless, have resulted in deep distrust in the American health care system.’
As reported here earlier this year, senior American scientists have called for a ‘bipartisan, scientifically minded Covid-19 commission so the public health disaster of the past three years is not repeated’. They face an uphill struggle in achieving that aim, but Ladapo’s no-holds-barred letter means that at least some of Florida’s 22.6million citizens have a chance of knowing the jabs are not ‘safe and effective’, as the British public are constantly being told.
Ladapo would surely have been less forthright if Ron DeSantis, Florida’s Republican governor and a possible future US president, were not also on the warpath over the Biden administration’s handling of the pandemic. The Florida Supreme Court has approved DeSantis’s request to convene a grand jury to investigate ‘wrongdoings’ associated with the vaccines.
But DeSantis is not alone. The Texas Attorney General has launched an investigation into whether Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, the companies producing the jabs, misrepresented their safety and efficacy and manipulated trial data. The investigation could open the door to lawsuits by people injured by the mRNA products.
Meanwhile, what hope of redress do Britons have, not just for vaccine damage but for the lives shattered by cruel and unprecedented lockdowns?
The public inquiry led by Baroness Hallett looks likely to be worse than useless, as Laura Dodsworth, author of the best-selling A State of Fear: How the UK Government Weaponised Fear During the Covid-19 Pandemic,has described.
It is in ‘the wise and noble tradition of the great British public inquiry’, Rod Liddle commented in the Sunday Times last weekend. That is, keep the public away from it for as long as possible, and say nothing useful or meaningful unless ‘at least 20 years after whatever it is that they are inquiring about, at which point most of the relevant people are stiff as a stoat’.
The headline on Liddle’s article declared: ‘The data is clear: lockdowns are useless. But you won’t hear that from the inquiry.’
Sadly, neither the Sunday Times nor its daily stablemate, nor just about any of the mainstream media in the UK, have yet ventured into questioning the ‘safe and effective’ narrative about the vaccines. So let’s look at what Ladapo, who as state surgeon general can hardly be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist, has told the American public.
‘Data are unequivocal,’ Ladapo wrote. ‘After the Covid-19 vaccine rollout, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reporting increased by 1,700 per cent, including a 4,400 per cent increase in life-threatening conditions.
‘Dismissing this pronounced increase as being solely due to reporting trends is a callous denial of corroborating scientific evidence also pointing to increased risk and a poor safety profile. It also fails to explain the disproportionate increase in life-threatening adverse events for the mRNA vaccines compared to all adverse events.
‘Based on the CDC’s own data, rates of incapacitation after mRNA vaccination far surpass other vaccines.’
Ladapo cited a recent study which found an excess risk of serious adverse events ‘of special interest’ for 1 in 550 people after mRNA vaccination. He wrote: ‘As you are aware, this is extraordinarily high for a vaccine. In comparison, the risk of serious adverse events after influenza vaccination is much lower. For you to claim that serious adverse events such as these are “rare” when Pfizer and Moderna’s clinical trial data indicate they are not, is a startling exercise in disinformation.
‘I want to re-emphasise that these questions could have been answered if you had required vaccine manufacturers to perform and report adequate clinical trials . . . I anticipate with regret that you will repeat past mistakes and prematurely promote new therapies to Americans without accurately and truthfully weighing data on risks and benefits.’
Ladapo then asked Califf and Walensky to answer 12 questions relating to the safety data, and concluded: ‘Your organisations 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.’
Regular readers of TCW as well as The Daily Sceptic know that numerous scientists support Ladapo’s position, such as reported here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
At present, however, the FDA and CDC, like the NHS, continue to ignore such reports, asserting that ‘the known and potential benefits of these vaccines clearly outweigh their known and potential risks, and that ‘being up to date on vaccinations saves lives compared with individuals who did not get vaccinated’.
One of the remarkable features of these Covid years is the amount of misleading and downright false information emitted by “official” sources, most notably public health authorities, government-appointed regulators, and mainstream media. A part of me hankers after the times when I could trust my government and media in a time of crisis. But if I am honest with myself, I have to admit that I’d prefer to live uncomfortably in the truth than comfortably in a fantasy built for me by someone who does not have my best interests at heart.
As somone who turned on a daily basis to the website of the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention for updates on the Covid outbreak in February and March 2020, I was especially shocked and disappointed by the abysmal failure of authoritative bodies to impartially report the evidence bearing on masking, vaccinations, lockdowns, PCR testing, and other aspects of pandemic policy. My whole faith in the political, media, and scientific establishment, limited as it was, was shaken to the core.
We have been betrayed by the people charged with sharing the best available data and information with us in a time of crisis. We have been lied to and deceived about matters of life and death, such as the risk-benefit tradeoffs of the Covid vaccines, not only by the pharmaceutical industry, but by the people who occupy leading positions of public authority in our society.
Our politicians have sold us “solutions” to Covid that were far, far worse than the disease, and have generally refused to admit to their mistakes, even when they saw the comparative success of regimes like Sweden and Florida that went a very different direction.
Among the more egregious falsehoods that were either stated or implied by official authorities, and uncritically echoed by mainstream media, are the following:
the notion that community masking was supported by strong scientific evidence. It never was (here is the latest Cochrane review of evidence for mask efficacy).
the idea that it was critical that young and health people get vaccinated, if not for themselves, then for the sake of “granny and granddad.” This idea was empirically baseless, since we did not have any good evidence to show that these vaccines prevented transmission at the time these claims were made.
the idea that toddlers and young children and teenagers with no serious health issues could benefit from receiving a Covid vaccine. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that children’s risk from Covid is significant enough to warrant their exposure to a vaccine that has sparked a significant number of adverse events and whose long-term risks to children are still not well understood.
the idea that sheltering in place for months on end would effectively stop a respiratory virus from spreading through the community, rather than just deferring the inevitable and inflicting enormous social and human costs in the meantime. This was a dangerous and revolutionary proposition that had no strong empirical evidence to support it.
The idea that a person who tested positive in a PCR test, but had absolutely no clinical symptoms of Covid-related disease, should count as a Covid “case” or that the death of such a person was a “Covid” death.
I could go on, and talk about the use of a handful of cases of infant hospitalisation to push vaccines on children, the unnecessary and counterproductive closure of schools, the US government’s active role in encouraging private social media companies, behind the scenes, to censor their critics, or the infamous Hancock files, which uncover the UK’s Health Secretary Matt Hancock’s plan to “scare the pants off everyone” with his announcement of the next “variant” of Covid-19.
Thoughtful citizens who notice these betrayals now have strong grounds for distrusting “official” sources to tell them the truth, or present the facts in a non-manipulative, impartial manner. For me, and many others, the old idea that you could depend on your government to inform you of the latest science or tell you the threat level of a disease is now dead in the water.
Put simply, we now live in an informational No Man’s Land, in which every man must fend for himself, to the best of his ability, without the backing of an impressive Official Source to do his thinking for him.
We each have to scrape together whatever information we can from unofficial sources that have gotten important things right and are not defending the indefensible: coerced vaccination, vaccine-based segregation, involuntary population-wide lockdowns, etc.
It puts many of us in the peculiar position of placing more weight on the words and recommendations of individual journalists and scientists whose character and intellect we trust, than the pronouncements of national governments, official regulators, or international bodies like the World Health Organisation.
Living in an informational No Man’s Land is demanding because you can’t just skip over to the CDC website to resolve your doubts. And it is uncomfortable because you do not enjoy anything like the level of faith the average citizen has in “Science” and “Officialdom.” You are sort of at sea, and you cling to whatever bits of information and insight you can scavenge from sources that are not living off the proceeds of vaccine sales or paid by governments to launch sophisticated campaigns of psychological warfare against their own citizens.
The painful truth is that official “experts” and government ministers have played god with our lives and repeatedly given dangerous and scientifically baseless advice.
Under these circumstances, those who do their own independent research, rather than uncritically swallowing whatever “official authorities” tell them, are not the “cranks” and “conspiracy theorists” they are being made out to be, but citizens who actually understand the predicament they find themselves in, and have the courage to think for themselves, even when it draws down ridicule, censorship, and alienation from “respectable” society.
The “Spanish Flu” killed an estimated 50-100 million people during a pandemic 1918-19. What if the story we have been told about this pandemic isn’t true? What if, instead, the killer infection was neither the flu nor Spanish in origin? Newly analyzed documents reveal that the “Spanish Flu” may have been a military vaccine experiment gone awry. In looking back on the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, we need to delve deeper to solve this mystery.
Summary
The reason modern technology has not been able to pinpoint the killer influenza strain from this pandemic is because influenza was not the killer.
More soldiers died during WWI from disease than from bullets.
The pandemic was not flu. An estimated 95% (or higher) of the deaths were caused by bacterial pneumonia, not influenza/a virus.
The pandemic was not Spanish.The first cases of bacterial pneumonia in 1918 trace back to a military base in Fort Riley, Kansas.
From January 21 – June 4, 1918, an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine cultured in horses by the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in New York was injected into soldiers at Fort Riley.
During the remainder of 1918 as those soldiers – often living and traveling under poor sanitary conditions – were sent to Europe to fight, they spread bacteria at every stop between Kansas and the frontline trenches in France.
One study describes soldiers “with active infections (who) were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats, while others—often, in the same “breathing spaces”—were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own or others’ colonizing bacteria.” (1)
The “Spanish Flu” attacked healthy people in their prime. Bacterial pneumonia attacks people in their prime. Flu attacks the young, old and immunocompromised.
When WW1 ended on November 11, 1918, soldiers returned to their home countries and colonial outposts, spreading the killer bacterial pneumonia worldwide.
During WW1, the Rockefeller Institute also sent the antimeningococcic serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries, helping spread the epidemic worldwide.
During the pandemic of 1918-19, the so-called “Spanish Flu” killed 50-100 million people, including many soldiers. Many people do not realize that disease killed far more soldiers on all sides than machine guns or mustard gas or anything else typically associated with WWI.
I have a personal connection to the Spanish Flu. Among those killed by disease in 1918-19 are members of both of my parents’ families. On my father’s side, his grandmother Sadie Hoyt died from pneumonia in 1918. Sadie was a Chief Yeoman in the Navy. Her death left my grandmother Rosemary and her sister Anita to be raised by their aunt. Sadie’s sister Marian also joined the Navy. She died from “the influenza” in 1919. On my mother’s side, two of her father’s sisters died in childhood. All of the family members who died lived in New York City. I suspect many American families, and many families worldwide, were impacted in similar ways by the mysterious Spanish Flu.
In 1918, “influenza” or flu was a catchall term for disease of unknown origin. It didn’t carry the specific meaning it does today. It meant some mystery disease which dropped out of the sky. In fact, influenza is from the Medieval Latin “influential” in an astrological sense, meaning a visitation under the influence of the stars.
WHY IS WHAT HAPPENED 100 YEARS AGO IMPORTANT NOW?
Between 1900-1920, there were enormous efforts underway in the industrialized world to build a better society. I will use New York as an example to discuss three major changes to society which occured in NY during that time and their impact on mortality from infectious diseases.
1. Clean Water and Sanitation
In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York built an extraordinary system to bring clean water to the city from the Catskills, a system still in use today. New York City also built over 6000 miles of sewer to take away and treat waste, which protects the drinking water. The World Health Organization acknowledges the importance of clean water and sanitation in combating infectious diseases. (2)
2. Electricity
In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York built a power grid and wired the city so power was available in every home. Electricity allows for refrigeration. Refrigeration is an unsung hero as a public health benefit. When food is refrigerated from farm to table, the public is protected from potential infectious diseases. Cheap renewable energy is important for many reasons, including combating infectious diseases.
3. Pharmaceutical
In the late 19th century through the early 20th century, New York became the home of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (now Rockefeller University). The Institute is where the modern pharmaceutical industry was born. The Institute pioneered many of the approaches the pharmaceutical industry uses today, including the preparation of vaccine serums, for better or worse. The vaccine used in the Fort Riley experiment on soldiers was made in horses.
US Mortality Rates data from the turn of the 20th century to 1965 clearly indicates that clean water, flushing toilets, effective sewer systems and refrigerated foods all combined to effectively reduce mortality from infectious diseases BEFORE vaccines for those diseases became available.
Have doctors and the pharmaceutical manufacturers taken credit for reducing mortality from infectious disease which rightfully belongs to sandhogs, plumbers, electricians and engineers?
If hubris at the Rockefeller Institute in 1918 led to a pandemic disease which killed millions of people, what lessons can we learn and apply to 2018?
THE DISEASE WAS NOT SPANISH
While watching an episode of American Experience on PBS a few months ago, I was surprised to hear that the first cases of “Spanish Flu” occurred at Fort Riley, Kansas in 1918. I thought, how is it possible this historically important event could be so badly misnamed 100 years ago and never corrected?
Why “Spanish”? Spain was one of a few countries not involved in World War I. Most of the countries involved in the war censored their press. Free from censorship concerns, the earliest press reports of people dying from disease in large numbers came from Spain. The warring countries did not want to additionally frighten the troops, so they were content to scapegoat Spain. Soldiers on all sides would be asked to cross no man’s land into machine gun fire, which was frightening enough without knowing that the trenches were a disease breeding ground.
One hundred years later, it’s long past time to drop “Spanish” from all discussion of this pandemic. If the flu started at a United States military base in Kansas, then the disease could and should be more aptly named. In order to prevent future disasters, the US (and the rest of the world) must take a hard look at what really caused the pandemic.
It is possible that one of the reasons the Spanish Flu has never been corrected is that it helps disguise the origin of the pandemic. If the origin of the pandemic involved a vaccine experiment on US soldiers, then the US may prefer calling it Spanish Flu instead of The Fort Riley Bacteria of 1918, or something similar. The Spanish Flu started at the location this experimental bacterial vaccine was given making it the prime suspect as the source of the bacterial infections which killed so many.
It would be much more difficult to maintain the marketing mantra of “vaccines save lives” if a vaccine experiment originating in the United States during the years of primitive manufacturing caused the deaths of 50-100 million people.
“Vaccines save lives … except we may have killed 50-100 million people in 1918-19” is a far less effective sales slogan than the overly simplistic “vaccines save lives.”
THE DISEASE WHICH KILLED SO MANY WAS NOT FLU OR A VIRUS. IT WAS BACTERIAL.
During the mid-2000’s there was much talk about “pandemic preparedness”. Influenza vaccine manufacturers in the United States received billions of taxpayer dollars to develop vaccines to make sure that we don’t have another lethal pandemic “flu”, like the one in 1918-19.
Capitalizing on the “flu” part of Spanish flu helped vaccine manufacturers procure billion dollar checks from governments, even though scientists knew at the time that bacterial pneumonia was the real killer. It is not my opinion that bacterial pneumonia was the real killer – thousands of autopsies confirm this fact. According to a 2008 National Institute of Health paper, bacterial pneumonia was the killer in a minimum of 92.7% of the 1918-19 autopsies reviewed. It is likely higher than 92.7%. The researchers looked at more than 9000 autopsies, and “there were no negative (bacterial) lung culture results”.
“… In the 68 higher-quality autopsy series, in which the possibility of unreported negative cultures could be excluded, 92.7% of autopsy lung cultures were positive for ≥1 bacterium. … in one study of approximately 9000 subjects who were followed from clinical presentation with influenza to resolution or autopsy, researchers obtained, with sterile technique, cultures of either pneumococci or streptococci from 164 of 167 lung tissue samples. There were 89 pure cultures of pneumococci; 19 cultures from which only streptococci were recovered; 34 that yielded mixtures of pneumococci and/or streptococci; 22 that yielded a mixture of pneumococci, streptococci, and other organisms (prominently pneumococci and nonhemolytic streptococci); and 3 that yielded nonhemolytic streptococci alone. There were no negative lung culture results.” (3)
Pneumococci or streptococci were found in “164 of (the) 167 lung tissue samples” autopsied. That is 98.2%. Bacteria was the killer.
WHERE DID THE SPANISH FLU BACTERIAL PNEUMONIA OF 1918-19 ORIGINATE?
When the United States declared war in April 1917, the fledgling Pharmaceutical industry had something they had never had before – a large supply of human test subjects in the form of the US military’s first draft. Pre-war in 1917, the US Army was 286,000 men. Post-war in 1920, the US army disbanded, and had 296,000 men. During the war years 1918-19, the US Army ballooned to 6,000,000 men, with 2,000,000 men being sent overseas. The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research took advantage of this new pool of human guinea pigs to conduct vaccine experiments.
A REPORT ON ANTIMENINGITIS VACCINATION AND OBSERVATIONS ON AGGLUTININS IN THE BLOOD OF CHRONIC MENINGOCOCCUS CARRIERS
Frederick L. Gates
From the Base Hospital, Fort Riley, Kansas, and The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York.
Received 1918 Jul 20
(Author note: Please read the Fort Riley paper in its entirety so you can appreciate the carelessness of the experiments conducted on these troops.)
Between January 21st and June 4th of 1918, Dr. Gates reports on an experiment where soldiers were given 3 doses of a bacterial meningitis vaccine. Those conducting the experiment on the soldiers were just spitballing dosages of a vaccine serum made in horses.
The vaccination regime was designed to be 3 doses. 4,792 men received the first dose, but only 4,257 got the 2nd dose (down 11%), and only 3702 received all three doses (down 22.7%). A total of 1,090 men were not there for the 3rd dose. What happened to these soldiers? Were they shipped East by train from Kansas to board a ship to Europe? Were they in the Fort Riley hospital? Dr. Gates’ report doesn’t tell us.
An article accompanying the American Experience broadcast I watched sheds some light on where these 1,090 men might be. Gates began his experiments in January 1918. By March of that year, “100 men a day” were entering the infirmary at Fort Riley. Are some of these the men missing from Dr. Gates’ report – the ones who did not get the 2nd or 3rd dose?
“… Shortly before breakfast on Monday, March 11, the first domino would fall signaling the commencement of the first wave of the 1918 influenza. Company cook Albert Gitchell reported to the camp infirmary with complaints of a “bad cold.” Right behind him came Corporal Lee W. Drake voicing similar complaints. By noon, camp surgeon Edward R. Schreiner had over 100 sick men on his hands, all apparently suffering from the same malady…” (5)
Gates does report that several of the men in the experiment had flu-like symptoms: coughs, vomiting and diarrhea after receiving the vaccine. These symptoms are a disaster for men living in barracks, travelling on trains to the Atlantic coast, sailing to Europe, and living and fighting in trenches. The unsanitary conditions at each step of the journey are an ideal environment for a contagious disease like bacterial pneumonia to spread.
From Dr. Gates’ report:
“Reactions.– … Several cases of looseness of the bowels or transient diarrhea were noted. This symptom had not been encountered before. Careful inquiry in individual cases often elicited the information that men who complained of the effects of vaccination
were suffering from mild coryza, bronchitis, etc., at the time of injection.”
“Sometimes the reaction was initiated by a chill or chilly sensation, and a number of men complained of fever or feverish sensations during the following night. Next in frequency came nausea (occasionally vomiting), dizziness, and general “aches and pains” in the joints and muscles, which in a few instances were especially localized in the neck or lumbar region, causing stiff neck or stiff back. A few injections were followed by diarrhea. The reactions, therefore, occasionally simulated the onset of epidemic meningitis and several vaccinated men were sent as suspects to the Base Hospital for diagnosis.”(4)
According to Gates, they injected random dosages of an experimental bacterial meningitis vaccine into soldiers. Afterwards, some of the soldiers had symptoms which “simulated” meningitis, but Dr. Gates advances the fantastical claim that it wasn’t actual meningitis.
The soldiers developed flu-like symptoms. Bacterial meningitis, then and now, is known to mimic flu-like symptoms. (6) Perhaps the similarity of early symptoms of bacterial meningitis and bacterial pneumonia to symptoms of flu is why the vaccine experiments at Fort Riley have been able to escape scrutiny as a potential cause of the Spanish Flu for 100 years and counting.
HOW DID THE “SPANISH FLU” SPREAD SO WIDELY SO QUICKLY?
There is an element of a perfect storm in how the Gates bacteria spread. WWI ended only 10 months after the first injections. Unfortunately for the 50-100 million who died, those soldiers injected with horse-infused bacteria moved quickly during those 10 months.
An article from 2008 on the CDC’s website describes how sick WWI soldiers could pass along the bacteria to others by becoming “cloud adults”.
“Finally, for brief periods and to varying degrees, affected hosts became “cloud adults” who increased the aerosolization of colonizing strains of bacteria, particularly pneumococci, hemolytic streptococci, H. influenzae, and S. aureus. For several days during local epidemics—particularly in crowded settings such as hospital wards, military camps, troop ships, and mines (and trenches)—some persons were immunologically susceptible to, infected with, or recovering from infections with influenza virus. Persons with active infections were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats, while others—often, in the same “breathing spaces”—were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own or others’ colonizing bacteria.” (1)
Three times in his report on the Fort Riley vaccine experiment, Dr. Gates states that some soldiers had a “severe reaction” indicating “an unusual individual susceptibility to the vaccine”. While the vaccine made many sick, it only killed those who were susceptible to it. Those who became sick and survived became “cloud adults” who spread the bacteria to others, which created more cloud adults, spreading to others where it killed the susceptible, repeating the cycle until there were no longer wartime unsanitary conditions, and there were no longer millions of soldiers to experiment on.
The toll on US troops was enormous and it is well documented. Dr. Carol Byerly describes how the “influenza” travelled like wildfire through the US military. (substitute “bacteria” for Dr. Byerly’s “influenza” or “virus”):
“… Fourteen of the largest training camps had reported influenza outbreaks in March, April, or May, and some of the infected troops carried the virus with them aboard ships to France … As soldiers in the trenches became sick, the military evacuated them from the front lines and replaced them with healthy men. This process continuously brought the virus into contact with new hosts—young, healthy soldiers in which it could adapt, reproduce, and become extremely virulent without danger of burning out.
… Before any travel ban could be imposed, a contingent of replacement troops departed Camp Devens (outside of Boston) for Camp Upton, Long Island, the Army’s debarkation point for France, and took influenza with them. Medical officers at Upton said it arrived “abruptly” on September 13, 1918, with 38 hospital admissions, followed by 86 the next day, and 193 the next. Hospital admissions peaked on October 4 with 483, and within 40 days, Camp Upton sent 6,131 men to the hospital for influenza. Some developed pneumonia so quickly that physicians diagnosed it simply by observing the patient rather than listening to the lungs…. ” (7)
The United States was not the only country in possession of the Rockefeller Institute’s experimental bacterial vaccine. A 1919 report from the Institute states: “Reference should be made that before the United States entered the war (in April 1917) the Institute had resumed the preparation of antimeningococcic serum, in order to meet the requests of England, France, Belgium Italy and other countries.” The same report states: “In order to meet the suddenly increased demand for the curative serums worked out at the Institute, a special stable for horses was quickly erected …” (8)
An experimental antimeningoccic serum made in horses and injected into soldiers who would be entering the cramped and unsanitary living conditions of war … what could possibly go wrong?
Is the bacterial serum made in horses at the Rockefeller Institute which was injected into US soldiers and distributed to numerous other countries responsible for the 50-100 million people killed by bacterial lung infections in 1918-19? The Institute says it distributed the bacterial serum to England, France, Belgium, Italy and other countries during WWI. Not enough is known about how these countries experimented on their soldiers. I hope independent researchers will take an honest look at these questions.
THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS
I do not believe that anyone involved in these vaccine experiments was trying to harm anyone. Some will see the name Rockefeller and yell. “Illuminati!” or “culling the herd!” I do not believe that’s what happened. I believe standard medical hubris is responsible – doctors “playing God”, thinking they can tame nature without creating unanticipated problems. With medical hubris, I do not think the situation has changed materially over the past 100 years.
WHAT NOW?
The vaccine industry is always looking for human test subjects. They have the most success when they are able to find populations who are not in a position to refuse. Soldiers (9), infants, the disabled, prisoners, those in developing nations – anyone not in a position to refuse.
Vaccine experimentation on vulnerable populations is not an issue of the past. Watch this video clip of Dr. Stanley Plotkin where he describes using experimental vaccines on orphans, the mentally retarded, prisoners, and those under colonial rule. The deposition was in January 2018. The hubris of the medical community is the same or worse now than it was 100 years ago. Watch as Dr. Plotkin admits to writing, “The question is whether we are to have experiments performed on fully functioning adults and on children who are potentially contributors to society or to perform initial studies in children and adults who are human in form but not in social potential.” Please watch the horrifying video clip. (10)
In part because the global community is well aware of medical hubris and well aware of the poor record of medical ethics, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights developed international standards regarding the right to informed consent to preventative medical procedures like vaccination. The international community is well aware that the pharmaceutical industry makes mistakes and is always on the lookout for human test subjects. The Declaration states that individuals have the human right to consent to any preventative medical intervention like vaccination.
Article 3 – Human dignity and human rights
1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.
2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.
Article 6 – Consent
1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice. (11)
Clean water, sanitation, flushing toilets, refrigerated foods and healthy diets have done and still do far more to protect humanity from infectious diseases than any vaccine program. Doctor and the vaccine industry have usurped credit which rightfully belongs to plumbers, electricians, sandhogs, engineers and city planners.
For these reasons, policy makers at all levels of government should protect the human rights and individual liberties of individuals to opt out of vaccine programs via exemptions. The hubris of the medical community will never go away. Policy makers need to know that vaccines like all medical interventions are not infallible. Vaccines are not magic. We all have different susceptibility to disease. Human beings are not one size fits all.
In 1918-19, the vaccine industry experimented on soldiers, likely with disastrous results. In 2018, the vaccine industry experiments on infants every day. The vaccine schedule has never been tested as it is given. The results of the experiment are in: 1 in 7 American children is in some form of special education and over 50% have some form of chronic illness. (12)
In 1918-19, there was no safety follow up after vaccines were delivered. In 2018, there is virtually no safety follow up after a vaccine is delivered. Who exactly gave you that flu shot at Rite Aid? Do you have the cell number of the store employee if something goes wrong?
1n 1918-19, there was no liability to the manufacturer for injuries or death caused by vaccines. In 2018, there is no liability for vaccine manufacturers for injuries or death caused by vaccines, which was formalized in 1986. (13)
In 1918-19, there was no independent investigative follow up challenging the official story that “Spanish Flu” was some mystery illness which dropped from the sky. I suspect that many of those at the Rockefeller Institute knew what happened, and that many of the doctors who administered the vaccines to the troops knew what happened, but those people are long dead. In 2018, the Pharmaceutical industry is the largest campaign donor to politicians and the largest advertiser in all forms of media, so not much has changed over 100 years. This story will likely be ignored by mainstream media because their salaries are paid by pharmaceutical advertising.
The next time you hear someone say “vaccines save lives” please remember that the true story of the cost/benefit of vaccines is much more complicated than their three word slogan. Also remember that vaccines may have killed 50-100 million people in 1918-19. If true, those costs greatly outweighed any benefit, especially considering that plumbers, electricians, sandhogs and engineers did, and continue to do, the real work which reduces mortality from disease.
Vaccines are not magic. (14) Human rights and bioethics are critically important. Policy makers should understand the history of medical hubris and protect individual and parental human rights as described in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.
——
Kevin Barry is the President of First Freedoms, Inc. a 501.c.3. He is a former federal attorney, a rep at the UN HQ in New York and the author of Vaccine Whistleblower: Exposing Autism Research Fraud at the CDC. Please support our work at http://www.firstfreedoms.org
Please direct media inquiries to kb151@protonmail.com
References
1. Deaths from Bacterial Pneumonia during 1918–19 Influenza Pandemic
John F. Brundage* and G. Dennis Shanks†
Author affiliations: *Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA; †Australian Army Malaria Institute, Enoggera, Queensland, Australia https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/14/8/07-1313_article
In everyday life, it only makes sense to initiate a new action if we are reasonably confident it will not result in more harms than benefits. The importance of this notion is amplified manyfold when it is powerful actors – politicians and their public health experts – forcing the change on their citizens. The precautionary principle (PP) in its original form endorsed this important rule and complemented the Hippocratic oath of our medical doctors to ‘first do no harm’. Yet throughout the Covid event we have witnessed a total disregard for this principle with the imposition of a series of non-evidenced restrictions, driven more by ideology than science, where the resulting collateral damage has dwarfed any benefits. One stark example – the focus of this article – has been the forced masking of people in community settings, a practice that continues in many areas of healthcare today.
The precautionary principle initially emerged in the 1970s primarily in response to growing concerns about industrial pollution from toxic chemicals. The central premise was a reasonable one: in situations of uncertainty, innovation – such as the introduction of a novel process or intervention – should only proceed if there was no reasonable likelihood of serious unforeseen harms. In effect, in situations where traditional science had not yet investigated the potential for collateral damage from a new way of doing things, the PP put the burden of proof on the innovators to demonstrate that their novel project would not cause harm. If applied to the specific issue of mass-masking during the Covid era, the experts at SAGE (and all the other multi-disciplinary groups, such as the Royal Society, Independent SAGE and DELVE, who pushed for legislation to compel us all to cover our faces) should have produced persuasive evidence that masks do no harm before making their recommendations.
Instead, those pushing the pro-mask narrative often resorted to tropes and appeals to common sense: “It’s only a mask”; “It’s not much to ask, a small inconvenience”; “If it helps a little at the margins, it’s worth it”; “What harm can it do?”
In early summer 2020, our public health experts would have recognised the validity of two assertions. First, that the scientific evidence that masks significantly reduce viral transmission was – at best – weak and contradictory. Second, that the mass-masking of healthy people across the Western world had never before been undertaken and, therefore, the potential unintended harms of such a policy were largely unknown. Under these circumstances, the original PP would have emphatically advised, “when in doubt, do nothing“: do not encourage or recommend the wearing of masks, and – most definitely – do not even contemplate mandating them.
If only, if only.
If only our public health experts had heeded this sensible precautionary message:
We would not have contributed to the inflated levels of fear in the population, fear that discouraged hospital attendances, exacerbated loneliness, and thereby increased the number of non-Covid excess deaths;
We would not have re-traumatised many victims of historical physical and sexual abuse, for whom the sight and feel of masks triggered disturbing flashbacks;
We would not have excluded the hard-of-hearing (one in six of the population) from full social engagement with their fellow humans;
We would not have polluted our environment with swathes of non-recyclable plastic and contaminated our waterways with potentially poisonous chemicals.
So why did Professor Chris Whitty (the Chief Medical Officer) and his band of academic advisors disregard the precautionary principle?
Paradoxically, the experts who pushed the pro-mask narrative often deployed a corrupted version of the PP to justify their stance. Over the past three decades, the PP concept has evolved – some might suggest it has been hijacked – and is now commonly taken to mean something very different. The re-writing of the PP gained impetus in 1992 at a United Nations General Assembly meeting where global leaders asserted (Principle 15) that: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” Further re-interpretations of the PP followed, culminating in the European Commission, in 2022, espousing the benefits of adopting the “Innovation Principle” in which “the regulatory framework supports and enables the implementation of new out-of-the-box solutions to societal problems”. This revision of the original PP has – inevitably – encroached into the public health sphere, where large pharmaceutical companies welcome the freedom to deliver their ‘innovative’ new drugs to the general population unencumbered by a pre-requisite to demonstrate that their products will lead to more benefits than harms.
The major consequence of this corruption of the PP is this: if powerful, state-funded world ‘experts’ assert that we are facing an existential threat – be it from climate change, environmental pollution or a novel virus – their recommended interventions should be implemented unless opponents of the proposed actions can prove that the likely collateral damage will significantly outweigh the claimed positive outcomes. The burden of proof no longer resides with the innovators. World governments can now impose top-down restrictions on their citizens and (so long as they claim to be acting for ‘the greater good’ or be doing the ‘socially responsible’ thing) the onus is on others to prove beyond doubt that their policies are counterproductive.
Throughout the Covid event those experts beseeching us all to wear face coverings have often relied, to various degrees, upon this warped version of the PP to support their stance. Arguably the most extreme example of an ideologically-driven imposition is pro-mask crusader Professor Trish Greenhalgh, who not only pre-emptively assumes no harms of mass-masking, but also believes that the search for evidence may be “the enemy of good policy”.
So rather than the obligation to carry out a thorough cost-benefit analysis prior to compelling us all to wear masks in community settings, our paternalistic policymakers were – with the help of the corrupted precautionary principle – allowed to fob us off with dubious claims of an existential threat, appeals to altruism and meaningless platitudes like “it’s better to be safe than sorry”.
Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist and a co-founder of Smile Free, a campaign group opposed to mask mandates.
Among all the independent media superstars, Joe “Pags” Pagliarulo does one of the best “rapid fire” interviews that gets his audience updated on contemporary issues. This one on June 15, 2023, starts out with U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler the 12th District of New York incredulously stating two year old should have worn masks because at the time there was no vaccine. My responses are short and evidence-based with citations. This is the type of interchange we should be seeing on main stream media with experts who should know the data cold have the alacrity to move quickly from topic to topic. Watch additional coverage on Rochelle Walensky, Demar Hamlin, Jamie Foxx, Kathy Huchul, and Propagandized “Misinformation.”
Peter Hotez is well-known for receiving millions for vaccine development and being a militant defender of the narrative who maliciously attacks anyone who challenges him but refuses to ever debate anyone who disagrees with him.
This became a big problem because prior to COVID-19 the media paraded him around to advocate for mass censorship of anyone who questioned vaccines. His publicity campaign then paved the way for the mass censorship we saw over the last few years (which likely cost millions of lives during the pandemic since everyone who questioned the dysfunctional pandemic response online was silenced).
After the initial objective was achieved, Peter Hotez pivoted to calling for the government to target and silence anyone who questioned the vaccine narrative. He justified these fascist demands with his lies that anyone who questioned the vaccines were mass murders and engaged in a war against science.
Recently, Hotez (who always hurls inflammatory allegations) picked a fight with Joe Rogan and the unprecedented public response exposed Hotez’s grift to the entire world. Many in turn assumed Hotez’s refusal to debate vaccine misinformation (in return for a massive donation being given to a charity of Hotez’s choice) meant all of Hotez’s claims about helping the poor were nothing more than a grift.
This is all hard to believe, so I did my best to both cover just who Hotez is in detail here and provide helpful perspectives on how to we can compassionately but effectively deal with difficult people like Hotez.
Late last month the office of the United Nation’s Secretary General published a policy document on aims for the future of the internet.
A follow-up to the 2021 report “Our Common Agenda”, the new report’s title says it all really, “A Global Digital Compact”. That’s the goal, international legislation that would seek to control and enforce the use of digital technology.
The proposed clauses promote everything you’d expect them to promote.
Digital identities linked with financial access:
Digital IDs linked with bank or mobile money accounts can improve the delivery of social protection coverage and serve to better reach eligible beneficiaries. Digital technologies may help to reduce leakage, errors and costs in the design of social protection programmes
Environmental or climate change-based social credit systems:
Sensors and monitors connected to the Internet of things, cloud-based data platforms, blockchain-enabled tracking systems and digital product passports unlock new capabilities for the measurement and tracking of environmental and social impacts across value chains.”
Public-Private Partnership:
Partnerships between States, private sector and civil society leverage the capacity of digital tools to provide solutions for development across the Sustainable Development Goals. Examples include the Digital Public Infrastructure Alliance, the Coalition for Digital Environmental Sustainability and public-private partnerships for disaster response.”
Countering online “harm”:
Disinformation, hate speech and malicious and criminal activity in cyberspace raise the risks and costs for everyone online […] we must strengthen accountability for harmful and malicious acts online.
Those are the obvious ones, there’s also more sneaky, insidious language regarding “equity” and “access”. The report is concerned there are many people in the world (mostly the developing world) who don’t have regular access to the Internet.
This concern would be more honestly expressed in the language of control – people who don’t consume digital media can’t be hypnotised, people who don’t communicate online can’t be censored, and people who don’t rely on digital banking can’t be controlled.
To sum up, the Digital Global Compact is a piece of globalist legislation serving the final aim of globalist policy: Control of all aspects of life, achieved by inserting a digital filter between people and reality.
Banking, communication, media consumption, shopping. Every interaction you have will be through a digital membrane which can both monitor your exchanges with the world and – if deemed necessary – deny you access to that world.
An interesting final point to note is the words the report doesn’t use. “Globalist” and “globalism” do not appear once, “vaccine passports” or “vaccine certificates” are likewise not mentioned. Neither are “social credit” or “central-bank digital currency”. They are discussed, but not mentioned.
They seem to be avoiding buzzwords they know will trigger resistance or set off alarm bells. Would they have done that before the skeptics started winning the Covid conversation? I don’t think so.
You don’t have to take my word for any of this, of course, you can read the whole report yourself.
There’s nothing surprising in there at all, obviously. But it’s definitely a “quiet part out loud moment”, and a link to send to those people who still dismiss you as a conspiracy theorist.
Often, the narrative put forth suggests that the restrictions and mandates related to Covid-19 were enforced upon citizens by their governments. This viewpoint could seemingly imply that if left to the discretion of the masses, these lockdowns, social distancing protocols, and mandatory vaccinations might never have seen the light of day.
However, one nation stands as a testament against this theory – a control country allowing us to examine the public sentiment more closely – Switzerland.
Switzerland distinguished itself as one of the few nations globally that entrusted its citizens with the power to vote on measures concerning Covid-19. The first referendum took place in June 2021. It was a time when only approximately a third of the populace was vaccinated, yet the poll results exhibited a significant majority support for the Covid laws with a staggering 60.2% favouring them.
Not long afterwards, in November 2021, Switzerland’s second referendum took place. This vote was particularly contentious as it encompassed an array of substantial measures like stricter restrictions, comprehensive contact tracing, and the issuance of vaccination certificates. Despite the divisive nature of these policies, an even greater number of people endorsed them, with a 62% majority, which interestingly, was also the fourth-highest voter turnout in Swiss history, standing at 65.7%.
Surely, in 2023, the outcome would be different? Nobody is talking about Covid anymore. With the global narrative having largely moved on from Covid, would the Swiss people continue to support these laws?
Yes they would and no, in 2023 the outcome is no different. Yesterday, a rare third referendum was held. At the end of 2022, the Swiss parliament decided to extend some aspects of the Covid laws, including the vaccine certificates, until summer 2024. The reason given was that a dangerous new Covid variant may emerge and the authorities would have to react quickly. Due to the extension, opponents of the policies obtained enough signatures to force a new referendum.
Despite the ongoing contention, a significant majority of 61.9% voted in favour of these laws.
59% of voters also agreed to pass a climate change law which aims to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Opponents said the plan would drive up electricity use and prove too costly for consumers but authorities plan to incentivise households and businesses to be more climate-friendly.
It seems people never learn and Covid restrictions & vaccine passes could return tomorrow if a new health panic were to emerge.
Spotify, the audio streaming giant, is once again in the crosshairs of media critics for allowing an episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience” that featured Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The episode is accused of spreading vaccine “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories” without sufficient censorship by the platform, and the media is questioning Spotify’s decision to host it.
Joe Rogan, a major podcasting force in the US, hosted the three-hour long show that touched on vaccine skepticism, 5G technology, and alternative COVID-19 treatments. This comes as part of a broader scrutiny from media outlets urging platforms to put a lid on content that challenges mainstream narratives and contradicts the stances of global health organizations.
Media outlets including Vice and The Verge point fingers at Robert F. Kennedy Jr., known for his criticism of vaccines and pharmaceutical companies, for allegedly making several false claims during the podcast. These include the claim linking vaccines to autism and an assertion regarding vaccines containing harmful forms of mercury. The media’s bone to pick with Spotify is its decision to not clamp down on Kennedy’s suggestion that “Wi-Fi radiation” could play a role in various chronic illnesses.
Peter Hotez, Baylor microbiology professor and public health advocate, threw the spotlight on the issue by sharing a critical article via Twitter. Not one to back down, Rogan threw down the gauntlet to Hotez for a debate with Kennedy, sweetening the pot with a $100,000 donation to charity if Hotez agreed. He didn’t.
Despite the uproar and calls for censorship, Spotify defended its position. A spokesperson from the company maintained that neither Rogan nor Kennedy crossed the line in terms of the platform’s policies.
Spotify’s history with attacks from the media is somewhat checkered. Flashback to early 2022, when artists including Neil Young and Joni Mitchell yanked their music from Spotify as a show of protest against Rogan’s questioning of Covid vaccine efficacy, including his statement that vaccines don’t halt infection spread.
Inside the book that maps the architecture behind global governance — from the Epstein files to the Pact for the Future
Lies are Unbekoming | April 1, 2026
On June 13, 2019, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum signed a partnership deal to “accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” That same evening, WEF president Börge Brende — Norway’s former Foreign Minister — had dinner with Jeffrey Epstein at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. The Epstein files, released January 2026, contain an exchange between the two from the previous year. Epstein to Brende: “Davos can really replace the UN. C21, cyber, crypto . genetics… intl coordination.” Brende back to Epstein: “Exactly — we need a new global architecture. World Economic Forum (Davos) is uniquely positioned — public private.”
The next day, the UN General Assembly adopted the framework for restructuring global governance.
That sequence — the partnership signing, the Epstein dinner, the candid admission about replacing the UN with a public-private architecture, and then the formal adoption — opens Jacob Nordangård’s The Digital World Brain. Pages two and three. Footnoted to the UN resolution number, the Epstein files, and the General Assembly record.
I keep coming back to it because it captures what this book does that almost nothing else in the independent research space manages. I’ve followed Jacob’s work for years now and interviewed him about his research. Each book peels back another layer of the same institutional architecture, and each time I think he’s reached the limit of what can be documented, the next one goes further. Nordangård doesn’t speculate. He doesn’t editorialize much. He lays institutional actions next to each other in chronological order and lets the pattern announce itself. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.