Aletho News


Public health mafia plan another ‘outbreak’ from which they can terrorize the public and make bank

Amazing Polly | May 20, 2022

May 21, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | 1 Comment


The Highwire with Del Bigtree | May 19, 2022

Fauci gives viewers a teachable moment in gaslighting as he attempts to tell Americans that they didn’t experience any lockdowns over the last two years.


May 20, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | 1 Comment

Moderna Vaccine Delivered More Risk Than Benefit in Trials for Children 6 to 11, Despite New York Times Positive Spin

By Madhava Setty, M.D. | The Defender | May 17, 2022

Two doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine “were found to be safe and effective in inducing immune responses and preventing COVID-19,” according to an analysis of the results of Moderna’s vaccine trial in children ages 6 to 11.

However, a closer look at the analysis, published May 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), finds the trial results showed the vaccine provided meager benefit when compared to risk, and the study was too small to assess serious and known adverse events such as myocarditis and pericarditis in children of this age.

The NEJM paper presented findings from both Phase 1 (complete) and Phase 2 and 3 (ongoing) trials of Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine. Phase 1 results were used to determine an appropriate dose for the Phase 2 and 3 trials.

The authors of the analysis concluded:

“Two 50-μg doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine were found to be safe and effective in inducing immune responses and preventing Covid-19 in children 6 to 11 years of age; these responses were non-inferior to those in young adults.”

The scope of my analysis below is limited to the Phase 2 and 3 portions of the trial where 4,016 children were randomly assigned to receive two injections of mRNA-1273 (50 μg each) or a placebo.

How effective was the vaccine?

The effectiveness of the Moderna vaccine, as determined by immunogenicity (the ability of the vaccine to elicit an antibody response), exceeded that measured in adolescents in a separate trial.

However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains that antibody test results should not be used as an indication of immunity.

Moreover, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biologics Product Advisory Committee reached a consensus in April that antibody levels cannot be used as a correlate for vaccine effectiveness.

The FDA committee’s decision is consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s executive summary of a science brief, released on Oct. 29, 2021, which stated:

“Data are presently insufficient to determine an antibody titer threshold that indicates when an individual is protected from infection.”

Nevertheless, the FDA used immunobridging as a means to justify authorization of the Pfizer vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, as The Defender reported here and here.

If the FDA authorizes the Moderna formulation for children age 6 and under, it would be another example of the agency making a decision that contradicts its own position.

With regard to “preventing COVID-19,” Moderna’s Phase 2 and 3 trials showed no deaths, hospitalizations or severe infections in either those who received the vaccine or those who were given the placebo.

Thus, the trial could not determine the benefit, if any, of the vaccine in preventing these outcomes.

Beginning 14 days after the second dose, 3 of 2,644 vaccine recipients developed COVID-19 (defined as a positive PCR test and a single symptom) compared to 4 of 853 placebo recipients (see Table S26).

Adjusting for the different number of recipients in each of the two groups, 12.4 cases of symptomatic disease would have occurred in a group of 2,644 placebo recipients.

This means that 2,644 vaccinations would prevent 9.4 (12.4 – 3 = 9.4) cases of COVID-19.

Put another way, more than 280 children in this age group would need to be fully vaccinated (two doses) to prevent a single case of non-severe, symptomatic COVID-19 — so 280 is the Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV), which is the key metric used to assess risk versus benefit as explained below.

The authors of the NEJM paper admitted their findings were limited because too few cases of COVID-19 occurred in this time window. They instead calculated a Vaccine Efficacy (VE) of 88% based on infections occurring 14 days after the first injection.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccine trials to date have all calculated VE starting from the time the product is thought to have maximum efficacy, i.e., 14 days after the second dose. This approach has been criticized as being impractical if not disingenuous as it will necessarily exaggerate the product’s benefit.

However, now faced with a dearth of outcomes, Moderna investigators chose to veer from their prior strategy. Using outcomes from 14 days after the first dose, we can calculate that 56 children need to be fully vaccinated to prevent a single symptomatic infection.

Was the vaccine ‘safe’?

Trial participants were assessed for local and systemic adverse reactions within 7 days of the first and second doses.

In the vaccine group, 94% of children experienced a local adverse reaction after the first dose, and 95% experienced a local adverse reaction after the second dose.

Local adverse reactions include pain, redness or swelling at the injection site or in proximal lymph nodes.

Also, according to the trial results, 58% of vaccine recipients suffered a systemic adverse reaction after the first dose, and 78% suffered a systemic adverse reaction after the second dose.

Systemic reactions include fever, chills, headache, muscle/joint pain, nausea, vomiting and fatigue.

The majority of these adverse reactions were mild. However, 4.1% of the vaccinated children experienced Grade 3 local and systemic reactions after the first dose, and 12.2% of vaccinated children experienced Grade 3 local and systemic reactions after the second dose.

Grade 3 events are serious and interfere with a person’s ability to do basic activities and may also require medical intervention.

Finally, 29.6% of vaccinees (891) reported an unsolicited adverse event.

Unsolicited events are those independently reported by a participant to investigators. There is generally a degree of underreporting of these adverse events because the reporting requires the participant to initiate the report, rather than reply to a survey initiated by someone else.

While solicited (via a survey) adverse events are assigned a grade, unsolicited adverse events are divided into “serious” and “not serious.”

In the Moderna Phase 2 and 3 trials, only three of these unsolicited adverse events were classified as serious. All three were deemed unrelated to the vaccine by the investigators.

However, the study reported only those unsolicited adverse events that occurred with a greater-than-1% incidence.

In other words, with a vaccinated pool of children of approximately 3,000, if fewer than 30 children had a particular adverse event, it was not reported in the trial results (Table S20).


The investigators admit their analysis of the vaccine’s efficacy is limited because of the limited number of cases that occurred during the study.

Nevertheless, they conclude, “… the mRNA-1273 vaccine at a dose level of 50 μg in children was protective against Covid-19 beginning 14 days after the first injection.”

They also wrote:

“These results extend the evidence of the safety and efficacy of the mRNA-1273 vaccine seen in adults and adolescents and provide support for the use of this vaccine to prevent Covid-19 in children.”

But at what price?

If we use an NNV of 56, and considering that 4.1% and 12.2% of vaccinated children will suffer Grade 3 local and systemic reactions, every one case of non-severe COVID-19 prevented through vaccination will result in two Grade 3 local reactions and nearly seven Grade 3 systemic reactions.

Using an NNV of 280 based on outcomes 14 days after the second dose predicts that 11 children will suffer a Grade 3 local reaction and 35 will suffer a Grade 3 systemic reaction for every COVID-19 case prevented.

The risk-benefit profile of this product in this age group should not reassure the public or the FDA.

Moreover, this study was conducted in the summer and fall of 2021, a time when Delta was the predominant strain.

A large observational study from the state of New York conducted during the time Omicron was the prevalent variant demonstrated Pfizer’s pediatric formulation had efficacy that plummeted to 12% within seven weeks.

There is no reason to believe Moderna’s product will fare any better.

Nevertheless, The New York Timesreporting on the May 11 NEJM analysis, highlighted the vaccine’s immunogenic power, running the headline, “Moderna Vaccine Provokes Strong Immune Response in Children 6 to 11.”

Despite the headline, which framed the analysis in a positive light, the Times did admit:

“The trial was not large enough to detect rarer side effects, such as the heart problems that have been observed in other age groups.

“Moderna’s trial measured the vaccine’s power against the Delta variant, and the researchers are still assessing its performance against Omicron. All of the vaccines have proven to be less effective, in all age groups, against the Omicron variant.”

Despite only tepid support from mainstream media, the FDA seems fixated on authorizing this product.

Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, recently hinted the FDA would not demand that pediatric vaccine formulations against COVID-19 meet the agency’s own Emergency Use Authorization guidelines requiring 50% efficacy.

Vinay Prasad, M.D., MPH, explained the implications of this potential shift in the FDA’s stance, stating it was “incredible” that Marks would sign off on a pediatric vaccine if it seems to be mirroring efficacy in adults but is less effective against Omicron.

“We have standards for a reason,” Prasad said. The standard chosen by the FDA was “arbitrary and, if anything, I’d argue it was on the low side — 50% isn’t as good as what we wanted.”

“Fifty percent is quite low, and if you have a very low vaccine efficacy […] you can have compensatory behavior that actually leads to a lot more viral spread,” he added.

Though an effective vaccine does not presently exist, finding and authorizing one does not pose a problem if the FDA somehow believes it can redefine “effective” while maintaining a semblance of a regulatory authority.

© 2022 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

May 19, 2022 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

School shutdowns harm children? It’s a bit late to tell us now

By Laura Perrins | TCW Defending Freedom | May 19, 2022

I HAVE an article I want to direct your attention to. It is from our friends at the Guardianwho only now are pointing out the damage lockdown did to the youngest children. 

In this piece we are told: ‘The youngest children have been most affected by lockdowns and closures during the Covid pandemic, with new research finding that the educational progress and social development of four- and five-year-olds suffered severely during their first year at school. Aggressive behaviour such as biting and hitting, feelings of struggling in class or being overwhelmed around large groups of children were among the difficulties reported by teachers.’

It may be new research but it is simply more confirmation of the shocking damage that was officially reported six weeks ago that Kathy commented on at the time on Mark Steyn’s GB News show. It was a cruelty that we witnessed first and reported on at the time, affecting seven- and eight- year-olds too, as reported here.

The Guardian article is worth reading in full, but where was this newspaper at the time? Castigating the teaching unions’ lockdown zealots? No. As you know I was very angry about the lockdown but nothing angered me more than when they closed schools. I could have lived with pretty much any other restriction but closing the schools was an evil, wicked thing to do. It is proven. The government sacrificed children on the altar of Covid. Boris Johnson should have refused to do it and have utterly shamed all those who pressured him to do so, not least the teaching unions as well as the left-wing press.

It is all a bit late in the day now to tell us what we already knew – that closing schools was doomed to cause the serious harm to the poorest and most vulnerable children, as Kathy said on Steyn. The Guardian report, while welcome, is all too little, too late. The damage is done.

May 19, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

From the heart of the Covid establishment, the truth about asymptomatic spread

By Hector Drummond | TCW Defending Freedom | May 19, 2022

AN important study into Covid-19 has got very little traction, despite coming from the Covid industry’s favourite university, Imperial College London.

This is likely to be because the study totally destroys the industry’s assumptions about asymptomatic spread.

The other institutions involved in this study are the Vaccine Taskforce and Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), hVIVO (part of Open Orphan plc), and the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust. In other words, this study was conducted by the heart of the Covid establishment.

What did they find? Well, forget all you were told about it taking five to six days to develop Covid symptoms, which was always an unwarranted claim whose main purpose was to imprison whole populations. Even if that had been true, it wouldn’t have provided the justification for the Great Jailing that governments across the world sprang on their people. But it’s not true anyway: ‘Researchers found that symptoms start to develop very fast, on average about two days after contact with the virus.’

In fact, it was less than two days – it was 42 hours.

What’s more (and the Imperial press release makes little of this) the amount of detectable virus in the throat and nose in that 42 hours is small. It’s only after symptoms start that the virus levels really crank up. For the first day there’s pretty much nothing; on the second day levels start to rise, but to nowhere near the levels they reach on subsequent days, after symptoms have appeared.

We can see this by looking at some graphs from the paper (from Fig. 2 – the first graph shows levels in the nose by day, the second shows the levels in the throat).

As the study says, ‘viral shedding begins within 2 days of exposure’.

Bear in mind also that coughing and sneezing send out vastly far more virus particles than breathing. (For the in-depth details, see chapter 3 of my book The Face Mask Cult.) But if you do not have symptoms, you will not be sneezing or coughing. So even if in the last few hours of your pre-symptomatic period your viral load starts to build up in your nose and throat, you aren’t going to be sending that out into the world in any great amount, because you are pre-symptomatic, and so by definition you aren’t coughing and sneezing.

Remember how you were told at the start of spring 2020 that Covid-19 was a unique virus, different from every virus in history, in that it spread wildly from asymptomatic people, which apparently no virus had ever done before, at least not in anything like the way Covid did? Even normally sober writers such as Matt Ridley spread this melodramatic idea, despite the fact that at the time it had little more credibility than your average urban myth. Asymptomatic spread was the basis for locking everyone up – everyone, not just those with symptoms – but it has turned out to be a chimera.

And of course the enforced quarantine periods not only had to be long, they had to be repeated, over and over, because you could never tell if someone was infected and their breath was spreading Covid across whole suburbs and workplaces and factories, even if that person had just come out of a long enforced quarantine a few days ago after a close contact tested positive, and even if that person felt completely fine. They might still have caught Covid for real since they left quarantine, and even now are killing grandmothers by the dozen as they eat their lunch with their friends. Better lock them up again. And everyone else.

Such was the damage inflicted upon society by the asymptomatic hysteria. In theory it could have gone on for ever; the only things that stopped it doing so were, firstly, the public gradually starting to realise that their lives were being ruined for an overhyped threat, and, secondly, the embarrassing lack of solid evidence to show that asymptomatic spread played much of a role in Covid dissemination (or that Covid was unique in regard to the extent of asymptomatic spread).

So there isn’t any point at all in worrying about catching Covid from someone with no symptoms. There also isn’t any point in symptomless people testing themselves all the time. Or ever. Getting Covid from someone who isn’t showing any signs of it will not happen very often, so the social damage caused by requiring people who aren’t ill to take a test vastly outweighs the benefits of testing them (especially when we consider that the benefits of testing are basically nil anyway – billions of tests have done nothing to prevent Covid remorselessly spreading across the world).

In other words, these results tell us (although this was already clear) to stop testing, stop quarantining and stop worrying about getting Covid from people who aren’t sick. And that means shutting down the whole Covid-industrial complex. The world was trashed for nothing.

I should note that the study does say ‘our data clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding occurs at high levels irrespective of symptom severity, thus explaining the high transmissibility of this infection and emphasising that symptom severity cannot be considered a surrogate for transmission risk in this disease’.

This may seem to go against what I have said so far, but it doesn’t, as it applies to the period after symptoms have started, not the period before. It is true that once you have symptoms, there is little correlation between the severity of those symptoms and the amount of viral shedding, as Figs. 4e and 4f in the paper show. (‘Viral shedding’, I should note, refers to the amount of virus found in the nose and throat – it doesn’t refer to the amount of virus being ‘sent out’ by the infected person into the surrounding world.) So someone who has very severe symptoms may not have any more virions in their nose and throat than someone who has mild symptoms.

In the two-day pre-symptomatic period, however, it remains the case that there are only low levels of viral load in the nose and throat, as we saw from the graphs above.

Another significant finding from the study was that it took very little virus to infect someone: ‘Participants were exposed to the lowest possible dose of virus found to cause infection, roughly equivalent to the amount found in a single droplet of nasal fluid when participants were at their most infectious.’

This also means that facemask use is particularly pointless. At best masks can reduce the amount of virions breathed in and out by about 10-15 per cent but if it takes very little to infect a person this will achieve nothing. If someone is breathing out 15,000 virions every ten minutes, reducing that to between 13,500 and 14,000 won’t help.

Of course, the study and the Imperial press release didn’t tell you this. All it said about facemasks was that the study emphasised the importance of wearing them over the nose as well as the mouth, because the nose contained higher peak levels of the virus than in the mouth.

Also, as expected, none of the healthy young people in the study developed anything other than mild-to-moderate cold-like symptoms. None of them ended up in a bad way. As we already knew two years ago, this is a disease which does not threaten the vast majority of young people.

For two years now sceptics like me have been telling people to throw away their tests, and to stop isolating healthy people, and to stop worrying whether the people around you in the restaurant are going to kill you, as the scientific evidence doesn’t support this. If you didn’t believe us then, perhaps you will now.

May 19, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 1 Comment

The (Undercover) Epicenter Nurse | Episode Nine

Perspectives on the Pandemic | June 9, 2020

Erin Marie Olszewski is a Nurse-turned-investigative journalist, who has spent the last few months on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic, on the inside in two radically different settings. Two hospitals. One private, the other public. One in Florida, the other in New York.

And not just any New York public hospital, but the “epicenter of the epicenter” itself, the infamous Elmhurst in Donald Trump’s Queens. As a result of these diametrically opposed experiences, she has the ultimate “perspective on the pandemic”. She has been where there have been the most deaths attributed to Covid-19 and where there have been the least. Erin enlisted in the Army when she was 17. She deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Part of her duties involved overseeing aid disbursement and improvements to hospital facilities. While in country she received the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service, and was wounded in combat.

Erin eventually retired as a sergeant, and became a civilian nurse in 2012. Erin is a medical freedom and informed consent advocate. She co-founded the Florida Freedom Alliance but no longer has any connection with the organization. Watch more episodes of Perspectives on the Pandemic here:

Episode 1:

Episode 2:

Episode 3:

Episode 4:

Episode 5:

Episode 6:

Episode 7:

Episode 8: (As of publication of this video, the producers are still awaiting comment from Elmhurst Hospital). Produced by Libby Handros and John Kirby, The Press and the Public Project. Ref 7814

May 19, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

An open letter to my pro-jab GP

By James Rogers | TCW Defending Freedom | May 18, 2022

Dear Dr X

Just over a year ago, as I made efforts to inform myself, you were kind enough to respond to my questions about taking the C-19 jab.

You may recall saying to me, ‘These drug companies would not run the risk of being sued for supplying dodgy drug products.’ I replied that the drug companies had been given immunity from civil action and criminal prosecution. You seemed not to know this. In this regard, I am writing to describe what has happened in the interim.

For a very unpleasant and lengthy period, the British people were begged, bribed, browbeaten and bullied into accepting C-19 jabs. Most submitted – at least to one jab – but a few million of us were highly dubious, and declined. Consequently, we were pejoratively labelled ‘anti-vaxxers’ and pressured, abused, socially outcast and even forced out of jobs.

I declined the jab for three reasons: firstly, I was neither vulnerable nor afraid and had faith in my immune system; secondly, I do not believe it is possible to develop an effective jab against cold and flu viruses; and thirdly, my instincts told me that everything about the lockdown regulation and development of C-19 jabs was wrong, irrational and political.

Oddly enough, this ‘anti-vaxxer’ took all of the childhood inoculations that the NHS of his day provided to counter illnesses such as TB, polio, diphtheria, tetanus and hepatitis B, and his child has taken all of those and more. This is because those illnesses are genuinely nasty and potentially fatal – people do not get ‘mild’ cases of tetanus, whereas the overwhelming number cases of C-19 have been just that. It is also the case that the true vaccines took decades to develop and test – measles 46 years, polio 45, HPV 33, hepatitis A 22.

The official line is that the C-19 jabs were authorised after about six months of testing – I think the Salem Witch Trials were longer, and were a more open process. Last autumn in the USA  a group of 200+ conscientious doctors, scientists and public health officials, ‘Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency’, took the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to court to force them to obey their legal obligation in respect of a freedom of information (FoI) request about the trials that Pfizer had conducted on its C-19 products.

The case was heard by District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth, Texas. The FDA had made public commitments to be fully transparent so there was no dispute as to whether the information would be released, just the time-frame. The FDA stated that with 450,000 pages to release, and with personal data therein that required redaction, only 500 pages a month could be released. At that rate it would take 75 years to discharge their FoI obligations.

Judge Pittman delivered his ruling in early January  stating that the FDA’s position was anathema to the spirit of the legislation, ordering them to release 55,000 pages a month. The process commenced on March 1, 2022, and the FDA’s obligation should be fully discharged by the end of this year.

Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency have assembled a broad alliance of scientists and experts to assimilate and analyse the material, and after three months, the results have been alarming.

It is important to note that as C-19 jabs were authorised in an emergency situation, the ‘trial’ is still in progress, and the effects the jabs have on people must be fully recorded. So, this matter has two spheres to consider: firstly, the trials that were run in 2020 that persuaded the FDA (and our own MHRA, CHM and JCVI) to approve the jabs; and secondly, the trials run in 2021 – and ongoing – that are necessary to allow those drug authorisations to remain valid.

After some 150,000 pages of Pfizer’s documents, some very fishy and worrying facts have emerged – here is one assessment. It turns out that ‘these drug companies’ did indeed ‘run the risk of supplying dodgy drug products’.

What happens now? Doubtless, the likes of Dame June Raine, Sir Chris Whitty, Sir Patrick Vallance, Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, Wei Shen Lim and many others anxiously scan the internet for news of what the FDA papers reveal. I mean ‘the internet’ specifically, because none of this is being reported on television or in newspapers.

If it is established that Pfizer’s trials were fraudulent, their immunity from civil and criminal action becomes invalid. Sadly, even with ample evidence to evince serious doubt about the legitimacy, efficacy and safety of these drugs, governments have taken no steps to cancel any authorisations. Why? It is impossible to say. All I know is that my instincts have proved correct, and that in the past two years my trust and confidence in our government, our public health officials and the NHS has completely evaporated.

Tragically, for reasons of avarice or something more sinister, we have been subjected to a huge fraud, one that has generated grave implications for health, welfare, livelihoods, relationships and general wellbeing.

I respect you as a conscientious GP and wish you well.


James Rogers

May 18, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | 4 Comments

Twitter Lead Client Partner Says Woke “Ideology” Responsible For Company’s Inability To “Profit”

Samizdat | May 18, 2022

A senior Twitter executive has apparently been caught on tape mocking Tesla CEO Elon Musk for having Asperger’s syndrome, while criticizing free speech.

In an undercover video posted by Project Veritas on Tuesday, Alex Martinez, who is claimed to be Twitter’s lead client partner, and who sometimes speaks on behalf of the company at events, claimed that Musk is “literally special needs” and that he can’t take anything he says seriously, adding that “he’s a loony tune.”

“Elon Musk as a person, he is whatever. I don’t… like he’s a loony tune, he has Asperger’s,” Martinez said, adding that Musk being “special” is “fine” and that no one is “gonna say some f**king crazy s**t because he’s special,” but did mock Musk’s calls for peace.

“Don’t you also see his piece about ‘why can’t we just all love each other? Haven’t you seen his other tweets where he’s like… I’m like, you’re special needs. You’re literally special needs. Literally, though, you really are. So I can’t even take what you’re saying seriously. Cause you’re special.”

The 50-year-old billionaire caught wind of the executive’s statements and took to Twitter, writing: “Twitter exec trashing free speech & mocking people with Asperger’s.” Musk also separately tweeted a frown emoji in response to the video.

Martinez also went into a long rant about free speech, arguing that the employees of Twitter “believe in something that’s good for the planet and not just to give people free speech.”

He claimed that this ideology was behind Twitter’s policies that were “put in place for misinformation or mislabeling media,” which the employees were not going to give up without a fight, insisting that there would be a revolt against Musk’s proposed changes.

In the video clip posted, the executive also commented on the issue of censorship on Twitter, stating that “people don’t know how to make a rational decision if you don’t put out correct things that are supposed to be out in the public.”

Martinez also said the reason Twitter doesn’t make money is because its employees are in it for the ideas rather than profit. “If we’re implementing all these rules… and Elon wants to dismantle them, then technically our ideology has led us to not making money because we’re not making money, and Elon wants to turn it the other way so that we can make money.”

He also expressed concern that Twitter’s leaders, such as current CEO Parag Agrawal and ex-CEO Jack Dorsey, who co-founded the platform and currently sits on the board of directors, are motivated by greed.

“At the end of the day, I think the real truth – that they can’t ever say – is that it’s all about money. That it’s all about money, and making all this money. Parag, Jack, the board members, everyone gets paid,” Martinez said.

“Elon gets like tax benefits. Doesn’t have to pay taxes forever. Everything. Like it’s all like money, s**t, greed, America.”

At the end of the video, Martinez also showed the undercover reporter an email that Twitter’s corporate security had sent out to employees, warning them of sting operations like the one actually being carried out by Project Veritas.

“Like they’re trying to go on dates with them, like this,” Martinez told the undercover reporter. “Lucky I met you organically, or I would be questioning you.”

On Monday, Project Veritas released another undercover video in which a supposed senior engineer at Twitter admitted that the company culture was extremely far left and that many of the workers are “commie as f**k” and hate Elon Musk’s $44 billion takeover.

The engineer also said that Twitter “did not believe in free speech” and was actively censoring conservatives on the platform.

May 18, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

The Function of the Fake Binary

By Catte | OffGuardian | May 16, 2022

In his 1998 book The Common Good, Noam Chomsky describes the key role that managed disagreements play in modern politics…

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate…”

This remains true despite the increasingly obvious fact that Chomsky himself is part of that function.

What he’s describing is the “fake binary”. The imposition of the idea that Viewpoint A is the official approved narrative and that Viewpoint B is therefore its antithesis.

Points C through Z can therefore be ignored.

The fact hidden in plain sight being that both Viewpoint A and Viewpoint B actually reinforce the overarching narrative being sold and both lead to the same place.

It’s an incredibly effective management tool.

A fake binary allows you to not just manipulate the conformist Normies who automatically obey, but also those who consider themselves to be ‘anti-establishment’, contrarians or ‘rebels’.

How are fake binaries created? They are often initially introduced by the following methods…

💢Using the legacy media to widely publicize Viewpoint B while appearing to deny, refute or ridicule it.

💢 “Leaking” allegedly confidential documents that “expose” Viewpoint B as the “hidden truth”. This is usually done through the legacy media, though it’s more effective if you can seed it through the indy media sector.

💢 Creating entities that are tagged as “anti-establishment” but given a mass following, and feeding them Viewpoint B material.

Once Viewpoint B becomes a dominant “anti-establishment” view you can afford to sit back and allow the oppositional instinct in human nature to do your work for you, and reinforce the fake binary you created without the slightest awareness this is what is happening.

It becomes widely understood that the only solution to the obvious and real evils of Viewpoint A is Viewpoint B.

The fact Viewpoint B actually concedes all the same falsehoods contained in Viewpoint A remains unnoticed and anyone pointing this out tends to be attacked by both sides.

Fake binaries are a godsend to the opinion-managers.

We’ll be talking more about this in the near future…

May 17, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Conspiracies about conspiracy theories

A little trip down memory lane

el gato malo – bad cattitude – may 16, 2022

My goodness, these “conspiracy theorists” certainly do have vivid imaginations, don’t they?

i mean, that would be terribly divisive, counter to rights, and directly antagonistic to people who just want bodily autonomy. can you even imagine public officials doing something like that?

pretty far fetched…

or health bodies using disease to engage in surveillance?

or governments seeking to do the same and mitigate privacy altogether?

i mean, that’s just silly!

what next, some wild eyed claims that they want universal digital ID?

that they have been quietly rolling out the standards for

and making international and inescapable?

i mean, what will these prolific conspiracy boffins think up next, some sort of state run digital currencies to link to this new ID and surveillance state?

i mean, who would even suggest something like that?

and anyhow, what’s the worst that could happen?

i mean, they told us this is all benign, right?

and it’s not like they ever lied to us before! (or if they did, i’m sure it was for our own good…)

and it’s not like they are seeking to give this power to deeply compromised and captured transnational agencies with no accountability whatsoever and grant them authority over citizens who had no say in the matter…

“The Biggest Global Power Grab We Have Seen in Our Lifetimes”: How Serious is the Threat From the WHO Pandemic Treaty?

so let’s all take a breath. i’m sure you’re just overwrought and imagining things.

there are no conspiracies.

no one is out to get you, least of all some shadowy davos cabal.

and come on, if they were really trying to do this to you, i’m sure they would not just come right out and tell you in some sort of james bond villain megalomaniacal monologue.

i mean, this is real life. no one actually does that…

and hey, i’m sure they’ll probably manage to keep those first 2 promises.

watch out for that third one though.

i have some real doubts about it it…

May 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

The vaccine cajolers, Part 6: Indoctrinating children is the key

This is the sixth and final part of Paula Jardine’s investigation into the planning behind ensuring vaccine acceptance and countering vaccine ‘hesitancy’. You can read Part 1 here, Part 2 here, Part 3 here, Part 4 here and Part 5 here. 

TCW Defending Freedom | May 16, 2022

COVID-19 vaccines were authorised for emergency use to prevent Covid infection. The ‘vaccine confidence’ people found the word ‘protection’ resonated more with the public than ‘prevention’; accordingly the vaccines were promoted as protecting the community from hospitalisation and death. People who could authentically ‘sell gratitude’ for getting on board with the Covid campaigns for masking or accepting vaccines, the trusted health professionals, social influencers, and ‘people like me’ were deployed to persuade the public. But any talk of a moral obligation to accept the vaccines was to be avoided as they thought it invoked strong negative responses.

Dr Heidi Larson, who set up the ‘Vaccine Confidence Project’ at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, admitted there are challenges, especially when it comes to defining what is misinformation. ‘Social media users may pose questions or instil doubt without saying something that is explicitly false. If someone asks “Do you really know what’s in a vaccine?” we cannot legally or ethically remove it,’ she said. ‘Getting the balance right between freedom of expression, privacy and public health is a major challenge. The erosion of public trust is part of a wider distrust of authorities, experts and industries, but vaccine advocates could lead the way in rebuilding resilience.’

Such reservations have not stopped efforts to police information shared on social media. The authoritarian reflex is to monitor and censor dissent. In 2018, the EU introduced a code of practice on disinformation, and committed to supporting what it called an independent network of fact-checkers, stimulating quality journalism and promoting media literacy. Facebook, Google and Twitter agreed to collaborate by monitoring ‘misinformation’ to ‘ensure the protection of European values and security’.

In June 2021 with the Covid vaccine programme six months old, Věra Jourová, the EU’s vice president for values and transparency, said in a statement: ‘We decided to extend this programme, because the amount of dangerous lies continues to flood our information space and because it will inform the creation of the new generation Code against disinformation.’

To borrow the words of the New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, the authorities are reaching the point where ‘unless you hear it from us it’s not the truth’.

Last August BBC Media Action, generously funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, began a campaign to counter ‘disinformation’ on Covid-19 vaccines, advancing the compromised World Health Organisation (WHO) as the only viable authority on this topic. It is little wonder that the fact checkers themselves began to come under scrutiny, for example by the Critic.

The vaccine safety net approach of counterbalancing was no longer considered sufficient. ‘Inoculation theory’, an idea from the field of public relations, was deployed: ‘Inoculation involves debunking false claims before people encounter them. Then, their first encoding of misinformation is strongly tied with the notion that it is false, equipping people with arguments that can be used to refute and dismiss it. The two main elements of inoculation are explicit warnings that there are attempts to mislead people and refutations of misinformation.’

Dr Emily Brunson, an anthropologist who studies vaccine confidence issues, said: ‘By exposing people to a message that counters your argument and then refuting it, you can help people become more resilient to harmful or inaccurate messaging they may hear later. And just as vaccines only work when they’re administered before someone is exposed to the disease, inoculation theory works when your message is heard first.’

There’s an old-fashioned name for inoculation theory. It is indoctrination. Children, whose minds are the most malleable, are becoming the target. In 2014, the WHO Sage working group laid some of the blame for vaccine hesitancy on the education system saying, ‘Historically, children have not been systematically educated in schools about vaccines, resulting in some in the adult population (i.e. parents and adults) who do not appreciate their benefits to health and societal value for their children and for themselves.‘ Larson agrees: ‘We need to do a better job in schools, helping children to understand essential concepts about how immune systems work to fight disease and how vaccines help build our body’s own protection against infection.’

With the Covid vaccines, applying ‘social norms’ has become part of the persuasion playbook. Lisa Fazio, a psychologist who participated in the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) Covid communications expert group, said: ‘It’s useful to find the influencers and get them to change their mind, which can have big downstream effects. So, for example, if you were working in schools, you would target the kids who have the most connections with other kids and have them be the ones implementing change. Identifying those influencers is going to have a bigger effect than just random people.’

If the Covid vaccine campaign exposes anything 18 months in, with some people having received fourth and even fifth doses, as any protection conferred by the hastily developed vaccines is short-lived, it’s that the idea that vaccines can be used to eradicate diseases is a pipe dream. It demonstrates too that the War on Microbes persists and that, with Covid, the opportunity for a further coercive tool to encourage uptake – the vaccination pass – can be added to its arsenal.

Today the EU is leading the world on the development of these digital certificates. According to Ursula von der Leyen, ‘the development of a vaccine certificate within Europe helps ensure the functioning of the single market, as well as enable Europeans to move freely for work or tourism.

If these certificates achieve permanence, they will remove any remnant of choice over vaccination. The future won’t be Mahler’s holistic vision of health, instead it threatens to be one of being endlessly and needlessly medicated with vaccines, the ultimate fulfilment of Grant’s vision of universal vaccination. Dystopia for the greater good.

May 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Covid-hit Ardern’s unshakeable self-belief

By Guy Hatchard | TCW Defending Freedom | May 16, 2022

So Jacinda Ardern is vaccinated, boosted, wears masks, dutifully isolates – and she has Covid. She is urging us to follow her example. Her self-belief astounds. Words fail me.

I woke at 4am a day or two ago and lay wondering what I could say that might persuade people to reconsider their faith. I fell back to sleep and dreamed I went to a media conference about Covid. I pleaded with the press to realise that freedom of expression was at risk and the whole audience began to laugh at me.

In the morning, I recounted my dream to my family; my daughter reported that she had much the same dream. Of course this was not prophetic dreaming, it is the new normal we have been dreading and now must live every day. Stop the bus, I want to get off.

I have recently been to Wellington, dull party central of the hard-working civil service. It was the Full Monty of mass conformity. Masking was as near 100 per cent as makes no difference.

Now that 2million vaccinated Kiwis have caught Covid, Twitter feeds are full of people worried that the unmasked have been stealing their immunity. They are forming a society of the convinced against all evidence; Jacinda will surely be their hero and president.

This has happened despite increasing evidence that masking does not stop the spread of infection, and a great deal of evidence that it actively harms our health.

A recent study of mask wearing in Finland concluded: ‘According to our analysis, no additional effect seemed to be gained [from mask wearing], based on comparisons between the cities and between the age groups of unvaccinated children.’

It appears to me that science sprinkled on the media is like water off a duck’s back. Even without science, the media are training the public to be (like themselves) oblivious to the obvious. Look at a map of the world, and observe that many countries with the least Covid also have the least vaccination.

I am bombarded everyday with new data analyses which indicate that mRNA vaccination has been ineffective and dangerous. Rather than stopping infection, hospitalisation and death, it is associated with immune deficiency and excess all-cause mortality. The boosters take the biscuit. Are we like lemmings, driven to self-destruct when we are overpopulated?

Meanwhile we are bombarded with calls for censorship of social media and revocation of free speech. The NY Post reports that Nina Jankowicz, a Twitter user tapped by Joe Biden to head his new US agency of disinformation, is demanding the right to correct tweets which she considers false. Jankowicz is well qualified to correct everyone’s understanding of science: she has a BA in political science.

I want to wake up from this dream, but I know that even as I write there are people busy in biolabs around the world creating illnesses, probably with the express intention of mandating me to take their patented vaccine. In most cases, they are funded by government and trumpeted as heroes by the bought media.

As John Maynard Keynes said: ‘Capitalism is the astounding belief that the wickedest of men will do the wickedest of things for the good of everyone.’

Justin Fox, a commentator favoured by the World Economic Forum, author of The Myth of the Rational Market (or should it be World?), writes on May 1 in Bloomberg : ‘The vaccines have been spectacularly effective at preventing severe disease and death . . .’ and continues: ‘. . . scientists wildly underestimated the deadliness of the disease’.

Conceding that Covid vaccination is ineffective at preventing transmission, he mused with us that perhaps only repeated infection and the growth of natural immunity(a concept which NZ government scientists have labelled a conspiracy theory) could defeat Covid, but he left us with this parting shot of government folk wisdom: ‘Wearing masks on buses and subways ought be encouraged even after the mandates go away.’

If you can locate a coherent theme in his article, let me know. Justin Fox is also educated in political science, which says just about all that can be said about mainstream media Covid advice. Our Jacinda would be proud of him.

May 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment