In a recent publication by a group of experienced geneticists, more contamination in mRNA “vaccines” (Pfizer and Moderna), excluding metal residues, which had been identified in the past, was found. Multiple methods highlighted high levels of DNA contamination.
Of special concern was that they found replicable DNA, so-called plasmids, in both the monovalent and bivalent vaccines, which should not be there at all. This time the researchers found DNA contamination that far exceeded the European Medicines Agency (EMA) requirement and the U.S. FDA’s dose requirements.
But why is this find so alarming?
The Threat of DNA Integration
As we knew from the beginning, Covid-19 (C19) injections have been a gene therapy, and the definition of a vaccine had to be altered to call them a vaccine. While we are still told of the safety and the effectiveness of the injections, Swedish researchers have shown that the mRNA of the Pfizer vaccine was integrated into liver cells.
This raised many eyebrows about whether the interference with our genome could pose the risk of integration of the mRNA coding into our genome. Usually, the body needs an enzyme called reverse transcriptase to do so. But now, findings of this new paper suggest a different scenario in which DNA integration may occur.
The Role of So-Called Plasmids
Plasmids are circular DNA that enable bacteria to exchange information. When scientists became aware of this, they soon started using these plasmids to produce custom-made proteins by genetically modifying their information. This is, for example, how insulin is currently produced. Plasmids are also the “production site” of the novel mRNA used in the Covid-19 injections. Once the DNA templates or plasmids are transcribed into strands of mRNA the injection vials should be filtered out to prevent continuous production of the information. Yet these plasmids are precisely what the scientists found. Why it is there gives rise to many explanations ranging from carelessness, the impossibility of ensuring complete separation, or even potential intent, which, knowing what we know, can no longer be excluded.
Plasmid Integration into Bacteria
So what could be so concerning about the integration of this information? The human body contains far more bacteria than cells, known as the human microbiome. The origin of the used plasmid stem from E. coli bacteria, which also happens to be a part of our intestinal microbiome, suggesting that there is the possibility for plasmid integration into our microbiome.
Plasmid Integration into Human Cells
While it was believed that plasmid integration was restricted to bacteria, other researchers observed that integration could occur in the telophase of cell division. Whether this can now occur with the mRNA injections should be a top priority for all regulatory bodies like EMA and FDA to address. Residual injected DNA can result in so-called type I interferon responses and increase the potential for DNA integration. A so-called SV 40 promotor also enables the plasmid integration into human cells.
An urgent evaluation into these mechanisms in the context of the covid mRNA-producing plasmids is needed to determine the extent to which this foreign genetic information is able to become a part of us.
Implication of Integration
The highly concerning consequence of genomic integration into microbiome cells is that this would ensure the ongoing production of mRNA and, thus, the production of pathogenic viral particles, the spike proteins. Typically, mRNA begins to degrade in the body after 10 minutes. Genetic modification, however, has made the C19 ‘vaccines’ mRNA more stable and it has now been observed to last up to 60 days. In autopsies in Germany, it was even found that mRNA was produced in endothelial cells after 12 months. mRNA has also been found in breast milk.
Could the persistence of plasmids and, thus, the integration into our genome be the reason for this?
Potential of Shedding
In a recent publication: “Persistent Nonviral Plasmid Vector in Nasal Tissues Causes False-Positive SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Nucleic Acid Tests” by Beck at al., asymptomatic laboratory workers who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were found to harbor a laboratory plasmid vector containing SARS-CoV-2 DNA, which they had worked with in the past, in their nasal secretions. While prior studies had documented contamination of research personnel with PCR amplicons (bits of DNA sequences artificially produced), their observation was novel, as these individuals shed the laboratory plasmid over days to months, including during isolation in their homes.
This suggests that the plasmid was in their nasal tissues or that bacteria containing the plasmid had colonized their noses. Thus we urgently ask the global health care systems to screen for plasmids in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.
As we breathe out, we usually exhale multiple elements from our gut microbiome. If we now can assume that cells from it have been instructed to produce mRNA, what will be the consequence for people in proximity to the individual spreading them? We need to find out as soon as possible.
Plasmid Contamination
The paper also alerts us to plasmid contamination from E. coli as preparations are often co-contaminated with lipopolysaccharides (LPS). E. coli endotoxin contamination can lead to anaphylaxis upon injection and thus should certainly not be present.
Antibiotic Resistance
For plasmids to remain stable, they are usually antibiotic-resistant to two antibiotics (Neomycin, Kanamycin). This information could also be integrated into the microbiome or body cells.
What WCH Health and Science Committee Conclude
First, it demonstrates again the apparent neglect of scientific and regulatory board standards.
The Nuremberg Code (August 19, 1947) Article 10 clearly states that:
“During the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to interrupt the experiment at any moment when he begins to believe that the continuation of the experiment may involve injury, disability, or death to the subject.”
This has happened multiple times, and the crossing of several safety signals questioning safety and efficiency has filled countless pages.
Apart from the manufacturers’ fraudulent approach, the more concerning aspect is the regulatory bodies’ failure to react to these apparent problems. This is not surprising as they are mainly financed by the industry itself (EMA around 90%). Ensuring the ongoing distribution of these harmful and dangerous injections lacks any moral and ethical backbone.
This also highlights the EMA limits for DNA contamination, which doesn’t consider the nature of the DNA contaminants. Replication-competent DNA should arguably have a more stringent limit. DNA with mammalian promoters or antibiotic resistance genes may also be of more concern than just background E. coli genomic DNA from a plasmid preparation. More mRNA means more production of the pathogenic part of SARS-CoV-2 that was chosen to be produced by our own cells, namely the spike protein.
The potential of shedding even to the unvaccinated poses a serious question for the entire population of this planet.
We can only speculate how it will end, but what needs to happen today after the publication of this paper is an immediate stop of the “Covid-19 vaccine” program.
Meanwhile, we should boost our oral and nasal microbiome by walking in the woods and inhaling beneficial microbes. And improve our gut microbiome through the consumption of fermented foods such as freshly unpasteurized Sauerkraut or Kimchi and prebiotic foods such as colorful root vegetables.
In a recent interview with The New American, Dr Mark Trozzi explains the role of bacterial plasmids and E. coli bacteria in the manufacturing process of mRNA injections. Watch the full interview here.
Americans who read about Japan’s surrender in August 1945 learn only part of what happened because historical accounts are incomplete. They recite the official narrative of the United States government that invading Japan would have caused a million American casualties. Luckily, the United States had developed the atomic bomb. After dropping two atomic bombs Japan quickly surrendered. This official history fails to mention that Japan was seeking to negotiate a surrender since late 1944 after it was clear the war was lost, but powerful people wanted the war to continue longer to demonstrate the power of atomic bombs.
The two atomic bomb attacks produced the same destruction as previous raids involving hundreds of B-29 bombers so they had little impact on the war or Japanese leaders, who were really terrified that Soviet forces had landed in northern Japan. Delaying the end of the war to demonstrate two atomic bombs was immoral and counterproductive. For unknown reasons, the Americans launched a massive bombing raid five days after the second atomic bomb was dropped.
“Was There a Diplomatic Alternative? The Atomic Bombing and Japan’s Surrender”; Jeremy Kuzmarov; The Asia-Pacific Journal; October 15, 2021; https://apjjf.org/2021/20/Kuzmarov-Pe…
“American Had Plans to Help Russia Invade Japan During World War II”; Sebastien Roblin; The National Interest; December 31, 2020; https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reb…
The thrust of Let a hundred flowers bloom was that the world’s response to COVID-19 should not have been exempted from the normal processes of policy formation and development, which in a democracy have informed debate at their core. By exempting pandemic policy from critique, governments were attempting to ensure that the correct response was undertaken, but in fact increased the likelihood of falling into serious error.
Governments felt that in a public health emergency there was no time to explore policy alternatives, and it was essential to take a disciplined approach to defeat the enemy (i.e. the virus). It was necessary for governments to control information given out to the population from the centre and to suppress ‘unreliable’ sources of information that might promulgate ‘incorrect’ information, and thereby cause the deaths of people who were led astray from the true path.
Jacinda Ardern, the former Prime Minister of New Zealand, notoriously declared ‘we will continue to be your single source of truth.’ She advised the New Zealand people to listen to the Director General of Health and the Ministry of Health and ‘dismiss anything else.’
There should be no scenarios in which governments and government agencies are the single source of truth. No organisation, no individual and no groups of individuals can be infallible. She is now headed to Harvard University to expound on disinformation with and to the best and brightest.
Therefore, we need to go through a divergent phase of policy development in the first instance, in which all the relevant diverse sources of knowledge and diverse voices are consulted. This is sometimes referred to as ‘the wisdom of crowds,’ but ‘the wisdom of crowds’ must be distinguished from ‘the groupthink of herds.’
The prices of companies on the stock market are thought to reflect the combined knowledge of all traders and therefore the true market price. But stock prices go through cycles of boom and bust, in which true underlying prices are distorted for a time by the famous ‘animal spirits,’ and rise exponentially before falling, much like the pandemic curve indeed.
The need to bring diverse perspectives to bear on common problems is why we have parliaments and congresses instead of dictatorships. There is widespread disillusionment with parliaments, but they exemplify Winston Churchill’s famous dictum: ‘Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.’ Deliberative decision-making in which all voices are heard is an essential safeguard which can lead to sound policy formation if deployed carefully, avoiding the pitfalls of groupthink, and it is superior to all other forms of decision-making that have been tried.
Governments must choose a path forward, they must make strategic choices, but they should do so with full knowledge of the policy options, and they should never attempt to prevent other options from being discussed. But this is what happened in the COVID-19 pandemic.
It was driven by a simplistic view of science in which the scientific community supposedly formed a ‘scientific consensus’ about the best ways to handle the pandemic, based on universal measures aimed at the entire population. But the Great Barrington Declaration advocated an alternative strategy of ‘focused protection’ instead, and was originally signed by 46 distinguished experts, including a Nobel Prize winner. It has subsequently been signed by over 16,000 medical and public health scientists, and nearly 50,000 medical practitioners. Whatever you may think about the Great Barrington Declaration, these simple facts demonstrate that there was no consensus.
When activists refer to ‘the scientific consensus,’ what they mean is ‘the establishment consensus’ – the consensus of sages and worthies of the type referred to by Jacinda Ardern and referred to in ‘Let a hundred flowers bloom.’ These agency heads, advisory panels, and ministries of health are naturally predisposed to accept their own advice and ignore contrarian voices. Yet contrarian voices remind us of ‘inconvenient facts,’ data that conflicts with the establishment view. It is through the dialogue between diverse voices that we work closer to the truth. ‘The authorities’ must be held accountable, even in a pandemic.
The key point about the establishment consensus is that it is always entirely devoid of individual insight. In order to qualify to be a sage or a worthy and to sit on government advisory panels or be an agency head, you have to show your capacity to toe the line at all times and never say anything remotely controversial. This was expressed so well by George Bernard Shaw: ‘The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.’
The pandemic response has been dominated by the reasonable ones who trim to the wind and accept the current framework whatever it is.
In early 2020, an establishment consensus formed within weeks around the grand strategy (which, remember, was neither grand nor strategic) of suppressing the spread of the pandemic through lockdowns until vaccination could end it. At that stage, there were no vaccines in existence and there was literally zero evidence that lockdowns could ‘stop the spread,’ but alternative strategies were never considered. Since then, the establishment has had greater success in suppressing debate than in suppressing spread of the virus.
Maryanne Demasi, who has a fatal tendency to think for herself that has got her into trouble in the past, has written about this ‘consensus by censorship’ in a Substack article: ‘It is not difficult to reach a scientific consensus when you squelch dissenting voices.’ Scientists such as Norman Fenton and Martin Neill, with hundreds of publications to their name, have been unable to get papers published if they raise any questions about papers with favourable findings on COVID-19 vaccines. They have written about their experiences with the Lancethere. Eyal Shahar has given three examples here.
This is unacceptable. COVID-19 vaccines, like any other therapeutic product, should be subject to rigorous ongoing analysis for safety, and strategies must be adapted where necessary in the light of emerging knowledge. Again, there can be no exemptions from this.
Even with these impediments, some papers slip through the net, such as the rigorous analysis of the primary clinical trial evidence by Joseph Fraiman, Peter Doshi et al: ‘Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults.’ But many papers with adverse findings about the vaccine are blocked at the pre-print stage, such as the paper on COVID vaccination and age-stratified all-cause mortality risk by Pantazatos and Seligmann, which concluded that the data suggests ‘the risks of COVID vaccines and boosters outweigh the benefits in children, young adults and older adults with low occupational risk or previous coronavirus exposure.’
Pantazatos described his experience with the medical journals here. This demonstrates that the most effective tactic to dispose of contrarian research is not to refute it, but to suppress it and then ignore it. Indeed, establishment researchers have ignored the whole issue and have not addressed the effect of COVID-19 vaccines on all-cause mortality at all. This is extraordinary, as the entire goal of the pandemic response is supposed to be to reduce mortality. But two years after the commencement of mass vaccination, researchers have not conducted controlled studies of its effect on overall mortality, even retrospectively. This is incomprehensible. Are they afraid of what they might find?
Gorski has nothing to contribute on the subject. The nearest thing he has to an argument is that individual studies do not necessarily invalidate a scientific consensus. But Gøtzsche and Demasi’s paper is based on a meta review of 18 systematic reviews, 14 randomised trials and 34 other studies with a control group. It has been open for review on the pre-print site and I am not aware of any substantive objections to the information and analysis therein.
Words like ‘anti-vaxxer,’ ‘anti-science,’ and ‘cranks’ are thought-stoppers – rhetorical devices designed to signal to the orthodox that their cherished convictions are safe, and they don’t need to understand the arguments and evidence put forward by dissidents because they think they are by definition disreputable people out to mislead. Resorting to these methods and ad hominem attacks is in fact anti-intellectual,
The fake consensus has indeed been ‘manufactured.’ The scientific debate on COVID-19 was closed from the outset, particularly at the level of opinion, whereas a hallmark of true scientific consensus is openness.
Consider, as a case study, the great debate between the advocates of the ‘big bang’ theory of the origins of the universe and the ‘steady state’ theory, the history of which is related in this account by the American Institute of Physics. The steady state theory (in which the universe is expanding at a steady rate with matter being continuously created to fill the space created as stars and galaxies move apart) was advocated by Fred Hoyle, one of the most eminent physicists of his generation, over more than 20 years, until the weight of empirical observations by radio astronomy brought about its demise. The debate was ended in the traditional way, whereby the predictions of the steady state theory were falsified.
The grand strategy of COVID-19 pandemic responses, which was supposed to end the pandemic and end excess deaths, has been contradicted by empirical observations. The pandemic did not end, almost everyone became infected, excess deaths have continued and there is no hard evidence especially from randomised controlled trials that the vaccines can prevent or reduce all-cause mortality. In Australia, the bulk of our excess deaths have come during the mass vaccination period.
And yet, the orthodox continue to have faith in the strategy and continue to ignore and suppress alternative strategies, believing that the science has been settled, when it seems to be decidedly unsettled.
This leads to the war against ‘disinformation and misinformation,’ which is in fact a war against contrarian viewpoints. Government has colluded with establishment scientists and social media companies to systematically censor alternative observations and strategies.
The straw-man arguments usually deployed to justify this highlight irrational ideas such as rumours that the vaccines contain microchips, etc. But they completely ignore the issues raised by serious scientists such as Doshi, Fenton, and Gøtzsche. The orthodox hold that sceptics are science denialists, whereas the reverse is true: the establishment denies the diversity of findings in the scientific literature.
The market in ideas should be the freest of all markets, as there is much to be gained and little to be lost by engaging with all ideas that derive from evidence-based analysis. By contrast, pandemic policy has been characterised by a kind of intellectual protectionism, in which orthodox ideas are privileged.
The fake consensus has been used as the basis for academic studies of ‘disinformation.’ There is no precise conceptual basis for the concept of disinformation, which is assumed to be ‘false or misleading information.’ Who determines what is false? This is usually defined derivatively as any information that goes contrary to the established narrative.
The self-appointed Aspen Commission in its final report on ‘information disorder,’ referred to some of these issues, by asking for example ‘who gets to determine mis-and disinformation?’ and acknowledging that ‘there are concomitant risks of silencing good-faith dissent’ – and then proceeded to ignore them. Without defining it, a key recommendation was: ’Establish a comprehensive strategic approach to countering disinformation and the spread of misinformation including a centralised national response strategy’ (p30).
A further recommendation is: ‘Call on community, corporate, professional, and political leaders to promote new norms that create personal and professional consequences within their communities and networks for individuals who willfully violate the public trust and use their privilege to harm the public.’ In other words, pursue and persecute those who step out of line, with no consideration of whether they may be relying simply on different information, not misinformation.
They go on to make helpful practical suggestions on how to implement their vaguely worded recommendation:
Ask professional standards bodies like medical associations to hold their members accountable when they share false health information with the public for profit.
Encourage advertisers to withhold advertising from platforms whose practices fail to protect their customers from harmful misinformation.
Spur media organizations to adopt practices that foreground fact-based information, and ensure they give readers context, including when public officials lie to the public.
All of this assumes that there is a simple distinction to be made between ‘true’ and ‘false’ information, and underlying this, a naïve trust that only the health authorities are relying on ‘fact-based information’ and contrary views are self-evidently not fact-based. But, as we have seen, Doshi, Fenton, Gøtzsche and Demasi have published contrarian papers that are heavily fact-based.
In an academic extension of the ad hominem attack, there is even research into the psychological characteristics of dissidents, which brings to mind the worst excesses of the Soviet Union. Examples provided by ChatGPT of general studies on misinformation indicated that those of us who question established narratives are apparently led astray by confirmation bias, have a ‘low cognitive ability,’ and are biased by our political views. This implies that those who support conventional positions are unbiased, smart, and are never influenced by their political orientation. These assumptions should also be tested by research, perhaps?
In relation to COVID-19, it turns out that us dissidents are also prone to ‘epistemic vices such as indifference to the truth or rigidity in [our] belief structures,’ according to Meyer et al. This was based on testing people’s willingness to believe 12 patently ridiculous statements, such as ‘Adding pepper to your meals prevents COVID-19,’ which I have never heard of before. Willingness to agree with these statements was then stretched to equate with more serious issues:
People who accept COVID-19 misinformation may be more likely to put themselves and others at risk, to strain already overburdened medical systems and infrastructures, and to spread misinformation to others. Of particular concern is the prospect that a vaccine for the novel coronavirus will be rejected by a sizeable proportion of the population because they have been taken in by misinformation about the safety or effectiveness of the vaccine.
None of these issues were tested in the research, yet it was extended beyond the findings to justify these conclusions.
Using a representative survey of U.S. adults fielded March 17-19, 2020 (n=2,023), we examine the prevalence and correlates of beliefs in two conspiracy theories about COVID-19.
29% of respondents agree that the threat of COVID-19 has been exaggerated to damage President Trump; 31% agree that the virus was purposefully created and spread.
These beliefs are certainly debatable and are held to be founded once again in denialism: ‘a psychological predisposition to reject expert information and accounts of major events.’ Denialism was further broken down to these:
Much of the information we receive is wrong.
I often disagree with conventional views about the world.
Official government accounts of events cannot be trusted.
Major events are not always what they seem.
Are you telling me these statements are not true?! I will have to rethink everything!
These studies all equate dissident views with ‘conspiracy theories.’ They assume that dissident views are self-evidently contrary to the scientific record, invalid and plain wrong; and they do not see any need to support this with references. They are insufferably superior and patronising, resting on immense confidence in their unfalsifiable academic findings.
The scientific method contains many valuable tools for counteracting confirmation bias – the tendency we all have to interpret all data as favourable to our pre-existing ideas. Pandemic science has shown that these tools themselves can be misused to reinforce confirmation bias. This leads to a kind of objectivity trap – the sages become blind to their own bias because they think they are immune.
They are founded in a belief that dissidents must be fundamentally anti-social since they are ‘anti-science.’ They must be either bad actors or gullible and misled. These authors do not consider the positive attributes that could be associated with dissident beliefs: a proclivity for independent thinking and the critical thinking that is supposed to be inculcated by higher education.
Establishments have been trying to suppress rebels and dissidents for hundreds if not thousands of years. But every society needs (non-violent) rebels to challenge beliefs that are not well-founded.
The establishment consensus on COVID-19 is built on sand and should be challenged. It arose from premature closure of the scientific debate, followed by suppression of contrarian evidence-based analysis. Dissidents include scientists, who are clearly not anti-science but are opposed to flawed science based on ‘low cognitive ability’ and confirmation bias in favour of establishment ideas. They are pushing for better science.
The most reliable policy arises from open science and open debate, not from protectionism and closed science.
Let a hundred schools of thought contend – or we are all lost!
Michael Tomlinson is a Higher Education Governance and Quality Consultant. He was formerly Director of the Assurance Group at Australia’s Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, where he led teams to conduct assessments of all registered providers of higher education (including all of Australia’s universities) against the Higher Education Threshold Standards. Before that, for twenty years he held senior positions in Australian universities. He has been an expert panel member for a number of offshore reviews of universities in the Asia-Pacific region. Dr Tomlinson is a Fellow of the Governance Institute of Australia and of the (international) Chartered Governance Institute.
A recently filed lawsuit alleges that a pediatrician who works at MedStar in Washington, D.C., forcibly vaccinated two minors without parental consent. According to the lawsuit:
two minor children were held in a room by Defendant until she overcame their will and forcibly vaccinated them while physically preventing them from consulting with their mother, who was right outside the room.
As if that weren’t bad enough, the lawsuit further alleges:
Minor children W.M. and K.M. were additionally provided with false and fraudulent information in order to obtain purported consent to a procedure in the absence of actual or freely given consent. Specifically, Dr. Rethy told the children that they were required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 to attend school and that they had no lawful option to decline such vaccination.
What makes this story even more incredible is that this is the same pediatric practice that sought to vaccinate a minor child in the lawsuit we broughtto strike down the “Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020” passed by Washington D.C. in 2020. We succeeded in winning an injunction which resulted in the repeal of that law.
Before being repealed, the law permitted doctors in D.C. to vaccinate a child, 11 years of age or older, without their parent’s consent or knowledge, and created an elaborate and deceitful scheme in which the healthcare provider, insurance company, school, and health department all participated to hide from those parents the fact that their child had been vaccinated. According to the law, a child did not even need to be a resident of the District of Columbia in order to be vaccinated without parental consent!
In this previous case, the minor was subject to intense pressure and coercion to get vaccinated by a doctor and her staff at MedStar in D.C. When she eventually refused the vaccines, the doctor and staff took physical positions in the room that made her feel trapped! Thankfully, she was eventually able to escape without getting vaccinated.
These lawsuits expose a deeply concerning trend that must be stopped dead in its tracks. And these lawsuits should hopefully have that exact effect.
To any doctor out there who injects a minor without parental consent, you should know this: if that child’s parent contacts our firm, expect to receive an unwanted injection of justice in return.
For now, I am pleased to celebrate the repeal of the D.C. law that permitted vaccination of minors without parental consent and thank ICAN for making that lawsuit possible!
There follows an open letter from Dr. Christian Buckland, Chairman of the Board of the U.K. Council for Psychotherapy, to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak condemning the “use of unethical psychological techniques and behavioural science on the unknowing and non-consenting U.K. public”. Among numerous harms are that the use of techniques to increase fear, shame and guilt “materially undermined, if not removed, the U.K. population’s ability to give valid informed consent to taking a COVID-19 vaccine”.
April 28th 2023
Dear Prime Minister,
I am the Chairman of the Board of the U.K. Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), one of the UK’s foremost psychological governing bodies. However, I write this open letter in my own capacity. I believe I have a professional obligation to write to you in an attempt to protect the public from any further harm caused by the unethical application of psychological research and practice.
I unreservedly condemn the U.K. Government’s use of unethical psychological techniques intended to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt, under the guise of behavioural science and insights which were designed to change the public’s behaviour without their knowledge and conscious participation. It is now clear that in 2020 the U.K. Government deliberately chose to artificially inflate the level of fear within the U.K. population by exaggerating the risk factors of COVID-19, and concomitantly downplaying the protective factors. We also witnessed the Government’s promotion of social disapproval and guilt messaging. These techniques were embedded into a multi-channel, co-ordinated public health campaign designed to change the public’s behaviour without their knowledge. Moreover, in tandem with the mainstream media, the Government also proactively suppressed, censored and ostracised any healthcare professional or scientist who suggested alternative responses to COIVD-19, or who simply questioned the messaging and measures being implemented by the Government.
Evidence of the recommendation of using unethical psychological techniques to gain behavioural change
The Government document titled ‘Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures’ was written for the Government by the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B) which is a subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE).
The premise of the document was to provide options for changing the behaviour of the U.K. public without their knowledge. A passage within this document states: “A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened”. It makes certain recommendations including:
“The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard hitting emotional messaging”
“Coercion”
“Social disapproval”
The recommendations made by SPI-B included ones intended to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt. Psychological practitioners know that deliberately trying to frighten someone into change with erroneous or exaggerated information can easily cause long-term psychological damage. We also know that using social disapproval can create splits and divisions within society, and that inducing feelings of guilt can elevate the risk of suicide.
SPI-B also included a simple risk assessment matrix which acknowledges that the “spill over effects” of using media to increase the sense of personal threat and of using social disapproval “could be negative”. There is also a statement demonstrating there was a conversation regarding the spill over effects, although this does not appear to be fully documented. The risk factors and ethics of using fear, shame, guilt and coercion would almost certainly have been known to the members of SPI-B because several members were British Psychological Society (BPS) registered chartered psychologists. In an interview with one of the members of SPI-B, BPS registered educational psychologist Dr. Gavin Morgan, he refers to the use of fear by his SPI-B colleagues and says (as relayed by Laura Dodsworth, in A State of Fearpp. 262,263):
“Clearly using fear as a means of control is not ethical. What you do as a psychologist is co-construction. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government.” … Was it unethical to use fear, I asked? “Well I didn’t suggest we use fear.” But your colleagues did. What do you think of that? He paused. “Oh God.” Another reluctant pause. “It’s not ethical,” he said.
Like Dr. Morgan, any BPS registered psychologists within SPI-B would or should have recognised that recommending the Government uses fear as a means of controlling the public breached their professional code of ethics and conduct. An urgent investigation is required both by the U.K. Government and the BPS. Two specific points of the British Psychological Society Code of Ethics and Conduct (2021) that may have been broken are (with my emphasis):
3.3 Responsibility. Because of their acknowledged expertise, members of the Society often enjoy professional autonomy; responsibility is an essential element of autonomy. Members must accept appropriate responsibility for what is within their power, control or management. Awareness of responsibility ensures that the trust of others is not abused, the power of influence is properly managed and that duty towards others is always paramount. Statement of values: Members value their responsibilities to persons and peoples, to the general public, and to the profession and science of psychology, including the avoidance of harm and the prevention of misuse or abuse of their contribution to society. In applying these values, psychologists should consider:
Professional accountability;
Responsible use of their knowledge and skills;
Respect for the welfare of humans, non-humans and the living world;
Potentially competing duties.
3.4Integrity.Acting with integrity includes being honest, truthful, accurate and consistent in one’s actions, words, decisions, methods and outcomes. It requires setting self-interest to one side and being objective and open to challenge in one’s behaviour in a professional context. Statement of values: Members value honesty, probity, accuracy, clarity and fairness in their interactions with all persons and peoples, and seek to promote integrity in all facets of their scientific and professional endeavours”.
Evidence that psychological techniques to induce fear, shame, guilt and coercion were used on the U.K. public
The SPI-B document in question demonstrates that the options of eliciting feelings of fear, shame, guilt and the use of coercion was recommended to the U.K. Government. There is evidence that those options were indeed subsequently deployed on the U.K. population.
In every brief, we tried to say: let’s stop the ‘fear narrative’. It was always wrong from the beginning. I constantly said it was wrong… It was wrong to scare people like that.
Additionally, leaked WhatsApp messages from the former Health Minister at the time, Matt Hancock, published in the Daily Telegraph in March 2023, confirm that fear and guilt were used:
Hancock: We frighten the pants of everyone with the new strain. But the complications with that Brexit is taking the top line
Poole: Yep that’s what will get proper bahviour (sic) change
Hancock: When do we deploy the new variant …
Case: Ramping up messaging – the fear/guilt factor vital
The above are just two examples where senior Government Ministers recognised that fear and guilt was used as drivers for behavioural change of the UK population without their knowledge.
The existing literature
It is important to acknowledge that the above-mentioned psychological techniques were used on the U.K. population without their knowledge or consent, and that this in direct contradiction of long-established and carefully considered behavioural science advice which made clear that, in theory and practice, the consent of the public is paramount. According to a 2010 Institute for Government report:
The use of MINDSPACE (or other ‘nudge’ type policy tools) may require careful handling – in essence, the public need to give permission and help shape how such tools are used. (p10)
Continuing, the report states:
Policy-makers wishing to use these tools summarised in MINDSPACE need the approval of the public to do so. (p74)
Further literature supports that permission from the public is essential. David Halpern wrote in 2015:
If there is one great risk to the application of behavioural insights in policy, it is that the thread of public permission wears too thin. If governments, or indeed communities or companies, wish to use behavioural insights, they must seek and maintain the permission of the public to do so. (p365)
As there was no approval obtained, the options recommended and deployed were not in alignment with the principles of behavioural science.
It is important to highlight that the same kinds of techniques were used on children in relation to mask wearing, social distancing and vaccine uptake, with many techniques continuing into 2022. These techniques violated UNICEF’s recommendations from its ethical toolkit for behavioural science projects directed at children. The tool-kit states:
A core idea underlying the applied behavioural science approach is that interventions should not restrict choice and should transparently communicate project goals. When designing an intervention, practitioners should determine how transparent it will be to those affected by it. They should ensure that children and parents can easily opt out, and should design feedback mechanisms so that children and their parents can voice concerns, see the outcomes of their objections, and hold decision-makers to account.
An independent assessment and a suspension of HMRC’s use of behavioural psychology / behavioural insights, in light of the ongoing suicide risk to those impacted by the Loan Charge.
The literature highlights that approval from the public must be sought and maintained. Additionally, all behavioural science projects directed at children must have effective feedback mechanisms and methods of opting out, with decision makers able to be held accountable. There are also existing potential concerns that behavioural science may increase suicide levels. These important ethical aspects and safety signals appear to have been ignored. The lessons of history warn us that in times of existential crisis, whether real or only perceived, our ethics are at risk of being abandoned, and psychological knowledge can become misused by governments:
Under some historical conditions or circumstances and contexts, psychologists and psychological knowledge were in danger of being abused by political powers, largely for clandestine purposes, such as conducting torture or the persecution of political opponents. (Maercker A, Guski-Leinwand S, 2018)
It is of grave concern that the actions of the U.K. Government during the Covid era potentially fit into the category of abusing psychological knowledge and being absent of ethics, thus require serious investigation.
The impact of psychological pressure on informed consent
For the sake of brevity, I will not reiterate the multipleconcernsalreadydocumentedby otherssurrounding the consequences of the Government’s actions around lockdown, hospital discharges, school closures and mask mandates. I do, however, wish to highlight one extremely serious consequence that I believe has occurred as a direct result of the use of unethical psychological techniques and behavioural insights on the unknowing public: by adopting the techniques used, the Government significantly and materially undermined, if not removed, the U.K. population’s ability to give valid informed consent to taking a COVID-19 vaccine.
Consent must be obtained before starting any treatment or physical investigation or before providing personal care for a patient. This includes the administration of all vaccines.
Also,
It is a legal and ethical principle that valid consent must be obtained before starting personal care, treatment or investigations.
Also,
For consent to immunisation to the (sic) valid, it must be given freely, voluntarily and without coercion by an appropriately informed person who has the mental capacity to consent to the administration of the vaccines in question.
The threat or use of punitive measures against states, groups or individuals in order for them to undertake or desist from specified actions. In addition to the threat of or limited use of force (or both), coercion may entail economic sanctions, psychological pressures, and social ostracism.
The psychological techniques used by the U.K. Government fall under that definition of coercion. If follows that according to Public Health England’s statements and for the general public at least, consent to immunisation was invalidated by the behaviour of the U.K. Government. It is also important to highlight that there have been serious injuries and death directly linked to the COVID-19 vaccine. Many of those injured or who have died would not have taken a vaccine if they had not been psychologically pressured, feared being ostracised socially and were given accurate information.
The removal of the general population’s ability to give informed medical consent is of the gravest concern, and a severe and dangerous consequence of using behavioural insights and psychological techniques on an unknowing public.
Conclusion
The need to hold tightly to professional ethics, in particular to the ethical principle of informed consent, is not just an ‘academic’ issue. It is a matter of practical and fundamental importance to responsible government.
According to David Halpern, “Behavioural insights, like any other form of knowledge, can be used for good or bad” (p348). It is my opinion that the use of behavioural insights and psychological techniques designed to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt utilised by the U.K. Government since March 2020 has been unethical. The consequences are still unravelling but they appear to include serious damage to trust in government and its agencies, the NHS and the medical and scientific professions.
I propose that there be an immediate cessation of the use of all behavioural science techniques designed to elicit feelings of fear, shame and guilt used by the Government pending an urgent, open and independent inquiry. This inquiry should also have as an objective the re-establishment of ethical frameworks necessary to protect the public and to provide accountability. I would welcome a discussion on this most important of matters.
Most respectfully
Dr. Christian Buckland
Doctor of Psychology in Psychotherapy and Counselling
Don’t ask me why, but I woke up this morning thinking about fear …. And how it’s really the fear of fear that explains every scary thing happening in our world today.
Fear of Covid is the most-recent example of how authorities and our most influential and important organizations profit from selling (and exaggerating) “threats” we should all fear.
Thirty years ago, few people recognized that the CDC or Fauci’s NIAID or the World Health Organization would obtain so much power over our lives.
There’s no need to recount the draconian “mitigation measures” these authorities created to compel mass compliance with their dictates.
But more citizens should probably think about how these people exploited the population’s irrational fear of a respiratory virus to achieve even more immense power and control.
The greatest fear of all is death. It follows logically that any group that tells you they can and will prevent your death is probably going to receive our blind support … which of course happened in Covid times.
Non-sensical fear campaigns aren’t new …
These agencies actually cemented their power decades earlier.
RFK, Jr. argues in “The Real Anthony Fauci” that Anthony Fauci became one of the world’s most influential people in the early and mid 1980s when he leveraged “fear of AIDS” to dramatically increase the funding and influence of his obscure health agency.
Back then, the fear was everyone was at risk of dying from AIDS (or HIV).
Like 99 percent of society’s great “threats,” the notion that AIDS was a potential killer of everyone was preposterously wrong. AIDS is actually only a risk to promiscuous gay men and drug users who share dirty needles.
Until the Great AIDS Scare, science and medical bureaucracies didn’t have tremendous influence on all of our lives. Back then our great fear (kind of like today) was “Russia! Russia! Russia” except four decades ago it was “Soviet Union! Soviet Union! Soviet Union!”
Today’s Great Fear is respiratory viruses.
In 1984 (the year, not the novel), nobody thought alleged experts in some Alphabet Bureaucratic Agency would end up telling everyone 100 things they had to do … and 100 things we couldn’t do.
But fear is a powerful thing and that’s exactly what happened. Not only did it happen, hardly anyone questioned the power given to these “experts.” (And those who did question the authorized narrative …. suddenly had a lot to fear).
It’s still surreal to me that in the “Land of the Free” so few people fear the growth of the government …. or the growth of censorship.
Why did everyone suddenly become a huge fan of Bigger Government?
I’ve thought a good bit about how or why all the key organizations and corporations went along with the massive growth of government.
Again, fear must provide the answer.
One assumes Amazon, Wal-Mart, JP Morgan, the colleges, Facebook, Twitter and Google, etc. must have been motivated, in part, by fear as well.
What these companies probably all fear is getting on the wrong side of the world’s 900-pound gorilla – the federal government.
If one happens to fear some person or organization, one strategy might be to become friends or allies with this mean-spirited bully. If you are too scared to fight “City Hall” … go ahead and join forces with this behemoth. Which is exactly what happened … on a grand scale.
As it turns out, the people who lead mega companies and influential organizations also fear losing their power, status and wealth.
They also fear “competition.” If the government (via its policies and crony-benefitting decisions) can make it much less likely a competitor will take away your company’s market share, it probably makes economic sense to support this ally.
Once upon a time, political scientists defined this result as “fascism.” Fascism occurs when big government and big business join forces to protect and expand their influence.
People also fear going against ‘The Current Thing’
I’ve also written a good bit about the power of “The Current Thing” (aka the “authorized narrative.”)
In today’s world, the vast majority of citizens possess a fear of going against the Current Thing. What these people really fear is being cast out out of the “herd” for challenging the thinking of the pack … or of the pack’s leader(s).
A key question for our times is who created all the false or dubious narratives in the first place.
I don’t think government officials birthed all of society’s fear-producing narratives. But government has the most power and, ultimately, matters most.
Put it this way, if George Soros, Bill Gates,BlackRock or the Davos club members are really the master puppeteer’s pulling the most-important strings, they still couldn’t do anything they want without an army of enforcers in government.
Two months ago I wrote a piece arguing that all the most important “truth-seeking” institutions in society now seemingly exist to conceal important truths. One of these institutions is “academia” or higher education.
But why did the key leaders of 99.9 percent of the colleges go along with 100-percent of the authorized Covid narratives?
Fear strikes again. The colleges were simply afraid to lose billions of dollars of research grants and federal funding, which they knew would happen if they bit the hand of the beast who was feeding them.
Government and its cronies are also afraid …
Which brings me to my final point of this meditation on fear: The people and organizations who rule the world are also motivated by great fears. Their fear is losing control, losing their lofty status in society’s hierarchy.
At some level, they must also fear legions of citizens going for those proverbial pitch forks and coming after them.
By now, practically every Substack author has opined on why Fox News executives decided to dismiss Tucker Carlson. (This despite the fact Carlson produced the most popular TV news talk show on the planet).
My best guess is that someone in some high place (inside this company or outside of it) had to be afraid of the scathing monologues Tucker was airing on a nightly basis.
Tucker’s segments were beginning to resonate with far too many people. And virtually all of his programs had one common theme:
“Folks,” argued Tucker, “It’s about time we started identifying the real Bad Guys who are ruining our world.”
What Tucker was really telling his sizable audience is that government – and all its sycophant cronies – were the real threat to our society.
So someone decided Tucker had to go.
Before this, someone decided that Jame O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, had to go.
Before that, someone figured out how to capture and neutralize The Drudge Report.
And before that someone decided that Julian Assange had to be locked up for life (for the crime of publishing true documents the Powers that Be didn’t want published.)
“Someone” also decided that social media and Big Tech had to heavily censor “dangerous misinformation” to “protect” people from the “harm” of free speech.
Until recent years, most Americans didn’t even know that free speech was that dangerous to them.
We the People are the Boogie Men to our rulers …
John and Nisha Whitehead just wrote an excellent essay which tells readers who is really afraid.
“The war on free speech is really a war on the right to criticize the government,” they wrote.
“… In fact, the government has become increasingly intolerant of speech that challenges its power, reveals its corruption, exposes its lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.”
That is, the government (and all its many cronies) are afraid of any speech that doesn’t square with its own fear-producing narratives.
In short, the government is afraid of We the People.
More specifically, the government is afraid of large numbers of citizens shedding their irrational fears. If and when this happens, the majority of citizens may no longer run to their Nanny to protect them.
Tucker Carlson referenced this in his first tweet since being dismissed by Fox News. This message has now been viewed by more than 74 million people … so clearly Carlson’s message resonates with massive numbers of people.
The key message: There’s a lot more of us than there are of them. One suspects the people who benefit from selling fear also know this … which must be what scares the hell out of them.
The victor in the existential battle currently being waged will be determined by what message resonates with the most people – the government’s message (that only the government can save us all) … or the message being shared by the dissidents our government clearly fears.
If we’re all going to continue to be motivated by fear, let’s hope more people at least begin to fear our real enemy … which (great news) I think is starting to happen.
“In this Canadian Patriot Podcast, Dr. Denis Rancourt explains his published findings and methods demonstrating the popular fallacy that a “covid-19 virus had caused vast death prior to the vaccine rollouts in 2021. In fact, not a single death anywhere in the world can be provably tied to COVID-19, but rather the criminally incompetent (and likely intentionally criminal) protocols deployed from above nation states. Dr. Rancourt explains the real reasons for the increase in all-cause mortality across the world with a focus on the USA, Australia, Israel and India which occured only after the vaccine rollout began. A discussion on Fauci’s admission that he was wrong about masking protocols and the broader corruption in academic research over the past decades is also explored.”
One hypothesis for why Fox News fired popular television commentator Tucker Carlson is because he had been badmouthing company officials. But are top executives for a major U.S. corporation so sensitive to personal criticism that they’re willing to ditch their most popular commentator for saying some bad things about them? That’s hard to believe.
Another hypothesis is that Carlson was also saying bad things about Fox News colleagues. That too doesn’t make much sense to me. Doesn’t that sort of thing go on in most large companies? It’s called human nature. Again, it doesn’t seem serious enough to can the network’s most popular commentator.
Let me weigh in on another possibility — that the Pentagon and the CIA may have been the ones who put the quietus on Tucker and possibly signaled to Fox executives that he had to go.
Last December, Carlson broadcast a program on the assassination of President Kennedy in which he accused the CIA of having participated in the assassination. In doing so, Carlson violated a taboo that has existed within the mainstream media since November 22, 1963, the day that Kennedy was assassinated.
It’s considered permissible for the mainstream press to run articles and programs that analyze the assassination in an “objective” way, or that support the official lone-nut narrative, or that analyze why people subscribe to conspiracy theories. But what has been verboten since the assassination is the running of articles and programs that point to the Pentagon and the CIA as the orchestrators of the assassination or that feature evidence pointing to their criminal culpability.
By violating that sacred taboo, Carlson put himself at risk of being subjected to the omnipotent power and influence of the national-security establishment. As New York Congressman Charles Schumer candidly and succinctly put it, “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”
In upcoming episodes of my new video/podcast series “The JFK Assassination: Sixty Years Later,” I point to specific examples of where the mainstream press steadfastly and scrupulously avoided confronting clear and convincing evidence of criminal culpability by the national-security establishment in the Kennedy assassination.
Let’s examine one of those examples. (I’m covering several others in my new series.)
In 1992, the Assassination Records Review Board was brought into existence to enforce The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, which mandated that the Pentagon, the CIA, and other federal entities release their long-secret assassination-related records to the public.
The ARRB discovered the existence of a man named Roger Boyajian, who told the agency a remarkable story. He said that on November 22, 1963, he was a Marine sergeant stationed at the Bethesda National Naval Medical Center. After JFK’s assassination, he was ordered to the facility where the autopsy on President Kennedy’s body was to be conducted by the military. He told the ARRB that a team brought JFK’s body into the Bethesda morgue at 6:35 p.m. on that evening.
Boyajian’s statement presented problems for the military. That’s because the official narrative has always been that JFK’s body was brought into the Bethesda morgue only one time — at 8 p.m. — by an official honor guard consisting of the members of the armed forces. Boyajian’s statement meant that the military had lied — that there were actually two different entries of JFK’s body into the morgue on that evening.
Was there any corroboration for Boyajian’s extraordinary claim? Actually there was. Boyajian had kept a copy of his “after-action report” that he had submitted to his superiors the week following the assassination. The report, which he shared with the ARRB, confirmed that the president’s body was brought into the morgue at 6:35 p.m. Perhaps it’s worth mentioning that the Pentagon never disclosed that report to the ARRB, which the JFK Records Act required it to do.
Further corroboration came in the form of statements and testimony from several Navy enlisted men who said that they met a large black hearse outside the morgue and carried the president’s body from the vehicle into the morgue. They said that the president’s body was in a shipping casket rather than the heavy, ornate casket into which the president’s body had been placed in Dallas. The enlisted men said that there were men with suits in the hearse whose identities are still unknown to this date.
The ARRB also discovered a memorandum from Gawler’s Funeral Home in Washington, D.C., which performed the embalming of JFK’s body after the autopsy. The memorandum stated that the president’s body had been brought into the morgue in a shipping casket.
In 1969, Col. Pierre Finck, one of the three military pathologists who performed the autopsy on Kennedy’s body, testified in a criminal case in New Orleans that had been brought by a district attorney named Jim Garrison against a man named Clay Shaw. During the trial, Garrison questioned the official lone-nut narrative of the assassination and charged that the assassination was actually a national-security state regime-change operation, one that was no different in principle from such other U.S. national-security regime-change operations as Iran (1953), Guatemala (1964), and Congo (1961).
During the trial, Finck testified that he received a telephone call at 8 p.m. on November 22, 1963, from Navy Commander James Humes, a pathologist in charge of performing the autopsy on Kennedy’s body. Humes invited Finck to come to the Bethesda morgue to assist with the autopsy. During that 8 p.m. conversation, Humes told Finck that they already had x-rays of the president’s head.
That’s what the law calls an “admission against interest.” It’s not exactly a confession but it’s similar to a confession, which is why the law places tremendous weight on it. With his sworn testimony, Finck was inadvertently confirming that the president’s body was, in fact, sneaked into the morgue almost an hour-and-a-half before the official entry time of 8 p.m. After all, at the risk of emphasizing the obvious, the only way they could already have x-rays of the president’s head at 8 p.m. is if the president’s body had already been in the morgue before 8 p.m. — i.e., at 6:35 p.m. (No x-rays were taken at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, where JFK was treated after being shot.)
Now, wouldn’t you think that this set of facts would be a dream-come-true for any investigative reporter within the mainstream press? After all, sneaking the president’s body into the morgue and then lying about it and covering it up would obviously be a fairly big story, especially if the press could discover what the military was up to.
Keep in mind something else: Someone had slipped a provision into the JFK Records Act prohibiting the ARRB from investigating any aspect of the assassination. Thus, the ARRB could not investigate the early introduction of the president’s body into the Bethesda morgue and, equally important, what was done with the body in the one-and-a-half hours before the second introduction of the body into the morgue — the official one that took place at 8 p.m.
But the law certainly did not prohibit the mainstream press from investigating the matter. Moreover, in the 1990s, many of the people involved in the autopsy were still alive. An investigative reporter could have contacted everyone involved and gotten to the bottom of the military was up to.
By the 1990s, when Boyajian shared his story with the ARRB, it was clear that the Pentagon and the CIA did not want the mainstream press to investigate any of the sinister aspects of the Kennedy autopsy. (See my books The Kennedy Autopsy, The Kennedy Autopsy 2, and An Encounter with Evil: The Abraham Zapruder Story.) Thus, the early sneaking of JFK’s body into the morgue was simply “airbrushed” out of the mainstream press. The standard response to the sinister aspects of the Kennedy autopsy became “Conspiracy theory!” which was the term that the CIA early on advised the mainstream press to employ against those who challenged the official lone-nut narrative of the assassination.
Did Tucker Carlson pay a price for violating the JFK taboo? It certainly wouldn’t surprise me.
Last November Philip Zelikow and “the Covid Crisis Group” published a 352 page book, Lessons from a Covid War, An Investigative Report. The book went on sale April 23, 2023 and was launched April 24 in a five hour presentation at the National Academy of Medicine in Washington, DC. The launch of the book has lately gotten attention in the news. By its emphasis on war, the book inadvertently confirms recent evidence uncovered by Sasha Latypova snd Katherine Watt that the Covid psy-op was not a supposed public health emergency but a type of 5th generation warfare carried out by the US Department of Defense against US citizens, and much of the rest of the world, in collusion with many other governments.
Who is Philip Zelikow? He was the director of the so-called 9-11 Commission appointed by the G.W. Bush Administration in 2002. He was the editor of theresulting 9-11 Commission Report. He was and still is a University of Virginia history professor said to specialize in public myths and the effect of “catastrophic terrorism” in making abrupt changes in of the course of human history. As we know, both myth and terror were in full play in the 9-11 and the covid operations. Zelikow was among the neocons of the Project for a New American Century which said in its “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” September 2000, that it would take “a new Pearl Harbor” to motivate the American public to support the militarily aggressive US global hegemony that the Project called for. Exactly a year later, 9-11 provided the neocon-controlled US government with a pretext for just such aggression against a list of Arab and Muslim countries that did not threaten US hegemony, but did happened to be enemies of the state of Israel, which the neocons happen to adamantly support. So many coincidences!
Twenty years later, Zelikow was called in for another coverup, this time unofficially. Under Zelikow’s guidance 9-11 was painted as a series of tragic failures by the US government, the Pentagon, NORAD, and US intelligence agencies to either predict or prevent the hijacking of four passenger airliners by 19 nefarious hijackers. Using the same formula again, Zelikow assembled a group of 34 academic, medical, and government apologists — the “Covid Crisis Group” — to write the authoritative report on the US handling of the “Covid 19 pandemic.” Once again. the entire US government was totally blindsided. It was found woefully inept, incompetent, and completely unprepared to deal with this terrible out-of-nowhere attack.
Zelikow and his hand-picked authors leave no stone unturned in pointing out the failures of almost all the measures a helpless Uncle Sam took to deal with the “pandemic.” The problems listed by Zelikow’s mainstream mouthpieces were: “operational challenges,” lack of preparedness, “policy failures,” ignorance of the source of SARS CoV-2, the failure of Trump’s leadership in “Operation Warp Speed,” a ”fragmented health care system,” and “poor communication” which led to poor “vaccine uptake” and a failure to prevent people being led astray by “misinformation.” The solution offered by the Crisis Group: organize from the top down, globally, with a single authority, for the next predicted “pandemic,” much like what we’re hearing from the World Heath Organization. This is not new thinking. It’s a copy and paste of the globalist agenda.
The strategy for covering up an attack by the US government on US citizens is to make it look like the government was a victim of the attack, not the perpetrator. That lie is facilitated by what sounds like a tough critique of government incompetence, crafted by the same people who were involved in the crime. This is like letting a murderer off the hook by hearing nothing but his apology for serious and reprehensible failures in stopping the murder, and forgetting that he committed the murder.
Of course, Zelikow’s exhaustive report passed over the pre-planning, the trail of predictive pharma patents, the economic devastation, the gigantic upward transfer of wealth, the government corruption, the psychological harm, the extensive injury to human health, the thousands of deaths caused by the US “response” to C-19 — all of it deliberate. The report starts with the premise that a never-before-seen virus attacked us all at once and nobody knew what to do about it. This is more or less how Zelikow and his previous stable of authors said 9-11 happened: our innocent nation was attacked from out of the blue; we were caught totally unaware. It is interesting to see how the public myth and the “catastrophic event” intertwine. Zelikow is not just an academic observing that catastrophic terror changes history. He is an advisor to people who want to change history by creating catastrophic terror. He almost certainly advises on how to do it. Not only has he nicely tied his two academic theses together, he has won handsome rewards and respectability, AND completed the major deception of being the one to write the official history of the operations his handlers planned. Zelikow is the consummate insider. Had he not appeared with this coverup masquerading as an earnest critique, we might have missed seeing that the neocons had to be involved in the covid operation just as they were in 9-11. The Project for a New American Century was not a plan for a robust American empire. Just the opposite. It was a plan to use the US and its people as pawns in what was really the Project for a New World Order. America’s contribution to that was to let itself be robbed physically, morally, and spiritually by a parasite class whose goals for control of the world can’t even be understood as human. Indeed, transhumanism is a stated goal of these people.
Zelikow has tipped his hat with this monstrosity of establishment lies. He has announced that he is involved, despite no one asking, and we can infer from this that the neocons were also involved. “The wicked run when no one is chasing them,” says the proverb. With all the power the neocons wield, most notable today in the Nuland- and Blinken-led attack on Russia, the neocons must of course be connected with the would-be masters at Davos. How clever this clique must think they are to have fooled the whole world. With such arrogance, how hard the fall.
Ignoring all Russian advice, the British government confirmed on April 26th that its depleted uranium weapons are already on Ukrainian soil. Moscow’s officials, anti-war activists and experts have repeatedly warned that such an escalation in the conflict should be avoided, but London has not observed the advice and has further violated a red line by sending radioactive weapons to the Kiev regime. It remains to be seen what the consequences of this dangerous measure will be.
The confirmation of the delivery of weapons was made by the Minister of Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, James Heappey, during a speech to the British Parliament. According to Heappey, depleted uranium ammunition was sent to Ukraine along with other projectiles suitable for use in Challenger 2 tanks. The minister also added that British officials will not try to track where these weapons will be used.
“We have sent thousands of rounds of Challenger 2 ammunition to Ukraine, including depleted uranium armour-piercing rounds (…) [These weapons] are now under the control of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) (…) [UK’s Ministry of Defense] does not monitor the locations from where DU rounds are fired by the AFU in Ukraine”, the Minsiter said during the statement.
When asked by some parliamentarians about the health dangers posed by these weapons, Heappey claimed that this threat would be “low”. Interestingly, he even mentioned that the risk assessment is based on monitoring UK veterans who have already used them on the battlefield. In fact, the minister seems to completely ignore that a series of recent studies point to the opposite, showing serious health problems both in the soldiers who manipulated this equipment and in the victims of the ammunition. The problems include several risks commonly attributed to radioactive substances, such as cancer, fetal deformity, deficiency of fertility, among others.
Commenting on the case with journalists, Doug Weir, an expert linked to the Conflict and Environment Observatory, stated that when DU penetrators strike a target “they fragment and burn, generating chemically toxic and radioactive DU particulate that poses an inhalational risk to people”. Several other scientists have expressed similar views after analyzing the results of these munitions in Iraq and other countries where NATO troops have used them. However, London and Washington continue to deny evidence of these dangers.
It must be remembered that Moscow has repeatedly asked London to reconsider its plan to send these munitions to Kiev. In a recent statement, spokespersons for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia stated that the British measure would be an absolute “imprudence, irresponsibility”. Furthermore, in March, the Russian Ministry of Defense warned that the use of such projectiles could “cause irreparable harm” to the health of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians as well as inflict “tremendous economic damage to the agro-industrial complex” in the region, citing the weapon’s impact during the previous experience in Iraq.
However, despite the warnings, the shipment of these weapons was already expected. In March, US and British troops held a training program with Ukrainian soldiers to teach them how to properly handle depleted uranium munitions. The plan was very well prepared and echoes NATO’s interest in taking the proxy war with Russia to the most dangerous levels of military escalation, ignoring any humanitarian, environmental or social concerns.
Legally, depleted uranium weapons are a complex issue. There is no international convention banning them as there is no consensus among specialists on how to define these weapons. These munitions are really radioactive, which is why some experts believe they should be considered nuclear weapons under the legal principle of analogy. However, its radiation is lower than that of natural uranium, which leads other specialists to reject this classification.
Some other experts believe that a viable solution to the problem of these projectiles would be to consider them chemical weapons, since they contain toxic substances, regardless of the level of radioactivity. But this creates a problem for the western powers that have them, since the US and the UK are signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which would oblige them to destroy their depleted uranium stocks. Not by chance, both countries reject any initiative in this sense and prefer that these weapons remain without specific legislation, so that they can continue using them with impunity.
Indeed, given the absence of specific regulation, Moscow could consider the use of depleted uranium against its troops as a true nuclear attack, which would allow the Russians to react with their arsenal of mass destruction. This is unlikely to happen, as Moscow has repeatedly shown its interest in seeking the most peaceful and humanitarian solutions possible to the conflict, sometimes even ignoring violations against red lines just to avoid escalation.
However, regardless of what the Russian response will be, it is certain that damage to Ukrainian soldiers and the civilian population in the combat zone are inevitable. And the responsibility for that lies with NATO.
Lucas Leiroz, journalist is a researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
Event 201 – A high-level pandemic exercise held by The Johns Hopkins Center for Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The exercise began on 18 October 2019, months before the Covid pandemic started and the very same day the World Military Games began in Wuhan.
The website for the event has been available to view all the way through the pandemic but for some reason it has now been taken down. If you click on the web address, all you get is this:
But you can always view the archived version here.
Whenever I get off the bus at Oxford city centre, I see the monument to the Oxford martyrs, Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley, who were burned at the stake in Broad Street in 1555, and Thomas Cranmer, who suffered a similar fate the following year. The three refused to renounce their Protestant beliefs during the reign of Catholic Mary Tudor, and died the most horrific deaths as a result.
I have often thought, when passing the monument and the commemorative plaque set in the wall of Balliol College opposite, that these men could have saved themselves simply by recanting, an option that was open to them and indeed, Archbishop Cranmer did recant before reaffirming his belief in Protestantism.
Now, I see more clearly that, whatever the consequences, they could not in all conscience revert to a faith they no longer believed in. We like to think we live in more civilised times and no longer burn people at the stake for not conforming to the religious orthodoxy of the time – but do we? The history of the last three years has been an updated version of martyrs being consigned to the flames for their beliefs, but this time the rejected articles of faith are the Covid vaccines.
They have become the new religion, with fervent advocates even among church and spiritual leaders. Instead of enjoining us to believe in God, they have urged us to save ourselves by having the vaccine. Their sermonising on the matter has even acquired the status of holy writ as, according to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Jesus would have wanted us to have the vaccine. The Dalai Lama urged his many followers to ‘be brave and come forward to be vaccinated’ after having the jab himself.
So, as the faithful line up for their sixth jab, the vaccine can be considered the secular equivalent of Holy Communion. The point of Holy Communion is to partake of the body and blood of Christ to absolve us from our sins, and the mRNA vaccine is supposed to protect us against bodily ills. In both cases, the idea is to keep the devil out by a ritual and oft-repeated observance.
Those of us who have done our research, and cannot in all honesty believe in the magical power of the vaccine to ward off the devil of Covid infection, are the heretics of today who deserve to be burned at the stake, or in today’s equivalent to be cast out of polite society and ridiculed as anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, tinfoil hat wearers and covidiots. Doctors have lost their jobs for refusing to accept the supremacy of the vaccine and the (very) few politicians who have spoken out against it have been ostracised and marginalised.
Of course, when it comes to Protestantism or Catholicism, it is a question of belief. Yet we know how the vaccines work, and have proof that they are harmful and can set up a variety of adverse reactions in the body. As such, those of us who know the truth cannot recant whatever the cost, as to do so would be to accept the lie that the mRNA vaccines have been a wonderful success story the world over, saving millions of lives.
But even as evidence of severe damage and sometimes death from the vaccine mounts up, as reported on TCW, this continues to be brushed aside, discounted and even denied. Indeed, those who question the holiness of the mRNA to protect us from all ills do so at our personal and professional peril. Whenever a vaccine-related serious side effect or death is reported, it is dismissed in the media as ‘extremely rare’ and insignificant compared with all the good the rollout has accomplished.
And when a fully-vaccinated individual catches Covid anyway, the believers’ standard response is to allege that, but for the multiple jabs, their illness would have been much worse. Vaccines have become, one might say, the holy water of our times.
We may live in a largely secular age, but we have substituted belief in God for a belief in science, and most especially medical science, or what passes for it these days. We have come to worship Big Pharma with the kind of adoring reverence we used to reserve for God and Jesus, and this persists even when the so-called science fails us.
The religious fervour goes even further. The ever-increasing number of vaccines administered to babies can be considered analogous to a holy baptism. For just as baptisms and christenings were supposed to cast out original sins before the baby had time to commit any, so today the many vaccines are supposed to cast out devils in the shape of measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox, or prevent them from entering. Once again, the supposedly protective substances are injected long before the baby has had time to develop any of the infections.
Belief in the efficacy and safety of vaccines is so devout that nobody is allowed to raise a dissenting voice, and anybody who dares to do so, such as Dr Andrew Wakefield, risks not only being discredited, but struck off the medical register and not allowed to practise. More recently, Dr Sam White was suspended for ‘spreading misinformation’ about the efficacy of the Covid vaccine. Robert F Kennedy Jr, a challenger for the American presidency, is routinely attacked for promoting anti-vaccine propaganda. Yet to their eternal credit these people will not be silenced.
The search is now on to find a vaccine for every ill that flesh is heir to, including cancer and malaria. Living in Oxford, I am always getting alerts from the Oxford Vaccine Group to be a volunteer for one of their new studies. If vaccines cannot actually deliver eternal life, they can, we are led to believe, confer the next best thing, which is eternal health.
At one time, those who did not believe in God were considered wicked. Nowadays, you are labelled an apostate if you don’t believe in the almighty power of the vaccine.
So I wonder whether I would be prepared to concede, under extreme torture, that the mRNA vaccine was safe and effective. Thankfully, my conviction that it is neither has not been put to such a severe test but pondering on the issue has given me a new understanding as to why Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer were prepared to die horribly for what they believed was true, rather than recant.
We know now that it was the sacrifice of these men, and particularly that of Cranmer, which made England a Protestant country. By the same token, I can only hope that those who have had the courage to speak out against the mRNA vaccine, and who because of this have been marginalised, ridiculed and in some cases lost their livelihood, will enable the tide to be turned at last.
Note: I hold no particular brief for either Protestantism or Catholicism but am just pointing out that the ultimate sacrifice from a few brave people can change beliefs – and society.
The label for Humira, once the best-selling drug in the world, lists its risks in plain print. One of them, in the label’s own words, is new “autoimmune” disease.
A drug prescribed for a condition labelled autoimmune carries a warning that it can cause a condition labelled autoimmune. That contradiction sits in every box, on a folded paper almost nobody reads.
My new book starts there.
No Autoimmunity: The Body Doesn’t Attack Itself
For seventy years, “your body is attacking itself, and we don’t know why” has ended the conversation for people diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Hashimoto’s, Type 1 diabetes, Crohn’s and psoriasis. More than eighty conditions now carry the autoimmune label. The diagnosis comes with a prescription for life. It almost never comes with a question about cause.
This book asks the question and answers it from the framework’s own records: its drug labels, its journals, its regulatory filings, and its own experiments. … 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.
• Japan’s Condition… 
The label for Humira, once the best-selling drug in the world, lists its risks in plain print. One of them, in the label’s own words, is new “autoimmune” disease.
Aletho News
