Mike Yeadon discusses the bad science SAGE is using to justify Government response to Covid in UK in a calm and reasonable manner. He is obviously then banned from youtube.
Dr. Michael Yeadon is an Allergy & Respiratory Therapeutic Area expert with 23 years in the pharmaceutical industry. He trained as a biochemist and pharmacologist, obtaining his PhD from the University of Surrey (UK) in 1988.
Dr. Yeadon then worked at the Wellcome Research Labs with Salvador Moncada with a research focus on airway hyper-responsiveness and effects of pollutants including ozone and working in drug discovery of 5-LO, COX, PAF, NO and lung inflammation. With colleagues, he was the first to detect exhaled NO in animals and later to induce NOS in lung via allergic triggers.
Joining Pfizer in 1995, he was responsible for the growth and portfolio delivery of the Allergy & Respiratory pipeline within the company. He was responsible for target selection and the progress into humans of new molecules, leading teams of up to 200 staff across all disciplines and won an Achievement Award for productivity in 2008.
Under his leadership the research unit invented oral and inhaled NCEs which delivered multiple positive clinical proofs of concept in asthma, allergic rhinitis and COPD. He led productive collaborations such as with Rigel Pharmaceuticals (SYK inhibitors) and was involved in the licensing of Spiriva and acquisition of the Meridica (inhaler device) company.
Dr. Yeadon has published over 40 original research articles and now consults and partners with a number of biotechnology companies. Before working with Apellis, Dr. Yeadon was VP and Chief Scientific Officer (Allergy & Respiratory Research) with Pfizer.
The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is reporting on an important COVID19 hearing held this week in in front of the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The hearing is titled, “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution” and the AAPS were delighted to have a chance to see their evidence aired, expressing a big “thank you” to Committee Chair Ron Johnson for holding this hearing.
Location: SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building and via Videoconference.
The AAPS has a firm position on what is needed immediately to empower physicians, clinics, facilities, and health systems to reduce COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths. They proclaim that:
1) The October 9, 2020 NIH guidance against any form of outpatient treatment of COVID-19 should be modified to indicate that the decision to undertake ambulatory treatment should be based on clinical judgment and made between the physician and the patient based on his/her preferences to remain at home. https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/
2) The July 1, 2020, FDA guidance against the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) should be modified to indicate that the decision to use HCQ in the appropriate off-label treatment of COVID-19 should be based on physician judgment considering the benefits and risks of treatment. www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability
A top Canadian doctor specializing in pathology, which includes virology, told the Edmonton, Alberta City Council last week that humanity is being “led down the garden path” by delusional aristocrats pushing draconian COVID-19 measures.
According to his bio, “Dr. Hodkinson is the CEO of Western Medical Assessments, and has been the Company’s Medical Director for over 20 years. He received his general medical degrees from Cambridge University in the UK, and then became a Royal College certified pathologist in Canada (FRCPC) following a residency in Vancouver, BC.”
“What I am going to say is lay language and blunt,” Hodkinson told the Edmonton City Council Community and Public Services Committee.
“The bottom line is this,” he addressed the group. “There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It’s outrageous. This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.”
“There is absolutely nothing to be done to contain this virus other than protecting your more vulnerable people. It should be thought of as nothing more than a bad flu season. This is not Ebola. It’s not SARS. It’s politics playing medicine. And that’s a very dangerous game.”
Continuing, Dr. Hodkinson added, “Masks are utterly useless. There is no evidence based on their effectiveness whatsoever. Paper masks and fabric masks are simply virtue signaling. Seeing these uneducated people walking around like lemmings, obeying without any knowledge base to put the mask on their face.”
He also claimed social distancing is pointless as COVID-19 “travels by aerosols, which travel 30 meters or so before landing. And closures have had such terrible unintended consequences. Everywhere should be open tomorrow.”
Next, the doctor touched on testing. “I’m in the business of testing for COVID. I do want to emphasize that positive results DO NOT, underlined in neon, mean a clinical infection. It’s simply driving public hysteria and all testing should stop.”
The only thing Dr. Hodkinson advocates for is to “protect the vulnerable” by giving all nursing home residents daily doses of vitamin D.
In Alberta, where the meeting took place, people under 65 years of age have a 1 in 300,000 chance of dying from COVID.
“It’s just another bad flu, and you have got to get your minds around that,” he stressed. “Let people make their own decisions. You should be totally out of the business of medicine. You’re being led down the garden path by the chief medical officer of health (Dr. Deena Hinshaw) in this province.”
Will mainstream media cover this qualified individual’s take on COVID -19 or will his message by silenced by Big Tech?
A paper that analyzed the results of a massive post-lockdown Covid-19 testing drive that included nearly every eligible resident of Wuhan, China has found no evidence that positive cases without symptoms spread the disease.
The analysis, published in the scientific journal Nature, looked at the results of a screening initiative held between May and June in Wuhan, the city where the first cases of the novel coronavirus were detected in late 2019. The origins of the virus have yet to be determined, with new studies suggesting that the disease could have been in Italy as early as September last year.
Nearly 10 million people were tested, consisting of 92 percent of all residents aged six years or older.
Incredibly, no new symptomatic cases were registered, and only 300 asymptomatic cases were detected. Subsequent tests of 1,174 close contacts of the asymptomatic cases found resulted in no new positives.
There is “no evidence that the identified asymptomatic positive cases were infectious,” the paper said, adding that the results of the massive screening program could help health authorities “adjust prevention and control strategies in the post-lockdown period.”
The analysis seems to confirm preliminary findings that were released during the screening program. Professor Lu Zuxun, from Wuhan’s Huazhong University of Science & Technology, said back in June that there was currently no evidence that asymptomatic people were passing the virus to other people, but cautioned at the time against drawing broad conclusions.
The paper’s authors acknowledged that previous studies had found evidence that asymptomatic individuals were infectious and could become symptomatic later, but theorized that Wuhan residents still testing positive for the virus after the city’s strict lockdown had a “low quantity of viral loads” and therefore were unable to pass the illness on to other people.
Wuhan was placed under a strict lockdown lasting more than 70 days. The tight regulations essentially cut off the city from the rest of China, with only one person from each household allowed to leave their residential compound for a maximum of two hours.
The paper comes amid a growing debate over the efficacy of Covid-19 restrictions. City and even nationwide lockdowns and mask-wearing mandates have been justified using the argument that even asymptomatic individuals could spread the disease and inadvertently overwhelm health services. However, many have argued that the social and economic costs of lockdowns far outweigh any purported benefits, and have pointed to evidence that asymptomatic people are not infectious.
Back in June, the World Health Organization (WHO) backtracked after stating that asymptomatic people rarely infect others with Covid-19, saying that there wasn’t enough evidence to back up the claim.
For the past twenty years, the world has been in the midst of a so-called “war on terror” set in motion by a false flag attack of spectacular proportions. Now the stage is being set for a new spectacular attack to usher in the next stage in that war on terror: the war on bioterrorism. But who are the real bioterrorists? And can we rely on government agencies, their appointed health authorities, and the corporate media to accurately identify those terrorists in the wake of the next spectacular terror attack?
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
TRANSCRIPT
A false flag operation is an action that is carried out in such a way as to make it look like it was done by someone other than the real perpetrator. Taking its metaphor from naval warfare, where ships would sometimes fly false flags as a ruse du guerre in order to sneak up on their enemy, its use has been expanded to include military actions, intelligence operations and even political subterfuge.
It is not difficult to see how governments can use this tactic to whip the public into war hysteria against their political enemies. By staging an attack and blaming their opponents, governments can dupe their population into going along with whatever policies they wish to enact in the name of “fighting the enemy.” It’s a childishly simple tactic but, as we shall see, it has worked for hundreds of years to lead populations into war against targeted groups.
For the past twenty years, the world has been in the midst of a so-called “war on terror” set in motion by a false flag attack of spectacular proportions. And now, the stage is being set for a new spectacular attack to usher in the next stage in that war on terror: the war on bioterrorism.
GATES: We can’t predict when, but given the continual emergence of new pathogens, the increasing risk of a bioterror attack, and the ever-increasing connectedness of our world, there is a significant probability that a large and lethal modern-day pandemic will occur in our lifetime.
As the world begins to lose its collective mind over the threat of viruses, the idea that biological agents and infectious pathogens will be the weapon of choice of the terrorists is being seeded in the public imagination. As in every such false flag event, the coming bioterrorist attack will be blamed on a convenient scapegoat: the “invisible enemy” of a deadly new pathogen and the shadowy terror groups who, we will be told, are responsible for releasing it.
But, as history shows, it is the people who are claiming to “predict” this attack in advance, and who are in positions to dictate the world’s response to it, who should be considered the prime suspects in the wake of any such event.
This is an exploration of False Flags and the Dawn of Bioterrorism.
Although the term “false flag” has been used in a figurative sense since the 16th century to refer to some person or group disguising their true nature or intentions, its modern use derives from the annals of naval warfare, where ships would literally fly the flag of a different nation, pretending to be allies in order to slip past enemy defenses.
The ruse was successful enough that it was adopted for land and air warfare. No longer were literal flags necessary in order to carry out these “false flag” operations. Any use of deception in order to conceal the true origins and perpetrators of an attack could, by extension, be counted as a false flag operation.
It’s a simple idea, but, to those not versed in the art of deceit, it can be devastatingly effective. Unsurprisingly, rulers have used the tactic for hundreds of years to rally their own populations for war against an enemy target.
Take the case of Swedish King Gustav III. In 1788 he was looking for a way to unite an increasingly divided nation and raise his own falling political fortunes. Like many a ruler before and after, he decided that launching a war against his old rivals, the Russians, would be the perfect vehicle for rallying the public around his government. But the king had a problem: there was no appetite among the Swedish public for such a war, and he didn’t have the authority to declare war unilaterally. So he arranged a false flag operation. Gustav dressed up his own soldiers as Russian troops (complete with Russian coins in their pockets) and ordered them to attack a Swedish garrison stationed in Finland. The Swedish public, believing it to be a genuine Russian attack, were outraged, and the Russo-Swedish War of 1788-1790 began.
Or take the case of Seishirō Itagaki, a general in the Imperial Japanese Army who, by 1931, had risen through the ranks to become the Chief of Intelligence in the Kwantung Army, Japan’s largest army group. Itagaki had a problem: he wanted to invade Manchuria, but the Japanese Minister of War wouldn’t allow it. So the general took matters into his own hands by organizing a small cadre of rebels within the Japanese Army and launching a false flag attack. They detonated some explosives on a railway track near a Chinese garrison and blamed the incident on the Chinese themselves. The next day, the Japanese began their attack in response to the “Chinese” provocation and Itagaki got his Manchurian invasion.
Or take the case of the Manning memo. This document records the discussions that took place between US President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair at the White House on January 31, 2003. They were committed to starting a war with Iraq, but they had a problem: they didn’t have any actual reason for invading Iraq. As the memo reveals, Bush proposed a false flag solution: painting a U2 spy plane in United Nations colours and flying it low over Iraqi airspace in the hopes that it would be shot down by Iraqi air defense. The outrage, it was assumed, would give the leaders the blank check they needed to wage their war. Blair reportedly balked at the idea, but the pair did agree that the invasion would go ahead regardless of whether or not any weapons of mass destruction were ever found, war crimes be damned.
There are many such examples of false flag operations being used throughout history. But the tactic isn’t an old, dusty relic of the distant past. It very much pertains to the world of the 21st century . . .
2. False Flag Terrorism
It seems inevitable, in hindsight, that the idea of a “false flag” attack would be adapted from its literal use in naval warfare to a more general tactic of deception in military engagements. So it’s not surprising at all, then, that the concept was further abstracted from a stratagem of warfare to a tool of spy craft.
With the rise of the age of terrorism came the rise of false flag terrorism: spectacular acts of violence designed to look like they were the acts of shadowy terror groups. Once again, the trick is simple but effective.
In the early 1950s, the Israelis were concerned that the British would withdraw their forces from the Suez Canal zone, strengthening Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and his quest to form an alliance against Israel based on Pan-Arab nationalism. Realizing that the only thing that would keep Britain committed to the region was an ongoing state of emergency, they hit upon a simple solution: a false flag terror operation.
Officially codenamed Operation Susannah (but today known as the Lavon Affair), Israeli military intelligence staged a number of bombings around Egypt, hoping to blame the acts on communists, the Muslim Brotherhood, malcontents, or other convenient scapegoats. But the plan was foiled by Egyptian authorities. Several members of the Israeli cell were captured and the Israeli defence minister was forced to resign over the incident. It was never officially admitted until 2005, when Israel formally honoured nine of the spies that had helped carry out the bombings.
But the era of false flag terrorism kicked off in earnest on September 11, 2001, when the neocons in the Bush administration and their accomplices in the military-industrial complex and the intelligence services of multiple countries found an excuse for their longed-for invasion of Afghanistan and the fulfillment of long-standing Zionist plans for carving out a Greater Israel and redrawing the map of the Middle East.
Prized as a pipeline corridor, Afghanistan was also the linchpin of the global heroin trade and an important base of operations for the forthcoming War on Terror. In fact, so important was the country to the Bush administration that it made the full-scale plan for invading Afghanistan the subject of its first national security directive, NSPD-9. The plan was ready and awaiting presidential approval on September 4, 2001, one week before the events that would supposedly justify such an invasion.
RUMSFELD: By the first week of September, the process had arrived at a strategy that was presented to principals and later became NSPD-9, the President’s first major substantive national security decision directive. It w as presented for a decision by principals on September 4th, 2001, seven days before the 11th, and later signed by the President, with minor changes and a preamble to reflect the events of September 11th, in October.”
9/11 was the foundational event of the 21st century, an excuse for numerous items on the checklist of the neocon cabal at the heart of the Bush administration: The creation of the homeland security state. The murderous wars of aggression to reshape the Middle East. The expansion of the military-industrial complex even beyond its Cold War excesses. The formation of the information-industrial complex. We have all watched these events unfolding like a nightmare over the course of the past two decades.
But now, just as the 9/11 myth has finally begun to relinquish its grasp on the public psyche, another event has come along to send the world back into a state of irrational fear. This time, the emergency is predicated not on the Muslim bogeyman but on the invisible bogeyman: SARS-CoV-2.
As we have already seen, the advent of new forms of warfare inevitably brings with it new opportunities for war planners to adapt the false flag strategy for new battlegrounds. And so it is that we find ourselves on the cusp of a new era of false flag operations.
3. The Anthrax False Flag
As it turns out, 9/11 may not prove to be the most long-lasting and world-changing false flag event to have taken place in the fall of 2001. Although largely forgotten today, the anthrax attacks that followed on the heels of “the day that changed everything” have had a profound effect in shaping public policy and setting the stage for the biosecurity state that is emerging today.
The week after September 11, 2001, a series of letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to various media outlets and, later, to two US Senators, Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, who had raised concerns about the Patriot Act which the Bush regime was attempting to rush through Congress. The anthrax-laced letters—which caused the shut down of Congress and lead to the emergency passage of the Patriot Act before legislators even had a chance to read the bill—would go on to kill five and injure 17 others.
In those first chaotic days of the attack, ABC’s Brian Ross began reporting from his anonymous “well-placed” sources that the anthrax spores contained traces of bentonite, a “troubling chemical additive” that just happened to be a “trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program.”
BRIAN ROSS: Peter, from three well-placed but separate sources tonight ABC News has been told that initial tests on the anthrax sent to Senator Daschle have found a tell-tale chemical additive whose name means a lot to weapons experts. It is called bentonite. It’s possible other countries may be using it, too, but it is a trademark of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program.
Of course, this turned out to be a complete lie (a lie that Ross has never clarified or retracted to this day).
As was later confirmed, the spores in question were actually derived from the Ames strain, a strain of anthrax whose virulence makes it the “gold standard” for research into the bacterium by the biological warriors at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Unsurprisingly, once the anthrax was found to have sourced from the US government’s own biological research labs and not an Iraqi weapons program, coverage of the affair in the mainstream media became less frequent and less detailed.
After years of floating the name of bioweapons expert Steven Hatfill as a “person of interest” in the investigation, the FBI pinned the blame on Bruce Ivins, a “lone wolf” who allegedly orchestrated the entire attack himself because of mental instability. Hatfill successfully sued the FBI for nearly $6 million for undue harassment and Ivins conveniently killed himself before ever being charged with any crime. In the end, not a single person was arrested or indicted for their participation in one of the highest profile attacks in American history.
The anthrax false flag killed multiple birds with one stone:
It associated the terror attack of 9/11 with a subsequent bioterror attack that was quickly connected to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. That association was still strong in the minds of many Americans (some who may still have erroneously blamed Iraq for the attack) during the build up to the Iraq War in 2002 and 2003.
As Whitney Webb points out in her exhaustive report on the event, the anthrax attack also saved Bioport, the crony-connected DoD contractor that supplied the US military with the highly controversial anthrax vaccine. Facing growing concerns about the safety and efficacy of its vaccine, Bioport faced financial ruin . . . until the anthrax attacks happened and demand for their questionable product skyrocketed. Later rebranding as Emergent Biosolutions, the company benefited from the largesse of the Gates-backed Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness, and, as Webb notes, the company “is now set to profit from the Coronavirus (Covid-19) crisis.”
The anthrax attack also gave an excuse for the creation of a wide-ranging legislative and institutional framework for implementing medical martial law in the event of a subsequent bioterrorist attack, including the wide-scale adoption of the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act authorizing forced quarantines and forced vaccinations in the wake of a declared health emergency.
The anthrax false flag also gave a gigantic shot in the arm to another major wing of the military-industrial complex: the “biodefense” sector. Before anthrax entered the public consciousness as a weapon of terror in the fall of 2001, bioweapons research had been sidelined and shrouded in secrecy. After the attacks, however, the US government—and, indeed, every government in the world—had a perfect excuse to vastly expand its biological weapons programs in the name of “biological security.” As Jonathan King, a professor of microbiology at MIT, explains:
“[The] response to the anthrax attacks and the bioterrorism initiative has been to launch a nationwide, billion-dollar campaign to ‘defend us’ from unknown terrorists. But the character of this program is roughly as follows: You say, ‘Well, what would the terrorists come up with? What’s the nastiest, most dangerous, most difficult-to-diagnose, difficult-to-treat microorganisms that we can think of. Well, let’s go bring that organism into existence so that we can figure out how to defend against it.’ The fact of the matter is, it’s indistinguishable from an offensive program in which you would do the same thing.”
And now, two decades later, that massive billion-dollar campaign made to “defend us” from the anthrax threat has led to the creation of a vast biosecurity infrastructure. From biological labs conducting gain-of-function research to government offices conducting bioterror “simulations” to legislation granting extraordinary powers to unelected health “authorities” in the wake of the next attack, the groundwork has been laid for the next stage of government-sponsored false flag terrorism.
4. False Flag Bioterrorism
Ever since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks of 2001, the public has been told that the next spectacular terror attack would involve biological agents engineered by shadowy terror groups.
REPORTER: At a Tucson gymnasium, people wait their turn for life-saving pills to be taken after an outbreak of a smallpox virus. Scenarios like these are taking place across the United States. Thankfully, they’re only simulations.
MR. LYNCH: Although we are fortunate not to have experienced a biological attack here in the United States since the anthrax attacks, post-September 11th the threat remains very real. Foreign adversaries have already demonstrated an interest in developing genetic and biological weaponry.
JEANNE MESERVE: GNN has just learned a group calling itself A Brighter Dawn, or “ABD,” is claiming responsibility for the creation and intentional release of the Clade X virus. In a youtube video, a spokesman for the group says the goal is to reduce the human population to pre-industrial levels. That, he says, will bring the world back into balance and prevent the destruction of the planet.
REPORTER: The Center for Disease Control is one of only two labs in the world which officially holds samples of the smallpox virus. The other is in Moscow. But now, bioterror experts fear many other countries may have the virus, and there are concerns it could be used as a weapon. Bioterrorism experts envisage grim scenarios where a suicide terrorist contagious with smallpox walks through a busy airport, infecting hundreds of others who spread the virus to their destinations.
Those warnings have only increased in urgency in this age of COVID.
GATES: We also face a new threat that the next epidemic has good chance of originated [sic] on a computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus or a contagious contagious and highly deadly strain of flu.
RICK BRIGHT: There will be likely a resurgence of COVID-19 this fall.
It’ll be greatly compounded by the challenges of seasonal influenza. Without better planning, 2020 could be the darkest winter in modern history.
Statements like these not only implant in the public mind the idea that the next spectacular terror attack is likely to be biological, but that when such an attack occurs, we should immediately pin the blame on the shadowy terrorists who (we will likely be told) cooked the pathogen up in their bioweapons lab in the caves of Tora Bora.
But, just as anyone with national security experience immediately recognized that 9/11 was not the work of 19 men with boxcutters but in fact bore the hallmarks of a precisely coordinated intelligence operation, so, too, should the public be aware that those with the means, motive and opportunity to create and disseminate a globally spreading infectious pathogen are not cave-dwelling terrorists but well-funded government and military researchers.
Although prohibited by the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the US has, in fact, maintained an illegal and secret germ warfare research program for decades. Long known to insiders but formally denied by the US government, the existence of the program was confirmed in the pages of The New York Times on September 4, 2001, the same day that the invasion orders for Afghanistan were sent to President Bush for authorization, one week before “the day that changed everything” and two weeks before the beginning of the anthrax false flag.
Although the program was downplayed as “foolish, but not illegal” and portrayed as a defensive program that was largely curtailed in the wake of the end of the Cold War, a groundbreaking 2018 investigation by independent journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva found that a network of Pentagon-run biolabs in ex-Soviet bloc states continues to this day to produce deadly bacteria, weaponized viruses and toxins prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention.
But the US is certainly not alone in its multi-billion dollar quest to develop more deadly—and more precise—biological agents.
Britain’s program, centered around the research at the UK’s secretive Porton Down bioweapon laboratory, included the work of researchers like Vladimir Pasechnik, a microbiologist who had worked on the Soviet germ warfare program weaponizing anthrax and other biological agents before defecting to Britain in 1989. He was hired by the UK government to conduct his own research into anthrax antidotes at Porton Down and died just weeks after the anthrax attacks took place.
Dr. David Kelly, who debriefed Pasechnik after his defection and offered him the job at Porton Down, had told a friend that he was going to write a book exposing what he knew about the bioweapons program—but instead ended up dead on Harrowdown Hill under extremely suspicious circumstances.
The Soviets also had an extensive biological weapons research program. The fruits of that program included the novichok agent that has been blamed for high-profile assassination attempts in recent years, including the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal who were “randomly” discovered by the Chief Nursing Officer of the British Army just ten miles from the Porton Down bioweapons lab.
It was even reported by The Sunday Times over two decades ago that Israel—which is not a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention—has worked on “developing a biological weapon that would harm Arabs while leaving Jews unaffected.” The Israel Institute for Biological Research where this research was conducted is a continuation of HEMED BEIT, a biowarfare unit in the Israel Defense Force whose founders believed that “if microbiology could help in providing the means to establish the Jewish State, so be it.” The institute made headlines earlier this year for its “groundbreaking research” identifying coronavirus antibodies and its subsequent quest to develop an Israeli COVID-19 vaccine.
But beyond the secret biological weapons programs, there has been a publicly acknowledged and funded program to weaponize viruses and pathogens that has been ongoing for years. And once again, the threat of bioterrorism has been invoked as a reason for funding this admittedly dangerous research to create the perfect bioweapon.
ANTHONY FAUCI: Bioterror is—there’s always the potential of bioterror. And we have a major bio defense research and development effort that spans agencies from the NIH to do the basic research to be able to develop better vaccines, how you counter engineered microbes, how you approach drug resistance, engineered microbes. The CDC has surveillance mechanisms to determine if there’s new microbes or anything out there in society particularly toxic that could be used in a bioterror situation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense—we do all of that.
This work, referred to as gain-of-function research, involves weaponizing biological agents so that scientists can develop vaccines or other defenses against them. Of course, gain-of-function research is, in its key aspects, identical to an offensive biological weapons program, but is simply framed as a defensive and preventative measure.
The work of the researchers in this field has not been without controversy.
In 1995 researchers dug up a victim of the 1918 Spanish flu from the Alaskan permafrost in order to “resurrect” the virus using genetic sequencing.
In 2015, researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology participated in experiments weaponizing bat-derived coronavirus that even other molecular biologists warned were presenting the world with a “clear and present danger.” The research even received funding from USAID, which was illegal at the time, as the US had suspended funding for gain-of-function research in 2014.
Time and again, those looking at the history of biowarfare are confronted by a key fact: those who have dedicated their lives to weaponizing pathogens and dreaming up bioterror scenarios aren’t the shadowy terrorist biologists in their cave fortress compound, but the government-funded researchers at both secret and public biolabs around the world.
We have entered an age where the threat of a bioterror attack is very real. The only questions facing the public now are: Who are the real bioterrorists? And can we rely on government agencies, their appointed health authorities, and the corporate media to accurately identify those terrorists in the wake of the next spectacular terror attack?
Conclusion
Two decades ago, the idea of a false flag attack was incomprehensible to the general public. “Why would the government attack itself?” was the oft-heard question of those who could not imagine such duplicity being used to fool a nation into war.
But this is not the world of 2001. It is 2020, and by now nearly everyone is familiar with false flag operations. What was once an obscure tactic deployed by military and intelligence agencies in the shadowy world of spies and soldiers is now openly discussed and debated in the mainstream news.
Make no mistake: this is a major step. An important tool of control, used to pull the wool over the eyes of the public for centuries, had gone from a laughable fringe “conspiracy theory” to an openly acknowledged (and vigorously denied) conspiracy reality within the space of two decades.
But have we really learnt the lessons of history about false flag terrorism? Do we even really know what that term means? And would we recognize it if that trick were employed again in a different context?
They say forewarned is forearmed. Nowhere is that adage more aptly applied than in the realm of false flag terrorism. The entire reason that these deception operations have been used by country after country for centuries is that they are so effective. But they are only effective because throughout those centuries the general public was unable to wrap their minds around a trick so devious and downright evil.
Now we have to completely break the spell that governments have cast over the public. In the event of any spectacular terror attack (biological or otherwise), we have to take the history of false flag operations into account and put the government at the top of the list of suspects. When enough of the population has adjusted their thinking in this way, the trick will have lost its effectiveness and those seeking to direct society through fear will have to abandon it altogether.
This is a monumental task, but it is not to be taken lightly. Given the infrastructure for full-scale medical martial law that has been carefully laid over the past two decades, and given the lockdowns, forced vaccinations, enforced unemployment, and digital dollars tied to social credit scores that have been promised by those seeking to put us through the Great Reset, the future of humanity may depend on our response to the next bioterror attack.
The only question is: Can we wake up enough of the public to these tricks before the real bioterrorists launch their next false flag operation?
Liberty. The right to be free from torture, inhumane and ill treatment; the prohibition of servitude; the right to liberty and security of person; the right to a fair trial; freedom of expression; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; the right to privacy and a family life; freedom of association; freedom from discrimination; and policing by consent are all so pre-Covid-19. The governmental response to the coronavirus pandemic has massacred these fundamental human rights.
Weaselly Covid marshals in hi-vis vests now bark aggressively at me, telling me to “stand back!” and “cover your nose!”. I have stopped resisting or trying to placate them with reason. I have stopped trying to reassure them that I am a doctor. Their brows furrow: a dissident doctor is either not really a doctor, or is the worst kind of scum.
We live in a strange world where minority activists campaign for commercial euthanasia: a world in which a select number of elected and unelected individuals dictate that 100 per cent of us are not allowed the liberty of taking the 0.06 per cent risk of a cost-free, natural death from a respiratory illness (a very common terminal event) at an average age of 82 years old. This is utter insanity while younger, fitter people commit suicide at rising rates under repressive lockdown restrictions, economies collapse, and other debilitating diseases continue to crush, kill and incapacitate the other 99.94 per cent.
Matt Hancock currently champions the right of a small minority of the terminally ill to travel abroad for a Dignitas death, while denying everyone else the right to face the small risk of death by Covid-19 in order to live with dignity and freedom in the UK. How does this make any sense?
Two Elephants in the Room
(1) How did we get here?
(2) How to prevent it happening again?
These are the two questions that surviving mainstream investigative journalists and parliament seem unable to address. Our masters have consistently turned focus to a question that has preoccupied us for months: How do we get out? With this emphasis, they made haste to our perpetual imprisonment. How can we be certain that the question being asked in private is not, rather, how can we capitalise on this situation?
How did we get here?
First it is worth asking from where did the virus originate? Evidence from the scientific community supports the hypothesis it may have been genetically engineered in a laboratory. In May 2020 Professor Luc Montagnier, the virologist who won the Nobel prize for discovering the HIV virus, has corroboratedIndian scientists’ concerns from January 2020 that there are four distinct regions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome which appear to have been spliced in from HIV genomes.
Dr Limeng Yan goes further to say that Covid-19 was intentionally developed as a bioweapon. What further intrigues is Dr. Robert Gallo, an Anthony Fauci contemporary at the National Institute of Health (NIH) and another heavyweight from the 1980s race to isolate the HIV virus, appears to have briefly weighed in against Limeng’s previous September 2020 paper on a lab chimaera theory. So, who are we meant to believe in this tangled web?
Did you know that following serious scientific concern, there was a US government moratorium on the NIH conducting dangerous and unethical virus “gain of function” (GOF) research inside the US? However, the US continued to fund coronavirus research at the Wuhan BSL-4 lab in that moratorium period of 2014 to 2017. GOF research increases the danger of – and weaponises – viruses. Were you aware that funding for this comes from Professor Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Health and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease? Are you aware that the US has funded and supported virological research with inter alia China for over 15 years? Indeed, Sino-American GOF research sponsored by Fauci’s NIH and NIAID, involving Wuhan BSL-4 lab’s “bat-woman”, Zhengli-Li Shi, was allowed to continue during this moratorium.
How toprevent it happening again?
To answer the second question ofprevention, one must to again ask how we got to this point of global paralysis where the WHO, a largely unaccountable, undemocratic, sprawling supranational entity under the private influence of the Gates Foundation and Pharma calls the shots, strips us of our human rights and God-given liberty. In this brave new world, the technological knowledge of biological weapons and their antidotes is in the select hands of a few private individuals, corporations and military facilities.
How is it that civilian, state-owned scientific apparatuses to protect the population are either non-existent or wholly inadequate? So much so that our governments must jump into the lap of the profiteering pharma-cartels and their sponsored universities. Why do our chief scientific advisor, chief medical advisor, and chief mathematic remodeller seem to have cartel tattoos on their CVs? Would you trust Big Pharma hitmen to advise and cure you?
Wouldn’t it be better to have independent, accountable state-funded experts who would be less prone to the politicisation and profit motives that are destroying our way of life? Is this not preferable to the collusive, corrupt, and clandestine public-private partnerships such as SAGE? Even the establishment BMJ’s Executive Editor has belatedly come round to express serious concern about the “politicisation, corruption, and suppression of science.” As Michael Gove said (and subsequently retracted), “I think the people are fed up of experts in organisations with acronyms, saying they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.”
As for pandemic preparedness, the government (presumably in conjunction with the same global non-state actors) is said to have organised for a public health crisis such as the one we currently find ourselves in, yet it seems to want to keep the findings of the Operation Cygnus report under lock and key. Why?
What did Sir Simon Stevens, CEO of NHSE say at a press conference on 5 May 2020? This shifty, career pen-pusher said he was quoting from ICU consultant, Dr Alison Pittard. This, in practice, means he was absolving himself of all accountability and responsibility for the statement. He said he had spoken to her the day before and she had said, “In the here and now we cannot stop cancer developing, in the here and now we can’t immediately prevent heart attacks or strokes … but we can reduce the spread of coronavirus in the community.”
This is a problematic and fatally misleading statement. Stevens should be ashamed of himself for making a political soundbite out of Dr Pittard’s words; particularly when citing her name for added authenticity and protection. First of all, if my colleague said this, please understand she operates in a very compartmentalised, specialist ICU cocoon, at the sharpest end of a chronically under-resourced and stymied NHS service. She will be traumatised, sensitised and conditioned by Simon Stevens’ under-funding of her service and the clear excess deaths of March and April.
Second, know that we can prevent cancer developing, and stop heart attacks and strokes. This is called screening, early diagnosis, early intervention and timely surgery; such things were normal daily phenomena before March. Drug companies devoted billions to tell us it was possible. Now, Simon Stevens, Dr Alison Pittard and Pharma tell us it is not possible and squander 2.4 billion pounds daily to a National Covid Service which is six times the daily budget of the entire NHS.
Third, how can an ICU consultant’s well-meaning soundbite be the final word in community medicine? Is lockdown actually an effective way to stop the spread of this disease? That’s debatable, and not absolute. I agree we could suppress it and keep kicking the can down the road, culminating in higher periodic and seasonal spikes. But how and when (if ever) do we exit from her strategy – a snake oil vaccine? Alternatively, we could have been like Sweden and got it over and done with. I doubt the lay fact-checkers will bother analysing Simon Stevens’ parroted wisdom.
A few days later in TheSunday Times, Chris Hopson, the chief executive of NHS Providers, aped mindlessly:
You can’t stop someone having a heart attack or a stroke, but you can control the volume of Covid-19 patients by using lockdowns to reduce the infection rate… the NHS will certainly be arguing that the Government should be very cautious about coming out of lockdown.
Covid-19 and Chicken Pox
Now, imagine if a novel Chicken Pox descended on earth as if from nowhere, for that is how SARS-CoV-2 appears to have arrived. This parallel may help facilitate a common perspective. It could well have been far more damaging and certainly more terrifying than SARS-CoV-2. Imagine: no prior immunity, no prior sharing a lollipop at a pox party with a friend’s child to ensure broad, safe, and natural immunity before adulthood. Young adults, adults and the elderly would be dying en masse of multi-system pathologies. The pox marks would strike psychological terror; there would be no cure, no vaccine. Gradually, we would learn to cope with it, embrace it as a child, a rite of passage that you would rather have.
As for me, I had unknowingly acquired immunity at some point in my life. I discovered this because I required serological proof to work on a hospital paediatric ward in my thirties. So, I am relieved my child has possibly had Covid-19 as probably have I. To see hundreds of schools and their young teachers refuse the low risk of opening shop and returning to work seemed to me a dangerous folly: no immunity, no education, no jobs, no future, no life. We desperately need a reservoir of resilient, naturally immune people to shield the non-immune, vulnerable and elderly. More chance of suppressing the virus this way than with a rushed vaccine. I may as well say it now before it becomes criminal to do so. The world has lost its mind.
Dissident doctors, Thought Crimes & Arbitrary Injustice
Many have asked why more doctors and nurses are not coming forward with an alternative truth, and why they are not openly doing so. First, understand the state apparatus (including the regulatory body for doctors, the GMC) which has set its immovable stall: Catastrophic Pandemic (no such thing), Philanthropic Lockdown, Wonder Vaccine.
Then, take the extraordinary GMC assault on senior consultant surgeon’s right to free speech. Dr. Mohammed Adil was metaphorically lynched; swinging ominously off the GMC entrance from his redundant stethoscope – a gangland warning from the drug cabal to the rest of us. Then, recall what happens to an NHS whistle-blower, in spite of so-called whistle blowing protection laws, by familiarising oneself with the unbelievable scapegoating, cover-up, injustice and judicial “incompetence” doled out to Dr. Chris Day over 6 years and counting.
Now appreciate that in 2016, for the first time since at least 2006 according to cases compiled by the GMC, a doctor, consultant eye surgeon John Brookes walked scot free from his disciplinary tribunal without any sanction at all, even though the tribunal found he was guilty of misconduct. His offence? A 15-month sexual affair with a current patient. Not even a one-month nominal suspension was suitable: he was deemed too “unique” in his surgical talents and too valuable to his patients. The GMC tribunal made an “exceptional circumstance” of his case. The tribunal went further in its sympathies and commented that this was a consensual and mutually supportive sexual affair – that was until the jilted patient tweeted his affront to Brookes’ hospital CEO.
The GMC doesn’t do human rights for all, nor morals, ethics and Hippocrates per se anymore. It does duties. Duties are done for employers. No more egregious example of this was the GMC case of Dr. John Brookes. His case is paradigmatic of the damage, demoralisation and destabilisation of the medical profession. Ten years ago, it is likely he would have been removed from the GMC register for such an offence.
But, what of Dr. Adil, chairman of the World Doctors Alliance? He is a colleague of Dr Heiko Schöning, the German medic arrested at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park on 26 September 2020. What did Adil do to warrant his arrest? After several months of witnessing global and local healthcare go down the chute and members of the public suffer, he courageously (some would say extremely inexpediently) spoke out on YouTube with admirable passion about the global assault on civil liberties, public health, the NHS and his own patients’ health by disproportionate government measures. He referred to the pandemic as a hoax. You may find the video here.
Dr. Heiko Schöning being arrested for speaking at Speakers Corner, Hyde Park, 26 September 2020.
The GMC didn’t like it. It suspended him from his patients and his 30-year-long NHS career for 12 months, pending tribunal. No unique attributes, no “magic fingers”, no “consensual and mutually supportive” sexual relationship with a patient to help him avoid interim suspension nor the charge of exercising his legal right to free speech.
I am not saying I agree with him. “Hoax” may not be the most appropriate word to use in this situation. Dr Limeng Yan uses “fraud”. But how do we know for sure? Perhaps it is a hoax in the sense that in our collective hysteria we are leading ourselves to fatal self-deception? How does the GMC know? It does not. It has blind faith in the state-pharma-media sponsored narrative. Remember, lone voices have spoken out before when Tony Blair asserted to the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. History proved those lone, renegade voices to be right. Look at what then became of the middle east, then Europe and now the world. We believed in our politicians and not the experts. Recall the strange, horrid fate that befell principled weapons inspector, Dr. David Kelly.
The GMC seems not to care if Dr. Adil is correct. Might is right. He stepped out of line and spoke his truth. He must be silenced and professionally ruined before another doctor speaks. His was not speech riddled with hate, but by an honest concern that the government’s response to this pandemic is not medically or scientifically sound.
The GMC’s primary concern is its statutory responsibility and overarching objective as set out in the Medical Act 1983 (as amended), in particular the need:
To protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and wellbeing of the public;
To maintain public confidence in the profession;
To promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of the profession.
A GMC spokesperson said: ‘The interim orders tribunal imposed an interim suspension on Dr Adil’s registration, following our referral, to protect patients and public confidence. This interim suspension remains in place while we consider concerns about Dr Adil’s fitness to practise.’
Well, who says it protects patients and maintains public confidence to see the GMC violate the lawful free speech of a senior doctor? Thousands of the people have turned out to support him. He is only one among a quarter of a million registered doctors. Why is there so much concern over his influence? Let him speak and be heard. Surely, he must have something important to say to risk his life’s calling? However, that is why the GMC is concerned, he speaks with repute and authority, and therefore the GMC must undermine him.
By denying him his democratic right to political, personal and professional expression, the GMC colludes to deny his right to be heard, and the right of the public to hear him. It denies him the right to seek the truth in open, democratic discourse, and the right to scrutinise the government and hold it to account. It denies diversity and equality of opinion. It denies him his livelihood, and needlessly detaches him from his life’s work and patients who rely on him.
Orwell once said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”. Well, welcome to a very veterinary Animal Farm.
Violation and criminalisation of human rights is becoming quite the corona-craze for official and charitable bodies. The British Academy, the Royal Society, the GMC, the government, the police… who next? Jonathan Sumption in retirement from judicial office is now able to speak with an impunity and candour not afforded to Dr Adil. Like Adil, he is a lone renegade. He pointedly called out the indifference of so-called civil rights organisations such as Liberty – which has a history of intervening for the partisan rights of Remainers – when it comes to defending everyone else’s human rights.
We now have the Labour party wishing to criminalise and censor our free speech. This time their leverage is “anti-vaxxers”, but even that term is problematic. I would imagine it is a defamatory slur designed by the corporate mandatory vaccine pushers who wish to smokescreen the fact that most objectors are manifestly not anti-vax. They are simply and reasonably against useless, unsafe, rushed and unproven pharmaceuticals where the profit-centric corporations are given state immunity from civil and criminal prosecution should the pharmaceutical be dangerous.
This is aside from the very serious issues of common assault, treatment without consent, and the violation of patient choice. In the context of what we know about the risks of the virus, none of this is appropriate, nor proportionate. What we now have is a mainstream principal of discretionary free speech at the behest of one ideological blob. If you do not worship at that altar, your god does not necessarily get to be heard, and may as well not exist.
Dr. Adil is not the first nor only doctor to accuse the WHO, Pharma and governments of a hoax pandemic. Did you know we had a relatively dry practice run of the orchestration of the apparatus to inflict terror on the world and fill the coffers of Big Pharma in 2009-2010 with swine flu? A German doctor and politician, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, accused the WHO of conspiring with Pharma to redefine and lower the threshold of declaring a pandemic.
That brings me to another doctor who might equally be accused of “over-valued ideas” and occupying the other end of the so-called pandemic hoax spectrum. She argues for the embattled corporate propagandists Whitty, Vallance, Ferguson and Johnson. She is Dame Clare Marx, Chair of the GMC. This is what she wrote a week before Lockdown 2.0: [emphases in italics are mine].
A GMC Love Letter
27.10.20
Your wellbeing matters – a message from Dame Clare Marx
Experiences of this pandemic will not be uniform, but for sure, none of us will be left unchanged.
Doctors have found themselves working at the edge of their comfort zone. Some of you have confronted harrowing situations. Some have made difficult decisions against a backdrop of uncertainty and fear. Some have been unable to give the care you wanted to give.
Now, on top of managing rising demand, a weighty backlog of elective work and the second wave of the pandemic, doctors are bracing themselves for the much-anticipated winter storm.
We know that you and your teams are already weary. With barely time to process the events of recent months, many of you are now steeling yourselves for the inevitable challenges to come.
That commitment and resolve requires a huge physical and emotional effort, some would say it’s an act of courage.
We went into medicine to help people and to make things better. But we can’t do that without caring for ourselves too. Your wellbeing matters – to you, your patients and to us as your regulator.
We want to support you so you can keep delivering the best possible care to patients. We’ve compiled helpful resources here to help you survive and thrive over the coming months.
We all know that this will be a marathon, not a sprint.
The nature of being a doctor is to go above and beyond to deliver the care our patients require. But doing that requires doctors to take their own wellbeing seriously.
On behalf of the GMC, and as a doctor myself, I am immensely proud of the profession’s response to this crisis.
Thank you for your continued dedication and professionalism. Please look after yourselves, and each other.
Dame Clare Marx
Chair of the General Medical Council
When I received this call to arms, I had to step back in some amazement. I found it unrepresentative, patronising and inappropriate in many parts. This letter was innuendo and euphemism, wrapped up in a tissue of concern for our well-being. The problem was ill-defined – is doctors’ mental health failing due to an apocalyptic pandemic or due to the government’s lockdown and suspension of the usual NHS? Or is it the huge backlog she at least acknowledges?
Non-dissident Doctors
However, some doctors do seem immune from GMC scrutiny. Have the two doctors (Drs. Martin Landry and Peter Horby) involved in the Oxford Recovery trial been properly held to account for unusually high doses of hydroxychloroquine given to presumably vulnerable hospitalised patients with advanced Covid-19? This may have killed cheap, generic hydroxychloroquine’s early promise as a community prophylactic and early treatment in Covid-19 at low and normal doses, leaving the market wide open for expensive, novel, commercially exploitable vaccines and therapies. In fact, it may well have: watch Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty reject hydroxychloroquine as a result of Recovery.
It could be argued that Recovery might have hastened the demise of some of its participants. But, still, it is Dr. Adil who remains the GMC’s prime target and public enemy number one of our dysfunctional state.
How did Recovery receive ethical approval to give excessive doses to vulnerable patients in an advanced Covid-19 state with hydroxychloroquine when mainstream media was telling us hydroxychloroquine was dangerous and toxic at normal doses? The Recovery trial gave a massive 2400mg hydroxychloroquine in the first 24 hrs, and 800mg every subsequent 24 hrs for the next 9 days. Who proposed and approved these doses? The normal daily dose is 200-400mg, and it is a general pharmaceutical principle that patients with organ failure are sometimes given lower doses to avoid toxicity.
Something doesn’t add up. It seems as if the Recovery trial result has caused a character assassination on hydroxychloroquine. Are none of my colleagues concerned about this? Surely, there is a case to answer for these doctors.
What would GMC scrutiny make of Drs. Pittard, Whitty, Landry, Horby and Marx? Are they merely GMC-compliant, dutiful doctors; are they ethical and competent professionals; have their actions protected patients and public confidence or caused harm and grossly negligent deaths? What about their “fitness to practise”? These are the complex and challenging questions for the GMC that only a few lone renegades are willing to ask.
What can we do? I would urge the public to make their views known to their MPs and copy in the GMC and the Free Speech Union. Submit FOIA requests to the GMC, hold it to account – it acts for you. Support the Free Speech Union, and protect yourself and others by joining it and donating to it. We live in interesting times, and I fear they are about to become more interesting.
The Covid Physician is an unheroic NHS doctor. This article is a personal view and does not necessarily represent the views of the NHS. Dr. TCP tweets at @tcp_dr
Shocking footage out of Germany shows Doctor Andreas Noack being raided by armed police in the middle of a YouTube stream for apparently violating coronavirus laws.
The clip shows Noack in conversation with someone during the live stream before he is distracted by noises outside his door.
Banging is then heard along with screams of “Polizei!” before armed cops are seen entering and ordering Noack to get on the floor, as he is treated like some kind of violent terrorist.
As Noack is handcuffed, a police officer in a mask then appears to try to shut down the live stream but only succeeds in diverting the camera.
Speculation raged on Twitter as to the reason for the raid, with some suggesting Noack had been active in treating injured protesters at anti-lockdown demonstrations.
Others suggested the reason was that Noack had welcomed too many people into his house, violating COVID-19 restrictions on gatherings.
“I think the guy is guilty of expressing his opinions,” said another respondent.
“They’ve turned back the clock to the 1930’s,” remarked another.
“Insanity!” commented another.
Germany has seen numerous massive anti-lockdown protests, including one yesterday in Berlin during which police hit protesters with water cannons.
As we previously highlighted, a pregnant mother in Australia received a home visit and was arrested by police for the crime of helping to organize an anti-lockdown protest on Facebook.
This is happened to doctor Andreas Noack in Germany. After the unconstitutional approval of the infection law, police broke into his house while he was having a live transmission on YouTube. Those who cried against “fascism” have created the most criminal dictatorship in history. pic.twitter.com/fLgl5JTF0i
People who believe in so-called conspiracy theories about Covid-19 are actually suffering from “neuropsychological impairments,” says a neurologist, in what sounds more than a little bit like Soviet-era weaponized psychiatry.
‘Conspiracy theorists’ who refuse to wear masks and embrace lockdowns are the victims of their own scientific illiteracy, which has fundamentally damaged their brains to such an extent that they cannot understand the science of Covid-19, claims neurologist Bruce Miller from the University of California, San Francisco, in a paper published earlier this month in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Miller leverages his formidable credentials – he’s both director of the Memory and Aging Center and co-director of the Global Brain Health Institute at UCSF – to legitimize a baseless and frankly dangerous theory that could potentially be used to lock those same “conspiracy theorists” away in psychiatric facilities indefinitely. His questionable paper takes the pathologization of dissent even a step further than recent bogus “anti-maskers are sociopaths” studies, to a very dark, totalitarian place – ironically, the exact same endpoint feared by the conspiracy theorists he so glibly patronizes.
Dissent = brain damage?
Miller equates “anti-mask behavior,” “anti-vaccine beliefs,” and “conspiracy theories about the origins of Covid-19” with “denial of science,” blaming the whole package on low levels of science literacy rooted in poor-quality education. While the quality of US science education is certainly dismal, Miller’s reductionist viewpoint leaves no room for the many intelligent, educated people who hold these views. His area of expertise may be in delusional disorders, but writing off informed dissent as delusion born of ignorance is, well, ignorant and delusional.
Despite being published in JAMA, one of the most prestigious journals in medical science, Miller’s article cites very little actual science: two papers on the neurobiology of delusions (actual delusions, as in schizophrenia and dementia, not “differing views the writer doesn’t like”) and one comparing Covid-19 deaths in the US with those in other countries. While he liberally sprinkles medical terms throughout, hidden between his references to Capgras syndrome (the false belief that a loved one has been replaced by an impostor) and frontotemporal dementia (in which people falsely believe they are rich) are admissions that these paradigms do not necessarily apply to beliefs about Covid-19 that counter the establishment line.
It’s not that Miller himself isn’t a scientist – indeed, it’s his prestigious credentials that make him all the more dangerous, as the same scientific illiteracy he complains about makes people much more likely to be duped by his tactical deployment of neurological jargon. However, like most specialists, his expertise in neurology doesn’t necessarily translate to a deep understanding of politics. Or respiratory diseases, for that matter – he pooh-poohed the dirt-cheap malaria drug hydroxychloroquine despite scores of studies upholding its effectiveness in treating Covid-19, apparently believing every last one of them was conducted by delusional quacks (unlike, presumably, those that say it doesn’t work).
But what about the conspiracy theories?
In fact, the real science in most of the cases he cites favors the “conspiracy theorists” – or at least doesn’t rule them out. Take masks: the largest-ever randomized controlled trial of mask-wearing was finally published on Wednesday in the Annals of Internal Medicine after being blocked by JAMA and its fellow top-tier journals New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet, showing face coverings do not protect against infection with the novel coronavirus.
There are dozens more, though most relate to other respiratory viruses and mask-wearing. Some have been mysteriously deleted for being “no longer relevant in our current climate” – a chillingly Orwellian explanation that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with control.
And vaccine hesitancy? Vaccine frontrunner Moderna claims its jab is 95 percent effective, but the company has not released the results of its latest clinical trials – and the last time it did, the data revealed that all participants who got two shots of the highest dose experienced side effects, many of them severe. Even with the Pfizer jab, there are reasons for caution, especially with the UK Labour Party preemptively calling for blanket censorship of all “anti-vaccine” content. The last time the UK rushed a vaccine to market in the middle of a much-hyped “pandemic,” thousands of people were permanently injured, and some died. Meanwhile, UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock refuses to rule out making the jab mandatory, and several countries have floated making it a requirement for travel. Sound kosher?
As for the origins of Covid-19 itself, the official story has changed so many times (those darn Chinese and their wet markets! What, they didn’t sell bats at the Wuhan market? Well, the bat must have spent some intimate time with a pangolin, or maybe a snake… stop asking so many questions!) it’s no longer credible. Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier and US bioweapons expert Francis Boyle say it was created in a lab. The science is not settled, on this or any of the above issues, and it never will be if the establishment keeps smearing researchers who deviate from an increasingly threadbare orthodoxy as loony conspiracy theorists.
More than just public shaming
Miller’s paper goes one step beyond the usual establishment sneering, however. Tracing the origin of “conspiracy theories” to an organic brain defect reeks of the Soviet weaponization of psychiatry, a dark chapter in history that seems – if papers like this and another recent “study” out of Brazil are any indication – poised to repeat itself. During the 1960s and 1970s, the USSR weaponized psychiatry to institutionalize political dissidents, diagnosing them with mental illness – because after all, one would have to be crazy not to embrace communism! – and locking them away. The practice served to neutralize the targeted individual, marginalize others who shared his opinions, and terrify the rest of the population into keeping their doubts about the system to themselves.
The parallels to 2020 are impossible to ignore. If Miller’s scientifically baseless theory that belief in conspiracies represents an organic brain defect is embraced by the medical establishment (and there’s no reason to suspect it won’t be), dissidents could find themselves locked up indefinitely as incurable “cases.” Those who dismiss such a possibility need only look at the comparatively recent removal of homosexuality from the DSM-IV psychiatric manual. Many of the mindsets we now take for granted have been pathologized, and many which were once seen as normal (“oppositional defiant disorder,” “attention deficit disorder”) were created only recently.
Countries are also changing their laws to make it easier to institutionalize targets. One of the changes to UK law rammed through in its emergency legislation package reduced the number of medical professionals signing off on the decision to “section” (institutionalize) an individual from two to one. And now, American doctors are licking their lips at the possibility of sidelining those troublesome conspiracy theorists once and for all.
Are these the behaviors of governments that have nothing to hide? How long will it even be permitted to ask such a question?
Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23
If you were lucky enough to attend America’s premier academic institution, Harvard University, you would receive most days, as I do, the Harvard Gazette. The Gazette generally cloaks its pieces in the mantle of “news”; but really its principal function is to find ways for us Harvard people to congratulate ourselves on how brilliant we are, while at the same time heaping scorn and derision on the the ignorant deplorables who are always getting in the way of our plans to perfect the world.
You only need to read a few of these things before you start to realize that what might seem like the very “smartest” people — the ones with the fanciest degrees and the fanciest professorships at the fanciest universities — are actually painfully stupid.
[T]he incoming Biden-Harris administration has moved quickly to reinstall science as a foundation for government policy after four years of a president who disdained accepted scientific wisdom on subjects from wildfires to hurricane tracks, climate change to COVID-19.
The Gazette has learned that “science is back” by their usual method, which is by interviewing the leading Harvard professor on the subject. In this case that is John Holdren. Do you remember him? Holdren’s current title is “Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and professor of environmental science and policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences.” But before that he was “[A]ssistant to the [P]resident for science and technology and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy,” a position in which he served for the entire eight years of the Obama presidency. You may remember that Holdren was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in March 2009, after minimal scrutiny of his background.
So give us an example, John, of how a Biden administration will prove to be more “pro-science” than that deplorable Trump:
GAZETTE : What is an example of a classic, successful government policy backed by good science? . . . .
HOLDREN: I would point to the Paris Agreement, which was an immense step forward in which 195 countries all across the world committed to take constructive steps toward reducing their climate-altering emissions going forward. . . .
Now, as anyone who has read the Paris Agreement knows, the entire developing world — home to about 90% of the world’s people — made no commitments whatsoever in that document, nor did they even agree to any non-binding goals, toward “reducing their climate-altering emissions going forward.” Emissions from the developing world are rapidly increasing, and will continue to do so, Paris Agreement or no Paris Agreement, thus rendering any U.S. efforts to limit emissions completely futile. Holdren is either completely ignorant on this subject, or he is intentionally trying to mislead the readership. Or it could be some of both. You be the judge.
And by the way, might Holdren have some conflict of interest here that may be relevant? None is disclosed as such in the article. But you might happen to recognize that the funder of Holdren’s Harvard professorship, Teresa Heinz, is the wife of John Kerry. Kerry, of course, is the former Secretary of State who was in charge of negotiating the Paris Agreement, and who more recently co-chaired the panel that drafted the Biden energy program, and who undoubtedly is expecting some big position in an incoming Biden administration. But don’t worry, conflicts only apply to Republicans, so there is no need to mention any of this.
Anyway, if you think that John Holdren might be an appropriate person to weigh in on issues of the role of “science” in public policy, you may want to consider some of the man’s previous writings on the subject.
For example, in 1977 Holdren co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich a textbook titled “Ecoscience.” We know that “Ecoscience” was about “science,” because it’s right there in the title; therefore we can be secure in understanding that this is a good place to look for Holdren’s views as to what using “science as a foundation for public policy” will entail. A principal theme of the book is that overpopulation is about to engulf the world (“science” has shown it!) and therefore governments are justified, and indeed required, to take the most extreme possible measures to prevent the impending disaster. In 2009, shortly after Holdren’s confirmation as Obama’s “science” advisor, a website called Zombietime collected a top-ten list of quotations from “Ecoscience.” Here are a few of my favorites:
Involuntary fertility control. . . . A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.
If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.
In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
Toward a Planetary Regime. . . . Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. . . . The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits.
Now that I think of it, “painfully stupid” barely begins to describe the opinions of this man. Maybe we should go with “moral monster.”
Or you could try another book that Holdren co-authored with the Ehrlichs — “Human Ecology,” from 1973. In 2014 the websiteCFACT compiled a collection of choice quotes from this one. Again, I’ll give you just a few of my favorites:
There is good reason to believe that population growth increases the probability of a lethal worldwide plague and of a thermonuclear war. Either could provide a catastrophic “death-rate solution” to the population problem; each is potentially capable of destroying civilization and even of driving Homo sapiens to extinction. . . . Perhaps more likely than extinction is the possibility that man will survive only to endure an existence barely recognizable as human-malnourished, beset by chronic disease, physically and emotionally impoverished, surrounded by the devastation wrought by an industrial civilization that could not cope with the results of its own biological and social folly.
Political pressure must be applied immediately to induce the United States government to assume its responsibility to halt the growth of the American population. Once growth is halted, the government should undertake to influence the birth rate so that the population is reduced to an optimum size and maintained there.
A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.
In another post, this one from 2009, CFACT noted that Holdren had also managed to take alarmist positions on climate change both in warning about global warming and also about global cooling — and that he had managed to take both positions simultaneously. CFACT concluded:
Holdren is a “doom peddler” who latches onto the nightmare-scenario-du-jour — overpopulation, nuclear holocaust, global cooling, global warming (all of which he’s trumpeted at various points in his career) — and then wildly exaggerates it in order to scare the public into adopting his politicized “solutions.”
Or, to put it another way, “science is back”! De-develop the United States? Forced population control? A “planetary regime” to control all “resources”? The “science” requires it! All the “smart” people from Harvard know that. You can understand why Holdren is excited about a Biden presidency. Are you?
By Mark Curtis | MintPress News | November 16, 2022
There is a myth the UK did not support Washington’s war against Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, Labour and Conservative governments backed every phase of US military escalation and played secret roles in the conflict, declassified files show.
UK sent SAS team to Vietnam in 1962, flew secret RAF missions to deliver arms, and provided intelligence to US
UK governments lied to parliament they were not providing military advice to South Vietnam’s brutal regime
Labour government secretly gave arms to US for use in Vietnam, stressing need for “no publicity”
It also connived with Washington to deceive UK public over its support for US
UK governments knew of atrocities against civilians but backed US war aims
Whitehall only started to advocate a peaceful solution, on US terms, once the war became unwinnable
During its war in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s the US dropped more bombs than in the whole of World War Two, in a conflict that killed over two million people. The wholesale destruction of villages and killing of innocent people was a permanent feature of the US war from the beginning, along with widespread indiscriminate bombing.
Britain’s role in the war has been largely buried and must be almost completely unknown to the public. When the UK media mentions the war now, reports often simply reference the refusal by Harold Wilson’s government to agree to US requests to openly deploy British troops.
Although this was certainly a public rebuff to Washington, Britain did virtually everything else to back the US war over more than a decade, the declassified documents show. … 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.
Aletho News
Aletho News 