Former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Michael Yeadon today told America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) that a Reuters “fact checker” article calling his statements “misinformation” is “a mixture of straw men and sheer invention,” saying the Reuters article was “well worth rebutting”.
This is not the first time Reuters has tried to discredit Yeadon by “fact checker” obfuscation, although past attempts have been less half-hearted. This time, Reuters called Yeadon an “anti-vax proponent” who “has made unfounded claims”. Relying on an entity that calls itself “Meedan’s Health Desk, a group of public health scientists working to tackle medical misinformation online,” the Reuters “fact check” addresses Yeadon statements on asymptomatic spread, variants, the COVID-19 vaccine, and its use in pregnancy. The article’s concluding “verdict” tries to claim that “infected but symptom-free people can spread the coronavirus; vaccinated people are better protected but not 100% immune; research shows COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for adults and pregnant women.”
Relating to the article, Yeadon said: “The narrative statements that have repeatedly been claimed by the authorities which are a pack of lies are:
“1. Asymptomatic transmission. It’s definitely a lie. Have you seen that video where Fauci states that ‘it’s always a symptomatic person who drives an epidemic and never people without symptoms’?
“A WHO doctor said exactly the same thing.
“There’s also a terrific peer-reviewed journal article showing that domestic transmission in asymptomatic cases was effectively zero.
“All marries up with the statements I’ve made, and with biological logic.
“2. Variants. They’re just being idiotic. I can show several good quality papers demonstrating that T-cells from a convalescent person or an immunized person each recognize all the then-available variants, again, as anticipated by fundamentals of immunology. The weak twaddle in their piece about antibodies is risible.
“3. Vaccines. The bastards are actually claiming they’re safe. Got them. We have VAERS, Yellow Card, and EMA monitoring. We have mechanism of toxicity. We have multiple open letters to EMA (warning of blood clots) which were immediately followed by vaccine withdrawals (for blood clots).
“4. Pregnancy/fertility. No one in their right mind thinks giving experimental treatments to pregnant women is other than reckless. Especially when reproductive toxicity testing is incomplete.”
Yeadon continued: “But on top of this stupidity, are two recent public disclosures: (I) the distribution of vaccine to tissues in mice shows a very disturbing concentration into ovaries. No one has followed it up, so the assumption has to be this is happening in humans too, and (II) our concern expressed in the December 2020 petition to EMA about immune cross-reactivity between spike protein and human syncytin-1 has been confirmed. A paper was very recently published showing young women making antibodies to syncytin-1 within days of vaccination.”
Summarizing, Yeadon concluded: “Of course this is wholly fraud. Imagine that the number of people in U.K. who’d actually been killed by the virus, instead of dying with it, was just a couple of thousand; you’d been on the streets with torches and pitchforks.
“You should be. Governments everywhere have lied and lied and lied about every one of the central narrative points about this virus.
“The effect of compliance with their ludicrous policy responses has been to hollow out and arguably to have destroyed economically several G20 counties, and actually increased the number of avoidable deaths, not least by deprivation of healthcare.
“These people all need locking up in that new high-security facility being built at speed at Wellingborough, Northants. The prima facie case against a dozen or so people in U.K. warrants their arrest pending criminal prosecutions.
“If these figures are of the same order of magnitude for other countries as well, and there is no reason to assume otherwise, then the plague is a deception of unprecedented proportions, and crimes committed against humanity on a huge scale have been committed here.”
July 16, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Reuters |
Leave a comment
If one believes that the protests in Cuba can be explained within the rubric of 20th century economic systems, and then believes they can go on to extract some great truths about socialism vs. capitalism, then they are misinformed. No, this is about technocracy, color revolution, and forever-war.
The events in Cuba were caused by the staged economic collapse directed by the IMF under the advisement of the World Economic Forum, under the pretext of supply-line stoppages and economic closures to combat Covid-19. The socio-economic strife that such an imposed crisis is known to provoke, is then weaponised to destabilize ‘regimes’ so as to further the hegemonic agenda of the (admittedly divided) oligarchy ruling the global west. We saw this before in 2008 with the crash and crisis, and how this was weaponised to create a destabilization process known as the Arab Spring.
The planners involved are long-term planners, having transcended the quarter-driven constraints of the old market system. The new technocracy emerging is simply able to use Friedmanesque manipulations to keep the system afloat until the law of value is entirely transcended through automation. That was the crypto-Marxian understanding of economics promoted by Maynard Keynes.
Just as Cuba positioned itself away from socialism and towards further integration into global markets, the IMF moved openly to wind down the global market system and move towards a new type of totalitarian order which some critics have likened to communism.
Cubans are protesting against the mask-mandates and the lockdowns which have harmed people’s way of life. They are protesting the way that the government has effectively privileged those with dollar accounts who can buy from state-sanctioned dollar stores. Hence, those without families abroad sending dollars are negatively affected the most. This strikes against the whole narrative of Cuba and its gusano diaspora. Cuba produces its own vaccine, one that is not an experimental mRNA vaccine. The US would like very much to force a concession onto Cuba that it accept the mRNA vaccine. Perhaps the Cuban population of 11 million is just too high.
The fake news talking points that Cubans are protesting a lack of vaccines is a lie. We knew that trans-Atlantic talking points were a part of the Color scheme last year in Belarus when we were told that protestors rose up to oppose Lukashenko’s lackadaisical approach to the plandemic. Lukashenko in turn revealed that he refused an IMF offer of $980 million to play the lockdown deathmatch.
This is a Color Revolution
Anyone like Tom Fowdy for RT who writes that it is premature to say that the clear signs of a Color Revolution aren’t there, probably only says so because they don’t really know what those signs are.
They probably approach that question in terms of on-location forensics: identifying that a particular protest leader is actually an employee of the state department or Soros NGO in some fashion.
Yet for those who understand what the signs are, the signs of a Color Revolution are certainly there. But to understand this requires a long and broad view of the interplay between staged economic crises and the predictable turmoil they create in certain countries.
Because turmoil and protests are all but predictable even to OXFAM, once the FAO food index price surpasses about 210 (by 2012 ratios). Then, it becomes a question of which countries global lending institutions deem worthy of borrowing to subsidize against the newly inflated food price, or which countries the food production companies view in a lenient fashion.
As OXFAM wrote in 2012: “While concerns about high food prices are foremost about the spread of hunger and poverty, high food prices are also strongly correlated with political instability and have historically been a catalyst for mass protest in countries where legitimacy is already faltering. Research performed by the New England Institute for Science and Society has identified “a global food price threshold for unrest;”
Since 2007, food riots have broken out in more than 60 countries and have occurred with heightened frequency during periods of record-breaking food prices such as in 2008, when food riots erupted from Europe to the South Pacific. The FAO food price index crossed the 210 threshold, for the first time, in February 2008.”
Do we need to mention again that global economic crises are staged? Surely, there are structural problems broadly speaking, in the entire Neo-Keynesean system built in some large part from the ideas of Milton Friedman. So it should be clarified that while the timing of these economic crises are planned, they are also bound to happen. But when precisely they happen, and the point of them, would probably shock and confuse, then demoralize anyone who had a naïve understanding of global politics. You see, the point of planned economic crises is the upwards redistribution of wealth. Every firm except a handful of ‘zaibatsu’ style state-picked winners must absorb their own losses. This is corporatism 101.
Milton Friedman (July 31, 1912 – November 16, 2006) American economist and statistician who received the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
Each market crisis is structurally predetermined as these bubbles which define them, grow to a certain point. But it is a decision that is made to ‘pop the bubble’ at a particularly more fortuitous time as opposed to some other time – granted that it would need to be popped sooner or later. So these are both features of the structure, but also planned.
Understanding Color Revolutions requires an understanding of this phenomenon. In 2008, the massive bail-outs to banks using currency debasement, led to a geopolitical strategy on the part of the US deep state to buy up and corner the markets on perishable goods, especially those markets and firms which directed their energies towards Turkey, the Arab world, and Iran. This led to strife across the Maghreb region, Egypt, Syria, an increase of problems in occupied Iraq, and a boon to the Green movement in Iran.
The Crisis in Cuba
Further destabilization in Cuba will be a huge part in a coming global destabilization, and so it must be opposed. This is the case, even contemplating the reasonable grievances of the actual protesters, which in turn are not the same as the Sorosian demands placed in the mouths of anonymous protestors by the globalist media.
An inflation crisis has hit Cuba because of the staged political response to Covid, meant precisely to cause inflationary crises globally. The tourism industry has taken the biggest hit. Food and similar perishables are unaffordable for many without access to dollar accounts. There are state-picked favourites in the private sector (as is the case everywhere) as well as Communist Party bureaucrats who seem unaffected by the very same conditions that the protesters accuse them of bringing about. This much seems reasonable: in looking at who to blame for a problem, look to those who are making out.
The themes affecting Cuba are isolation and sovereignty, versus integration and dependence. Ever since the collapse of the USSR, which Cuba relied on for massive subsidies, Cuba has had both up and down periods as it struggles to balance between these two questions. Cuba is an island nation with just 11 million people, and so there can be no real sovereignty without the heavy price of isolation, nor can there be any integration into the globalist system without becoming a dependent state.
It’s a very tough predicament, because the Ideological State Apparatus of Cuba is its own variant of Marxism-Leninism, and this means that no matter how actually integrated and dependent Cuba is or is becoming, it must use the pages of Granma to pencil polemics declaring that Cuba is more sovereign and stable than ever before. Conversely, each undeniable period of crisis must be blamed on the very same socio-economic systems of global governance which Cuba relies upon in part for its own legitimacy.
The July 13th Edition of Granma, Official Organ of the CC of the CP of Cuba
The problem then is when people really believe this state propaganda, or when people are forced to openly proclaim a public truth they know personally to be a lie. Because instead of the public understanding that Cuba has lost much of its sovereignty in its process of dollarizing so much of its economy, (and that the machinations of foreign actors, the IMF, the planned and staged collapse of the global speculative economy that Cuba is integrated in, is a large part of Cuba’s present woes) blame is laid by the public directly at the feet of a nominally sovereign state’s ruling government.
Quite the predicament. Because the government cannot really tell the truth, it must take the blame. Or do as it has done (and done so with no shame for provoking incredulity), and claim that the entire protest is a foreign provocation.
The Cuban government and its sinecure functionaries must always declare that any grassroots grievances expressed en masse are always at its core the work of foreign ‘imperialist’ intelligence operations bent on a destabilization strategy.
Yet such accusations of foreign plots are more likely to be true than not.
Another problem, and this is something where the Cuban government needs to make a fix, is the issue of dollar accounts.
Those with dollar accounts are tremendously less affected by the perishable goods inflation crisis in Cuba. But those deposits are only possible by having loved ones who have left Cuba for the US. So those who have ‘betrayed’ the revolution are the ones able to help those in Cuba. Those in Cuba living better off are not those who have been loyal to the socialism project of Cuba excepting a small layer of bureaucrats and professional snitches, but instead are the relatives of those gusanos in Florida and the rest of the US who have moved on to greener pastures.
What sort of message does that send? This greatly weakens the legitimacy of the government, because those common-folk who defend the Cuban system are left feeling like fools. When this layer joins a protest movement, the government’s days are numbered.
Cuba – Between a Rock and a Hard-Spot
Color Revolution schemes cannot work unless there are real-existing grievances shared among large segments of the population.
And yet going further, those real-existing grievances today, (while they compound longer standing ones which the Cuban government must account for), are directly caused by the IMF’s decision to bring global capitalism to a grinding halt for some period of time.
It is very difficult for a nominally sovereign government to tell a Thatcherite story of ‘TINA’ – there is no alternative. Cuba lacks alternatives except going either the path of the Khmer Rouge, or the path of laissez-faire. It has chosen some middle-path.
This really touches on a very big problem Cuba faces: its civilizational decision to place its legitimacy at the hands of international organizations related to global governance. Cuba strives to show its own citizens, and perhaps secondarily the US, that the rest of the world and especially the UN’s alphabet soup of agencies and organizations, recognize any number of successes that Cuba promotes having accomplished. To wit, at least within the rubric of those accounting systems, Cuba makes a decent case.
So a problem arises when this very same system of global governance, under the pretext of fighting Covid-19, instructs various countries to commit ritual seppuku at the altar of world health in order to preserve this status and these relationships to global trade and global governance.
And how? The western hemisphere is controlled almost entirely by the IMF and global banking systems. Cuba exists in some netherworld of ‘helpful harm’, if not through the US due to sanctions, then through the same banks in their Trans-Atlantic incarnations by way of Europe.
Since we understand that the WHO is effectively controlled by allies of the World Economic Forum like Bill Gates, which in turn is the think-tank of the IMF; and since the IMF includes in its bylaws and requirements that countries in a time of a declared global pandemic by the WHO must take the proscribed measures to combat this, then we understand what we have seen as a global phenomenon.
It’s been only a handful of leaders, several in Africa, in Haiti, and Belarus, that have openly bucked these provisions. And of these, all have been since eliminated except for Lukashenko in Belarus who no doubt enjoys some security provisions from the Russian Federation.
The Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC) explains that in 2019, “The top exports of Cuba are Rolled Tobacco ($287M), Raw Sugar ($211M), Nickel Mattes ($134M), Hard Liquor ($97.3M), and Zinc Ore ($78.4M), exporting mostly to China ($461M), Spain ($127M), Netherlands ($65.5M), Germany ($64.7M), and Cyprus ($48.9M).
The top imports of Cuba are Poultry Meat ($286M), Wheat ($181M), Soybean Meal ($167M), Corn ($146M), and Concentrated Milk ($136M), importing mostly from Spain ($1.01B), China ($790M), Italy ($327M), Canada ($285M), and Russia ($285M).”
Hence Cuba was placed in a pincer move. It lost massively from the global plandemic and the restriction of supply lines, the tightened access to imports, the loss of tourism. The compliance of other countries to the IMF’s mandated economic implosion reduced demand for Cuba’s exports and damaged tourism as well.
But in order to maintain its own relationship with the IMF and also following the global narrative of the Socialist International (2nd International), (an EU driven social-democratic association of governments and political parties), it went along with the ‘solidarity’ driven component of woke politics seen in the ‘do-your-part’ masking and lockdowns.
But those harmed by the lockdowns were ordinary Cubans, not government officials or those with dollar accounts. And so the reaction we see today is a predictable one.
Conclusion
There can be no doubt: Cuba’s present crisis is not the direct result of its own economic mismanagement, but rather the staged demolition of finance, global trade, and supply lines using the Covid pandemic as a pretext. However, a number of social and political decisions by Cuban leaders have no doubt compounded the impact of the crisis and emboldened protesters.
What citizens in first world countries have seen as a ‘stock market rebound’ predicated by ‘too-big-too-fail’ type bailouts (socialism for the rich), are only possible so long as those moneys are held on the books but not really spent – hence the lockdowns. At least not spent in such a way as would this liquidity naturally circulate in the economy. For such velocity of moneys based on such extreme debasement of the currency, would lead to the largest inflationary crisis in the history of man on earth.
In raw-materials producing countries like Cuba, that has meant a tripled hardship. The aim of the centers of finance capital has been to do something like the Arab Spring, only more so.
At the same time, the Cuban government’s defensive and accusatory posture is poor optics and bad politics. It needs to better engage the protestors and validate some part of their grievances. Pointing the finger at Uncle Sam is tone deaf and only serves to satisfy a single demographic in Cuba.
Today, we are seeing only the start of a fresh wave of global destabilization efforts, never-ending wars. But now governments have prepared the civilian populations for these wars under the pretext of never-ending lockdowns due to a mystery illness. The right to protest, strikes, and the basic social contact needed to organize these can be revoked by instantaneous mandate as some new variant of Covid will always invariably be discovered. This is the biggest threat humanity faces since the Second World War, but in addition to destabilization campaigns, is the backdrop of a class-war gambit of the oligarchy against everyday people. Cuba needs to be understood in this light, and while it needs a better approach to managing the Covid narrative and hearing its people, foreign meddling in its affairs needs to be opposed.
July 16, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Economics | Covid-19, Cuba, Latin America |
Leave a comment
Yesterday we reported evidence given to the German-led international Corona Investigative Committee on Friday July 9 by Dr David Martin, who runs a US company monitoring innovations relevant to financial interests. He said a review of more than 4,000 patents issued around the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) coronavirus had led to the dramatic conclusion: ‘We made SARS’. Today we continue an account of his evidence, of which the live-streamed video is here.
THE United States has a federal law known as the RICO Act. It sounds friendly, but is aimed at something deadly: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations. It was introduced due to the complexity of bringing successful charges against organised crime gangs.
Dr David Martin told the Corona Investigative Committee that in April 2003, a US drug company applied for a patent on anti-viral agents, treatment, and control of infections by coronavirus, just three days after the Centres for Disease Control sought to patent the SARS coronavirus itself – in a supposedly secret application. The first SARS outbreak had occurred in February that year in China.
His description led the inquiry committee chairman, German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich, who specialises in exposing corporate swindles, to comment: ‘This could well blow up into a RICO case ultimately.’
Martin replied: ‘Not could blow up – it is a RICO case. And the RICO pattern which was established in April 2003 for the first coronavirus was played out to exactly the same schedule when we see SARS-COV-2 show up.’
He claimed that Moderna (originally ModeRNA) were given the genetic sequence for the spike protein that forms the basis of their Covid vaccine by phone from the vaccine research centre at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases even before the novel subclade of the virus had been defined. ‘How do you treat a thing before you actually have the thing?’ he asked.
Moderna (originally ModeRNA Therapeutics) is a Massachusetts-based company founded in 2010 by a team of investors to develop RNA (ribonucleic acid) technology, thought to hold huge promise in harnessing the power of RNA code to make new medicines inside our bodies.
Another important date, Martin said, is June 5, 2008. This was around the time when the Defence Advanced Research Programme (DARPA) in the US took an interest in coronavirus as a biological weapon. It was also the date when a drug company, now part of the Paris-based pharma giant Sanofi, filed a series of patents targeting genes that 12 years later are said to be the novel features of SARS-COV-2 that make it a health hazard for humans.
From 2008 onwards, patent filings from numerous organisations identified ‘every attribute’ of the virus, as it eventually came to be described. The reference paper routinely used to identify it, published in March 2020, claimed to show that the novel features had come about in nature, and that the virus ‘originated from multiple naturally-occurring recombinant events among those viruses present in bats and other wildlife species’.
Martin said: ‘Unfortunately, if you actually take what they report to be novel, you find 73 patents, issued between 2008 and 2019, which have the elements which are allegedly novel in SARS-COV-2. So – there was no outbreak of SARS, because we had engineered all of the elements of that.’
The supposedly new virus had been said since 2016 to be poised for human emergence. But ‘it was not only poised for human emergence, it was patented for commercial exploitation – 73 times,’ Martin said. ‘Any assertion that this pathogen is somehow unique or novel falls apart on the actual gene sequences, which are published in the patent record.’
Researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (who collaborated with the laboratory in Wuhan, China, in the coronavirus ‘gain of function’ work) along with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Moderna, began the sequencing of a spike protein vaccine in November 2019, a month before the Wuhan outbreak happened.
Martin also challenged the idea that injecting people with the RNA sequence for the spike protein is a true vaccine. The theory behind it is that by teaching the immune system to recognise the protein, which in itself has toxic effects, the body will be better equipped to deal with the toxin when exposed to the virus.
‘The illusion that we continue unfortunately to see very well-meaning people get trapped in, is conversations about whether we are having a vaccine for a virus. The fact is, we’re not. We are injecting a spike protein RNA sequence, which is a computer simulation of a sequence which has been known and patented for years. It’s not derived from nature.
‘The ludicrous nature of the story that this is somehow prophylactic or preventative flies in the face of 100 per cent of the evidence, because the evidence makes it abundantly clear that there has been no effort by any pharmaceutical company to combat the virus. This is about getting people injected with the known-to-be harmful spike protein.’
The reason for doing that, he argues, is to get people ‘addicted’ to a pan-coronavirus vaccine. There had been a decade-long, pan-influenza vaccine mandate, ‘desperately, desperately, desperately promoted by governments around the world. They failed. And they decided if influenza doesn’t deliver, on the public promise of getting everybody to get an injection, let’s change the pathogen.
‘You need to create the illusion of a demand, and there is nothing right now that does a better job of creating the illusion of demand than the urgency of an event you have manufactured.
‘Here’s the sad and sober irony: I raised these issues in 2002, after the anthrax scare, and the tragedy is we are now sitting in a world where we have hundreds of millions of people who are being injected with a pathogen-stimulating computer sequence which is being sold under what the Patent Office, the medical profession, and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in its own clinical standards would not suggest is a vaccine. But by using the term, we are now subjecting hundreds of millions of people to what was known by 2005 to be a biological weapon.’
The video of Martin’s live-streamed evidence is already receiving tens of thousands of views. At the very least, the data he presents surely should put to rest the idea of the virus as a product of nature that just happened to develop the capacity to jump from animals to humans.
This in itself has enormous implications. For one thing, why should we believe the claims by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness (CEPI), launched in 2017 with a huge cash infusion from the Gates Foundation, that a proposed 3.5billion-dollar quest for a universal coronavirus vaccine to ‘contain SARS-COV-2 and its variants’ is either a desirable or an achievable goal?
Urging support for the plan, co-founder Bill Gates said ‘CEPI has helped the global science community do something incredible: develop Covid-19 vaccines in less than a year.’ That claim sounds more than hollow in the light of the 20-year patent trail revealed by Martin.
What’s more, Martin spelled out a case that even the alleged SARS ‘variants’ of the coronavirus are artificial, representing the identification of different gene fragments rather than genuine variations.
‘It’s just an alteration in when you start and stop what you call the reading frame,’ he said. ‘If what we are looking for is something we have decided is worth looking for, then we’ll find it … where I choose to start or stop, I can say I found it. Or I didn’t find it! I didn’t find the match that I projected on to the data, because I chose to look at the data in a way that I could not find the match.’
With government advisers seemingly pulling ‘new variants’ out of the bag whenever they feel the grip of terror is lessening, this is another area calling for a sober reassessment of what is really going on.
July 15, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
As the Biden administration called “medical misinformation” a public health threat, the White House said it was working with social media to flag “problematic” posts. Critics called it an end-run around the First Amendment.
“We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Thursday. In addition to directing the company to censor people, the government is also working to “get trusted content out there” by putting medical professionals in touch with social media influencers.
Psaki’s admission came after Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory declaring misinformation “an imminent and insidious threat to our nation’s health.”
“Misinformation takes away our freedom to make informed decisions about our health and the health of our loved ones,” Murthy said at the White House. During just the Covid-19 pandemic, it has led to Americans refusing to wear masks, “turn down proven treatments” and choosing not to get vaccinated, which, he said, cost lives.
Murthy is a “tyrant” who wants “Big Tech to crack down on what amounts to open inquiry and free exchange of ideas,” commented journalist Jordan Schachtel, one of the notable skeptics when it comes to official pandemic narratives.
Looking at the surgeon general’s recommendations, Grabien’s Tom Elliott pointed out that the government is literally instructing private companies to “abridge the freedom of speech, and of the press, and the rights of people to peaceably assemble and petition the gov’t for redresses of grievances” – in other words, violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who helped publish NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations about surveillance abuse in 2013, called this union of corporate and state power “one of the classic hallmarks of fascism.”
“If you don’t find it deeply disturbing that the White House is ‘flagging’ internet content that they deem ‘problematic’ to their Facebook allies for removal, then you are definitionally an authoritarian,” said Greenwald.
“This is ‘Ministry of Truth’ level malfeasance. They’re literally admitting to colluding with [the] media to control the narrative. This is censorship,” tweeted Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), adding that such tactics befit dictatorships and that throttling speech with which the government disagrees crosses a line.
Conservative columnist Stacey Lennox argued that censorship would actually make Americans question the White House’s narrative even more.
“If your ideas are the best, they can stand on their own. Censorship will make people question it more. Every. Single. Time,” she tweeted.
Democrats have clamored for social media to censor “misinformation” ever since the 2016 election, which resulted in the surprise victory of Republican Donald Trump over mainstream media favorite Hillary Clinton. The Trump campaign had bypassed corporate gatekeepers by reaching out to Americans directly via Twitter, Facebook, and other social media.
Four years later, under the pretext of fighting misinformation and “Russian interference,” thousands of users had been purged from the platforms, while Twitter and Facebook suppressed a newspaper for publishing a story about Joe Biden’s son Hunter and the information found on his laptop. They also cracked down on any questions about new electoral practices, such as mass mail-in voting, labeling them “misinformation.”
The Biden campaign actually demanded Facebook censor Trump himself for “misinformation,” which the platform initially refused to do.
Eventually, however, Trump was banned from all social media platforms – while he was still the sitting president – as much for allegedly “inciting violence” over the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, as for continuing to argue the 2020 election wasn’t honest.
July 15, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Covid-19, Facebook, United States |
Leave a comment
Who needs privacy?
The White House is tying itself in knots to silence anyone questioning the mainstream Covid-19 narrative, and, whatever you think of vaccines, its latest plans are only the first step toward making thoughtcrime a reality.
The US government is done playing “good cop” with regard to the “vaccine hesitant.” The Biden administration, which recently opted to send ‘volunteer’ vaccinators door to door in what may be the most ill-thought-out public health campaign in US history, doesn’t just want to meddle with your body anymore – its plans to control “misinformation” you may send by SMS text message indicate it’s intent on controlling your mind as well.
White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci is leading the crusade, blaming “Fox News or whomever” for crafting the vision of “a bunch of federal workers knocking on your door, telling you you’ve got to do something that you don’t want to do.” Fauci clarified that it wasn’t government officials, but “trusted messengers who are part of the community”. Noticeably, he didn’t address the “doing something you don’t want to do” part – a telling oversight in the minds of those who are convinced the campaign is indeed a coercive one and those who’ve been paying closer attention to who makes up the door-to-door vax packs.
While Politico insisted on Monday that these teams talked up by Biden and Psaki were merely delivering information on vaccination, not administering the jabs, a Tuesday report from a local TV network in Mecklenburg, North Carolina showed precisely the opposite, proudly announcing one man was so excited by the visit he chose to get the shot right then and there on his porch.
Who are you going to believe, then, America? The TV or your lying eyes?
And this campaign is far from a single-pronged strategy. According to Politico, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and “Biden-allied groups” – whatever that last phrase means – have plans to “engage fact-checkers more aggressively” and “work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages.”
Yes, you read that correctly. The White House plans to interfere with people’s ability to send text messages if it doesn’t like what they say. This is not a question of whether one supports or rejects the Covid-19 vaccine campaign, or what one thinks about vaccines at all; this is the curtain being yanked back on the police state the US has long insisted it isn’t (but that all its enemies are). It’s Washington rearing up with bared teeth, concealing its scabrous pelt in a lab coat, and hoping you don’t see the claws grasping the syringe. The US gave up its moral authority regarding freedom of the press somewhere between the Pentagon Papers and the revelations of Operation Mockingbird, but interfering with the content of individual text messages sent between innocent civilians brings the nation much deeper into the thickets of fascism than it has ever dared venture before, to a spot where it seems intent on setting up shop permanently.
Shots in the Hood ‘Strike Force’
Ultimately, the issue goes far beyond the pandemic to how much power Americans are willing to cede to a government that – based on statistics, at least – less than a quarter actually supported in the last election, a result framed as an accomplishment that speaks more to apathy. This is why the narrative managers don’t replace Fauci. When they really need credibility, they deputize trusted community members – a tactic they’ve been quite open about using, recently to middling success in Chicago’s Englewood neighborhood, where a local barber shop participated in Biden’s “Shots at the Shops” campaign to flood some of the city’s most dangerous, crime-plagued black neighborhoods with what were portrayed as clever, street-smart vaccination teams eager to save the lives of their fellow man.
That way, when whatever health campaign (or other government initiative) those barber shops (or other incursion on constitutional freedoms) have tied their credibility to suffers a hit – and the Englewood appearance wasn’t anything to write home about – it’s the trusted local institution that takes the blame. The overarching public-private partnership – that Faustian (Faucian?) pact between business and government – is one of the defining elements of fascism. But it’s become so common and normalized under Biden’s Covid-19 “Build Back Better” project that the average American thinks nothing about seeing all their local businesses getting into bed with the private equity firms such as BlackRock and Blackstone that have quietly bought up their neighborhoods during the pandemic – or as far back as the 2008 crash. After all, these groups know enough to shroud themselves in rainbows and climate-babble, and that’s all most people care about these days when vetting who they will allow to own them.
Search and Stick
More importantly, if White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki can look Americans in the eye and claim no one’s being vaccinated on the search-and-inoculate missions in North Carolina, while the next TV channel shows exactly that happening, a seed of cognitive dissonance is successfully sown that allows a person to believe two mutually exclusive “truths.” Even if we know at some basic level the government is lying to us, we don’t want to believe our trusted neighborhood fixtures are also doing so. The Biden administration’s recently declared scorched-earth campaign thus has the potential to sabotage trust in as many ways as there are trusting relationships in a community, and it doesn’t care what happens to those people as long as it gets control of the American mind at the end of the road. Families might be shredded and homes torn apart over the FBI’s recent announcement that we must snitch on our fellow man lest ill-defined “extremism” take root somewhere, but Blackstone and Vanguard turned record profits this year, and that’s what matters.
Americans seem to believe the Covid-19 pandemic is winding down – a Gallup poll early last month suggested nearly three in five Americans believe their lives are either “somewhat” or “completely” back to normal after 18 months of being put through their Pavlovian paces in what the World Economic Forum admits was the world’s largest-ever psychological experiment. But the narrative managers have only begun declaring war – not on the virus, or even so much on how we think about it, but how we think about them.
Former George W. Bush administration official John Bridgeland warned Politico on Tuesday that “lies” (not necessarily about vaccines, but that create “communities already wary of the vaccines”) are “potentially a death sentence.” Now what kind of government official would he be if he allowed some family who just wanted to be left alone with their “death sentence” to go back to their dinner? Not a very effective one, that’s for sure! Bridgeland didn’t say what kind of “lies” made people more susceptible to death by Covid-19, but no doubt he’d like to spend a long time digging through your phone to make sure you’re not harboring any.
Humanity must be primed for the next crisis, after all. Whether that’s a “climate lockdown” or a fake alien invasion, we’re being primed for another metaphysical gut punch meant to turn us against ourselves. At that point, resistance will no longer be optional, it will be a matter of survival – but your phone won’t let you text that to anybody.
Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Telegram
July 15, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
Since COVID-19 hit the scene at the beginning of 2020, one of the key elements driving the fear around this disease is that there appeared to be no cure. And, for people who got infected with COVID-19, the guidance coming from major global institutions such as the NIH (US National Institutes of Health) and the CDC (US Centres for Disease Control) was basically “do nothing, stay home, and when you turn blue go to the hospital.” This public health policy prescription was usually followed by the qualifying caveat, “this is our only approach until a vaccine arrives.”
This, clearly, has terrified people all around the world. For the majority of the world’s population the belief has been that catching COVID-19 is a veritable death sentence. Which leads us to an important question. How would things change if there were, in fact, effective treatments for COVID-19?
I have just come out of a fascinating 90-minute press conference and Zoom call, delivered by the Malaysian Alliance for Effective COVID Control (MAECC). This was very much a “good news” presentation. The main message? There are very effective treatments for COVID-19.
The essence of the discussion in the MAECC session focused on the drug Ivermectin. The Doctors found it necessary to do a press conference and public presentation because the widespread use of Ivermectin in Malaysia is currently illegal. A doctor prescribing Ivermectin for his COVID-19 patients was recently raided by police!
Malaysian doctors are not doing leading edge research here, but simply trying to care for their patients by working to get a proven treatment officially accepted for use in Malaysia. Ivermectin has already been used very successfully in many places around the world where media hysteria did not get it banned from the shelves. Mexico has used it to great effect, as did Peru. Over the last few weeks, reports coming out of India are demonstrating massive benefits from Ivermectin.
There is already a 97% decline in cases in New Delhi, India. Indeed, four other Indian states that are using Ivermectin now report decreases in cases by 60% to 95%. However, other states that have blocked the use of Ivermectin have increases in cases by several hundred percent – the exponential explosion that everyone is terrified of!
As The Desert Review says in their report, “It is a clear refutation of the WHO, FDA, NIH, and CDC’s policies of ‘wait at home until you turn blue’ before you get treatment.”
Before you buy into the criticism that these are only “observational studies” and haven’t been tested by large scale, randomized control trials approved by the WHO, CDC, NIH, FDA etc. it’s important to realize that the only type of studies that are apparently good enough for such institutions these days are those which are so large and complex that only multi-national pharmaceutical companies are able to run and fund them.
That said, you should know that 56 studies on Ivermectin, 17 of them being Randomized Control Trials, have clearly demonstrated very positive effects from Ivermectin. A site doing real-time meta-analysis of all the Ivermectin studies as they get published summarizes the results as follows: “100% of the 17 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early treatment and prophylaxis report positive effects, with an estimated improvement of 73% and 83% respectively”.
They also make the point that “The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 56 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 2 trillion (p = 0.00000000000041).” You can check this information yourself directly on their site (Source: https://ivmmeta.com).
Another effective protocol for prophylaxis and early treatment of COVID-19 is Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with Zinc. As of this writing, 248 trials of HCQ used for treating COVID-19 have been completed, by 3,972 scientists, with 378,812 patients. We can see 66% improvement in 26 early treatment trials, 75% improvement in 11 early treatment mortality results, and 24% improvement in 35 randomized controlled trials. These results are publicly available on a database that is tracking all HCQ studies to date. You can see those studies here at https://c19hcq.com.
There are also a number of other effective treatments for COVID-19 that we don’t have space for here.
What’s important to understand is that these effective treatments have been used since mid-2020. Which raises a very important point. If these treatments are so effective, why haven’t we heard about them? Why aren’t they being used everywhere? It appears that, for some reason, information about the effectiveness of these treatments is being suppressed.
For instance, “Fact checkers” will tell you that HCQ or Ivermectin aren’t authorized by major institutions like the FDA, CDC, or WHO (as if such organizations are supposed to set and police policy rather than simply providing guidance). They will also try to discount any positive results using ad hominem attacks and smears, such as pointing out that a person using one of these treatments may have at some time in the past, voiced “anti-vaccine sentiments” (whatever that may be). You can see an example here: https://factcheck.afp.com/ivermectin-and-hydroxychloroquine-are-not-proven-covid-19-treatments
The censorship extends to Social Media. A whole list of front-line doctors who have successfully used some of these treatments have had their accounts removed from Social Media platforms, simply because information they provided about their successes was deemed “contrary to guidelines from the WHO” by the various Big Tech platforms. I have personally witnessed the de-platforming of literally dozens of highly respected, professional, front line doctors and researchers.
De-platforming is not the only concern. It appears that in the attempts to discredit effective treatments for COVID-19, anything goes. A study which came out in The Lancet mid-2020 supposedly showing that HCQ was dangerous was subsequently withdrawn due to the study being fraudulent.
Sadly, this withdrawal happened only after the damage was done, and HCQ had been successfully kicked to the curb in many places around the world – even up to the point that in some jurisdictions doctors could be jailed for prescribing it!
You may ask: “How did these studies that were apparently designed to falsify the effects of a widely used drug, pass peer review in the world’s premier medical science journals – The Lancet as well as The New England Journal of Medicine ?” The details of this sordid tale can be found here:
https://ahrp.org/the-lancet-published-a-fraudulent-study-editor-calls-it-department-of-error/
If one digs, it appears that the main reason that we have not heard of these effective treatments is that the WHO and the CDC and other major institutions do not approve of the use of any alternative treatments, unless these are being tested in a clinical trial (which it seems only they can approve of). For instance, the US National Institutes for Health (NIH) guidelines state: “The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) recommends against the use of any drugs for SARS-CoV-2 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), except in a clinical trial (AIII).” See the PDF document here: https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/covid19treatmentguidelines.pdf
This is indeed strange, especially in the middle of a pandemic. One would expect that, in order to save patient lives, doctors would look for and try medicines that might possibly work, as long as there were no safety issues. When clearly there is evidence of no-harm, and increasingly powerful evidence that certain treatments can save lives, it would be highly unethical for Doctors NOT to start using such treatments. Doctors use medicines for purposes other than those listed on the label all the time!
Since Ivermectin and HCQ are both on the WHO list of essential medicines and have been so for a long time – decades in the case of HCQ – the world knows about the safety and dosage of these medicines. As an example, since 1992, Ivermectin has only been linked to 16 deaths, whereas deaths linked to the COVID-19 vaccines are now in the thousands (information from the Uppsala Drug Monitoring Centre run by the WHO (https://www.who-umc.org) via Prof Paul Marik, Chief of Critical Care & Pulmonary Medicine, EVM, USA).
Clearly, something appears very much out of balance here. There ARE effective treatments for COVID-19, yet the institutions that we rely on for medical guidance appear to be ignoring, or even suppressing these treatments – even though they are known to be safe after many decades of use. Despite their known safety, neither Ivermectin nor HCQ have been able to obtain even an EAU (Emergency Use Authorization)!
At the same time, new creations that have only had very limited testing, and for which the safety cannot be known in such a short period of time, are approved for emergency use.
The world economy is now in dire straits, with entire populations having been essentially under house arrest for the better part of 18 months. People continue to die from (or with) COVID-19 without treatments being available. And we are now seeing important examples of breakout infections in people who have already been vaccinated against COVID-19. As Reuters reported just a few days ago, “Hundreds of vaccinated Indonesian health workers get COVID-19, dozens in hospital”. This is just one many similar news stories reporting the very same phenomenon.
According to the pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves, the current range of emergency use vaccines do not actually provide immunity and only “reduce severe symptoms” of COVID-19. While this issue has yet to be fully resolved, many in the mainstream are still claiming that these vaccines will “inoculate” the recipient against the novel coronavirus. Therefore, these jabs should rightly be categorised as a type of treatment against the disease of COVID-19, and not a vaccine against the said pathogen, the SARSCoV2 coronavirus.
It goes without saying that the wide availability of cheap and effective drug treatments for COVID would severely undermine the widely touted mainstream claim that mass-vaccinations are the only solution to slowing down or ‘defeating’ a supposed global pandemic.
Clearly, effective treatments are absolutely required at this point. The good news is that there are such treatments available.
With effective treatments in hand, the global COVID-19 situation could end in as little as a few weeks. The world CAN return to normal. Sadly, there seem to be forces at work blocking such an outcome.
We need to ask: why are these effective treatments not being allowed in so many places? Why is information about these treatments being suppressed? Perhaps the fact that treatments like Ivermectin and HCQ are off patent and extremely cheap might give us a clue.
***
Author Chris Lonsdale is a psychologist, linguist, educator, entrepreneur, dialogue facilitator and corporate advisor with over thirty years experience doing business in Asia.
July 15, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | CDC, Covid-19, HCQ, Ivermectin, NIH, WHO |
Leave a comment
On 28 May 2021, I gave evidence to the 54th session of the Stiftung Corona Ausschuss, the German-based extraparliamentary inquiry by lawyers into the medical establishment’s and public policymakers’ handling of the Covid crisis internationally.
The theme for the day during the 54th session was “Caught between nudging and side effects”. A transcript of my testimony is below.
Auch auf Deutsch erhältlich.
Reiner Füllmich: Brian, I apologise for having kept you waiting for twenty minutes or so.
Brian Gerrish: That’s absolutely fine, and I’d just like to say that I don’t speak German but it was fascinating watching you and listening, and it was wonderful to see you start laughing, because you looked very serious in most of the dialogues that I’ve listened to.
There was one word that I picked up that I found very interesting, and that was Wahnsinn, which came up several times, particularly when [persecuted primary school headmistress] Bianca was speaking.
Reiner Füllmich: You know what it means, right?
Brian Gerrish: Yes, “madness”. And I’m going to say to you: it’s not madness. What we are facing is calculated, and it’s a mistake to call it “madness”, because it’s very precise; it’s very calculated. We need to understand that in order to be able to deal with what we’re facing.
Reiner Füllmich: That’s very interesting to hear, because we have come to the conclusion that “the other side”, as we call them, is using two major tools. One is, of course, psychology, psychological operations; and the other, which transports this psychological operation, is the mainstream media.
Can you tell us a little about your background?
Brian Gerrish: Well, my personal background is, professionally, I was military: I was in the Royal Navy for twenty-one years. I then worked in industry, essentially, for a while, but after a few years, I began to understand that things were not good in the UK, and I began to see things and investigate things.
Ultimately, that’s led me, over nearly another twenty years, to team up with a gentleman called Mike Robinson, and for fourteen years now, we’ve been running a media outlet called the UK Column, where I’m delighted to say that we’re expanding, and it’s clear that our viewers and listeners are now not only in the UK; they’re across the world.
Reiner Füllmich: Excellent. And now, of course, you’re busy covering Coronavirus and all the ramifications of what Coronavirus is bringing about.
Brian Gerrish: Well, the key point is that we originally started by looking at some of the issues that you’ve just mentioned. We we were looking at how propaganda had come into the country; we were looking at the use of applied behavioural psychology by the Government; and we were looking at changes which were very serious (or we thought they were very serious) that were particularly affecting the style of democracy, and that were also affecting our constitutional rights.
It was against that background of reporting that we have then encountered, obviously, what’s happened with Coronavirus. So I would say to you that our analysis of what has happened with Coronavirus is seen very much against the background of what was happening politically, and in particular the use of applied behavioural psychology and propaganda.
Viviane Fischer: So what do you think is the “calculated madness”? The [description] “madness” is more our judgement from when we look at what was the normal status of things before. No-one would have thought, had you asked us a year ago, that this could have ever happened; at least not us, I guess.
And also, we were really surprised how the legal system has deteriorated, or at least, how it has become obvious that it is really in bad shape. But we also have the feeling, at the same time, that it’s very orchestrated, what’s happening: that it’s like a jigsaw puzzle. They move this piece and this piece, and then the picture is becoming more and more clear what’s going on. But what are your experiences or your analysis of the situation?
Brian Gerrish: First of all, I’d agree with you that the Coronavirus “pandemic”, if we want to call it that in inverted commas, did catch everybody by surprise. I don’t think we saw that coming, and it happened very quickly. So I’d certainly agree with you on that.
But I’ll come back to the fact that we started to see very, very serious things things happening in the UK. If I just focus immediately on the Government’s use of applied behavioural psychology: back in 2010 and 2011, we as the UK Column were warning that the Government had set up a team which was called the Behavioural Insights Team [UK Column note: whose former homepage address ‘behaviouralinsights.co.uk’ now redirects to the consciously globalist ‘bi.team’]. This was a team of psychologists who were working directly alongside not only the political process, but the policy-forming process within the British Government.
A critical document which we found in 2010 was called Mindspace (you can find it very easily by searching online for it as a PDF document). In that document, the Government admitted that it was using applied behavioural psychology to influence how it designed policy and how it implemented policy.
At one particular point in that document—in fact, it’s at the bottom of page 66, if I remember correctly—the Government boasts that it can change the way people think and behave, and that people will not be aware that this has been done to them. But it adds the caveat that if they do realise that their behaviour is changed, they will not know how it was changed.
We read this document and we were shocked, and we then started to research further. That then led us to discover that, around that time and of course a little bit earlier, the British Government had been conducting meetings with the French, in which we were bringing the political psychology teams together to produce joint plans with the French. The key Frenchman who was present in the meetings was called Olivier Ouillier, and he was working directly at that time for Sarkozy’s private office.
Now, all these meetings were essentially held in secret. We were able to discover that they had taken place, but we were only able to discover that by carefully researching along specific routes which we understood were important. For example, most of these meetings were conducted under the guise that they were part of a charity, the Franco-British Council, which said it was simply set up in order to improve relationships between Britain and France.
So these meetings took place, and it was very clear that there was concerted effort to expand the use of these techniques: not only from Britain and France, but the implication at that time was that these techniques were going to be used across the wider power base of the European Union.
And I’ll just say again that the Mindspace document was boasting that this was the first time the Government would be able to use applied techniques where people would have their behaviour changed—that means their thoughts changed!—and they wouldn’t even be aware that it had occurred.
Reiner Füllmich: For what purpose?
Brian Gerrish: Well, if you want to execute power, then you’re going to try and use normal, democratic politics, or you’re going to try and use force, or you’re going to try and use other means.
And so this comes to me as other means. I have to say that when I saw how cynical this was, how calculated it was, when I was using effectively my military background, I could see that this was the use of raw power.
Now, if I jump forward into events around Covid: very early on in the Covid pandemic (I’ve called it a “pandemic”; of course, I don’t believe that that is what it is, but that’s how it was reported), it came to our attention that the Government scientific advisory group, SAGE, had actually had an internal meeting with elements of the Government’s Behavioural Insights Team.
The key gentleman concerned with this was a man called Dr David Halpern. That meeting was not properly minuted in a proper official sense, but they did put out a briefing sheet from the meeting, and in that document, which I think was dated 22 March 2020, it admitted that the SAGE team and the Government’s policy on Coronavirus was going to use applied psychology in order to ramp up fear in the population, in order to get the population to adhere more closely to the Government’s policy over the response to Coronavirus.
We have the document; we can provide you with a copy of that document.
Reiner Füllmich: Yes, please, because we have the same thing. It’s a leaked paper from the [Federal] Secretary of the Interior, and it is now referred to as the Panic Paper [UK Column note: reported by us on 10 February, commencing at 53:15].
Brian Gerrish: Yes, I’ve heard about the paper in Germany. I haven’t seen it or been able to read it in English. I’m going to suggest to you that that German paper would have come out of the specific talks that I just referred to. When we started to see that the British Government was having these secretive meetings with French applied behavioural psychology experts, it was clear to us that this was going to be rolled out in other European countries. So I was not surprised when I heard about that German document.
Now, in the SAGE document, aside from saying that they were going to ramp up fear, there was something very interesting. It said [UK Column note: in paras. 6–8 on p. 2] that inside [local] communities, community members were going to be used to effectively police each other. So people were going to be used to put pressure on their neighbours, for example, to wear a mask; to adhere to social distancing.
So it was very clear in what they were talking about that they were going to use this covert applied psychology to pressurise citizens to act against one another. And, significantly, they also said that this had to be done with some care, because they believed that it was possible that this situation could get out of control. Clearly, what they meant by that is that instead of having somebody saying to somebody else, “You should wear a mask!”, that requirement could be translated into violence.
Having told you about that document—very clear-cut, very specific—I now come back again to Bianca talking [just before Brian Gerrish], because I could understand a little bit of what she was talking about: she talked about angst, she was talking about stress.
Now, of course, the techniques that are being used on adults—these psychological techniques to induce stress and fear—are also being used on the children. I could only understand a tiny bit of what she was talking about, but I understood enough to grasp—correct me if I’m wrong—that the rules change, so she doesn’t know what the rules are from time to time.
Reiner Füllmich: Exactly, yes. Every week, they changed the rules [for schools], so that she had to sit at her desk over the weekend in order to figure out how to make these things work.
Brian Gerrish: Right. And what that is, the uncertainty and the change in the rules: that is part of the psychological attack. Because the uncertainty immediately is putting people in a position of stress and anxiety and confusion. And if we go back into the professional world of applied psychology, people who are in a distressed, confused state are very susceptible to further messages and instructions. If there’s a fire in a building and people are starting to panic, the first person that starts to give clear commands to the people, those commands will be followed. And that is due to the psychological state.
Now, I’m not professionally trained in psychology; I do know a reasonable amount, which I’ve now learnt as a result of the investigations that I do.
But the other point that I want to bring into this is that many years ago, we started to get very interested in a charity called Common Purpose. Common Purpose, as a charity, said it was there to create “future leaders in society”.
It effectively was like an octopus: it had tentacles, it got into the hospital system, it got into the police, it got into the military, it got into the schools. And once inside these organisations, it was essentially spreading a new philosophy in many areas.
Everything I’m saying to you is fully documented. I have a website which is packed full of documents talking about what this organisation was doing. It particularly went for children. In the earliest days, it was going for children of the age of about 11 to 14, but it also was interested in university students.
Aside from the fact that the people who went on [its] courses were selected, they were also keen to get younger people into their so-called training courses.
When I was investigating this organisation, because I was extremely suspicious about what it was doing (it was a very interesting claim to be “choosing future leaders” who were going to “lead beyond authority”!), [I found that] the training was clearly designed to produce people working in an organisation who were not working in the normal culture of the organisation. Common Purpose had given them a new set of values.
When I took some expert advice on how they were doing this, that was the first time that I was told about the technique of neurolinguistic programming. NLP is actually a form of hypnosis. You can look on the internet and you will find many consultancies providing training in NLP, and you will find many people providing training who say that it has a therapeutic [value], that it can be used to care for people and help people.
In essence, this is true; but what we were interested in is where we started to see the use of neurolinguistics in government policy.
So, [we must] bring these two together:
– It is a fact that the British Government set up a specific applied psychology team.
– It is a fact that that team was promoting ideas to make the population fearful around the pandemic.
But, on a much bigger scale, that team was using—amongst other things—NLP in order to influence virtually every document that the Government was producing.
I don’t know whether any of your team have come across NLP before, but I’ll say that it’s an open secret (you can go and research it, and many professional people teach it) that essentially it’s a form of hypnosis. And this means that you can put across ideas and concepts to people which are not necessarily just going through their conscious mind.
This is fact; this is not fiction.
Now, when you start to see NLP being used for political objectives, of course, the wider public is very, very vulnerable, because unless you have a little bit of training or knowledge of NLP, you won’t even realise that it’s being used on you, and it can be used in a verbal sense but it can also be used in writing.
So, for example, you can have a document in front of you: you many notice a full stop at the end of a sentence; that marker is in the wrong place, and you believe that somebody made a mistake when they were typing.
But this is not what NLP can do, because when you are reading the sentence and you come to the full stop, your conscious mind makes one decision but your subconscious mind makes another one. And it is perfectly possible to be writing documents where it appears that one message is being put across but actually a completely different message is being put to the audience.
If I bring this into the realm of Coronavirus reaction, we are now seeing that every statement made by the Government, every piece of paper that comes out, is invariably very carefully crafted, it’s very carefully put together, and I can see that in much of this documentation, carefully-applied behavioural psychology is being used in the written word.
To back that up, to reinforce that: we also have a government document where they are specifically boasting of being able to use psychology in written documents.
Viviane Fischer: So you think that also the leaked documents that we see [in Germany], like for instance this Panic Paper that was leaked by someone, or at least it was not officially put out—I mean, this created a lot of fear, I guess, also, because some people could see through the whole narrative then, after reading through the paper, but actually even the fact that it came out, and that some people read it or heard about it who were stuck in the fear narrative: maybe it even put them into more fear, just the way that it was designed.
I mean, that you get an outcry, that a lot of people were upset that the Government would use this picture of your Grandma basically being suffocated by you, the child who infects her with Coronavirus; but once this picture is kind of in the official realm, some people hear it and then have these fantasies in their head, and get even more afraid.
Brian Gerrish: Well, that is absolutely correct. We can see here in the UK that particularly the BBC has been using applied psychology in this way: heavily emotive, distressing photographs with very little factual reporting to support the image, the idea given in the photograph.
This is deliberate. It’s calculated. It’s now very easy to see that this is taking place.
So, [with] the background of everything that’s happened with the “pandemic”, we know that every speech that’s made, every document that goes out, is likely to contain a reinforcing psychological message.
But the other thing that I think that is important, from the UK at least; if we go back to 2010, when that Mindspace document was released, within a year we started to see the first exercises which were going to prepare for a pandemic.
So, in 2016 [N.B.: Brian said ‘2011’ by mistake, which was the year of the previous Pandemic Preparedness Paper], we had a thing called Exercise Cygnus, which was the UK influenza pandemic preparedness plan.
That was followed by other official documents talking about a possible future pandemic, and then in 2017, there was a very significant document called Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response [N.B.: Brian generalised the name as “Preparing for the Next Pandemic”].
What was, and what is, interesting in reading these documents is that some of them—not all, but some of them—qualify the document by saying, “Well, we can’t predict that a pandemic will happen: we can look long-term over what’s happened in the world; we can look back to 2018 and the flu pandemic and the damage; but we can’t be certain of when there will be another future pandemic.”
But suddenly, in a very short space of years, we can see in the UK a flurry of papers—and again, we can make these available to you—where, suddenly, people are all talking about “the coming pandemic”.
Now, these are UK political public documents. They are not even on the level of the SPARS Pandemic-type documents, where these big exercises have been run in America and elsewhere, looking at the possibility of a pandemic coming. This is a cluster of papers and supposed research in the UK which is quite extraordinary.
Is it a coincidence that in a few years, you have paper after paper warning that a pandemic is coming? What I can see when I read these papers is very little fact but a lot of emotive language.
And, of course, people who had a job in the public sector, in the lower government system, would have been very susceptible to reading this material and then thinking, “My goodness, we need to make local preparations for this!”
So I look at these documents, and I’m pretty confident that what we are seeing is the seeding of ideas of a coming pandemic.
Of course, those seeds were placed in people’s minds, and then the moment we started to get reports of a pandemic coming—particularly, for us [in Britain], from the BBC—people would have started to become worried, or would have started to think about that material and would have started to react in a way that the Government would want.
So we’ve got the substantive evidence showing that the British Government will and does use applied psychology to get its policies across, that substantive evidence saying that they’re going to go as far as making people fearful.
And I’ll add that if you make people stressed and fearful, you’re also going to give them mental health problems, and we now live in a country where there’s a huge rise in depression and suicides, none of which is being talked about in the mainstream press, because the increase in those adverse mental health effects has been so huge since the lockdown policies have been in place; this is an elephant in the room in the UK.
We have the evidence in documents of this type of calculated, destructive applied psychology; but then you can also see, if you start talking to people in public services, to doctors and nurses in the National Health Service here and the hospital service, they are telling us that they’ve also witnessed the sudden flood of these papers, effectively preparing them for a pandemic that was coming. Yet this was a pandemic that the papers said couldn’t be predicted!
Reiner Füllmich: Brian, at the beginning of today’s session, Dr Wolfgang Wodarg and I discussed the fact that a new narrative has been put out into the mainstream media, probably starting out in the United States with Fox News, and they have a host by the name of Tucker Carlson, who explained on one of his news shows that finally, there will be justice, because [Anthony] Fauci has been caught lying to the public about his involvement with the Wuhan virology lab, and how he had conducted gain-of-function experiments there, which was being financed behind the back of the American taxpayer, and against the will of the [US] Government, by US tax dollars.
But the real message wasn’t, “We’re going to get Fauci.” The real message was, “Fauci didn’t tell us that there was a dangerous virus that escaped from the Wuhan lab!” Now, in the meantime, we know that there was probably an accident at the Wuhan lab, but it didn’t cause any real damage. However, those people who seem to have been preparing for this agenda to be rolled out (as you just explained, and as others have explained to us before)—those people took this opportunity and used this as a springboard in order to start rolling out the “pandemic”, which is really a plandemic, and which is really only a PCR test pandemic.
Would you agree with that, that in reality—and this is really important—we do not have a dangerous virus, because the WHO, in accordance with what John Ioannidis says, put the danger of this pandemic at about the level of a common flu: 0.14 or 0.15% infection-fatality rate; so would you agree that this is really not a pandemic but this is a co-ordinated effort?
As you said when you first started talking to us, this is not madness, it is a calculated effort which uses lots of psychology, NLP, in order to keep people in fear, in order to make them do things that they otherwise wouldn’t do?
Brian Gerrish: I certainly do believe that. There’s a number of points there in what you’ve just said to me.
The first important one is: all of the evidence that’s come in through the UK Column, and our analysis, has shown that even the Government’s own statistics have proven that what is happening is effectively a normal flu season. And although they tried extremely hard to manipulate and skew, bend the statistics, the Office for National Statistics in the UK actually did its job: the statistics that that centre pushed out to the public were actually correct, and showed that there was no pandemic. But the Government’s interpretation of it was a blatant twisting of the facts and information.
Reiner Füllmich: The same thing happened here.
Brian Gerrish: Yes, and I can reinforce that statement by saying to you that we now have a stream of people coming to us—doctors and nurses—saying that at the time when the British Government was claiming hospitals were full of Covid patients, they were not full.
Even specialist facilities that were created in hospitals never had a single patient going through them, never mind the big centre set up in London for thousands of patients that ended up, I think, with about 63 patients in a multi-thousand [bed] facility!
In hospitals, we have had hospital consultants [senior treating physicians] telling us that they were responsible for setting up specialist Covid wards, which they did, and when those wards were set up, they never had a single Covid patient in them.
And while that was happening, the British Government sent elderly people, who clearly did have flu—they were in the hospitals and they had flu, they were ill—the Government sent those elderly people in their thousands back into the care and residential homes, where of course, in a closed environment, that infection spread.
Even the wider press—certainly the newspapers in the UK: the Daily Express, I think the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian—all reported at one stage that the evidence was that tens of thousands of elderly people had died unnecessarily. Now, the experts that talk to us at the UK Column say the figure is not tens of thousands; it’s hundreds of thousands.
So, we have the lie over whether it was a pandemic, and one of the tricks that the British Government and the BBC have used is that they talk about the statistics relating to Covid-19 in a cumulative sense. They keep adding the figures together. But, of course, flu is always logged as a seasonal occurrence.
A flu season comes, people catch flu, some people die—that’s always the case—and then, as the weather gets better, flu disappears. And then, next winter, that is a new flu season, and the statistics start again. But with Covid, the statistics have been added across the two seasons.
Now, this is the use of psychology to manipulate people’s minds. It’s absolutely blatant.
You mentioned Fauci. I believe that what you’re seeing at the moment is a smokescreen. Yes, there are questions that need to be asked about what was happening in the Wuhan lab, and certainly we know that it has been standard procedure for many years that if a vaccine is to be created, the pharmaceutical companies will enhance a virus strain as part of their techniques for producing a new virus; so we can imagine that in any laboratory, dangerous enhanced viruses might be created.
So we know that laboratories are doing what is essentially dangerous work on the enhancements of viruses, so it is of course possible that something escaped.
But I think that the timing of the suddenly turning of attention back to Fauci is very interesting, and I believe that this is being done because they know that the wider public is starting to ask the right questions about what has been done as a result of the Covid-19 vaccination policy. So, to try to distract people away from asking the key questions about vaccination, they’re now coming back to Fauci.
And the other man who has suddenly disappeared from the public arena is Bill Gates. Now, why has Bill Gates disappeared? Well, there are a number of interesting questions, but the first problem he faced was that it became known that he had a friendship with Epstein.
So, all of a sudden, Mr Bill Gates has gone from being the squeaky clean, well-behaved entrepreneurial philanthropic businessman to being smeared with the fact that he had a very questionable friendship with [Jeffrey] Epstein. And Melinda Gates has now said that she warned her husband about that relationship many years ago.
So, suddenly, Bill Gates has been exposed in the wider media. That happened first, and now suddenly we’re getting attention focused back on Fauci. My feeling is that the people who are responsible for this despicable plan have now started to think that the public is beginning to look in the right direction, and so they need something to distract them.
And I think we’re going to see a ramping-up of accusations that it was the Chinese who produced a bioweapon, that Fauci was involved. This is all emotive media stuff; this is not proper analysis of what’s been happening. That’s my personal opinion; I could be wrong.
Reiner Füllmich: Actually, I think we agree with that, and everyone who we’ve spoken to agrees with that. It looks as though those who are responsible for this agenda are beginning to throw people under the bus, but—obviously—only for this very purpose: to distract the general public’s attention from what they’re doing. They’re asking the right questions.
So, in a way, I think this shows that they’re losing control, to a degree. They’re not losing complete control, but they’re losing control. What do you think about this?
Brian Gerrish: I agree with that, and if we want to inject some good news into our discussion, the people we are up against, the people we are fighting, are inherent liars. They tell lies; they do not tell the truth. And the problem with that is that eventually, they become caught in their own lies. So I think this is a big part of what’s started to happen.
I can give you another example, from within the UK, of where we see that there has suddenly been some emerging fear in the system. The UK agency which is responsible for the safety and regulation of medication is called the MHRA, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. That is the organisation which has been collecting data on vaccine adverse effects, and for you and anyone who’s ultimately watching or listening, their latest reports are that within the UK, there have been 859,481 adverse reactions …
Reiner Füllmich: Did you say 850,000?!
Brian Gerrish: 859,481. And there have been 1,213 deaths. Now, those statistics are the UK Government’s own statistics; they’ve not come from me, they’ve come from the UK Government, and they come from the MHRA Yellow Card system.
This is supposedly the safety system by which anybody who comes into contact with an adverse vaccine reaction—whether it be something you experienced yourself or you witnessed as a family member or friend, or indeed if you’re somebody in the medical profession—you should log a Yellow Card vaccine adverse reaction message, and it is the MHRA that holds that database.
Now, in the MHRA’s own documentation, they stated in 2018 that to their knowledge, for any medication, including vaccines, less than 10% of the serious adverse reactions were ever recorded. Less than 10%! And for more minor vaccine adverse reactions, they said that the figure recorded would be between 2% and 4% [of the actual total].
Now, if we consider that statement against [the record of] 859,000 adverse reactions and 1,213 deaths, we could be looking at 12,000 people who have died.
We as the UK Column have reported a great deal about this data, and on the ukcolumn.org website, my colleague, Mike Robinson, has provided a search engine so that you can search the MHRA’s own data. And this is very interesting, because you cannot search the data on the MHRA’s website; it simply provides it as sheets of data. This is very confusing and misleading for the public.
But the caveat that maybe only 10% of serious effects got recorded is very significant. In the last couple of weeks, the MHRA added a new paragraph in relation to that caveat about the low reporting of adverse effects. They said, “Of course, the figure of 10% and 2–4% does not apply to Yellow Card reports of Covid-19 vaccine adverse effects.”
So, once the UK Column started to draw the public’s attention to the fact that the MHRA already had 859,000 adverse effects recorded and 1,200 deaths, and that this might only be a very small proportion of the total number of adverse reactions, the MHRA attempted to deceive the public by posting a notice saying that this 10% [rule] did not apply to adverse reactions as a result of Covid-19 vaccination.
Viviane Fischer: But did anyone buy this?
Brian Gerrish: Well, some people will inevitably buy it, because members of the public who read this information without having a fuller understanding are still in the psychological position that they believe what the Government tells them. And this is a very big mistake, of course. So some people did believe them, but some didn’t.
Now, we as a media organisation challenged that very strongly, and then something very interesting happened: the MHRA suddenly announced, in the last few days, that it was going to have a special initiative for patient information and safety. And when you look at the documents they produced, there’s words on the paper, but the documents do not actually say what they are going to do to improve patient safety.
The other part of the story in the UK is that the MHRA has overall responsibility for logging vaccine adverse effects, but what they are not doing is then investigating to produce the final conclusion on whether an effect was indeed created by a vaccine or not.
Viviane Fischer: The same here.
Brian Gerrish: And if it’s the same in Germany, then we are starting to see that there’s a pattern emerging. This cannot be an accident; this cannot be a coincidence.
Viviane Fischer: And it’s amazing: we just discussed this earlier on in this session that they’re not doing autopsies. They’re really refusing: it’s either coming from the state prosecutors or it’s somehow being hindered behind the scenes, political decisions, whatever. They’re not doing any autopsies on the people who were registered or declared by their relatives that there might be a causality with regard to the vaccines. They’re not looking at it, and if they do, they say, “Oh, there’s no connection.” Even after doing a minor, cursory inspection, they say, “Oh, there’s no connection; it cannot be.”
Brian Gerrish: Well, that is also happening in the UK, that post mortems are not being conducted. We’ve even seen—this is factual, because we have interviewed the family concerned—[a case] where a family’s father died of a heart attack very shortly after receiving a vaccination, and the hospital did not submit a Yellow Card report, and later, when the family had submitted that report, nothing happened. Six and a half weeks passed.
They then said to the MHRA, “What are you doing to investigate the death?” And the first thing the MHRA asked them was, “Was there a post mortem?” Well, of course, the responsibility to do the post mortem comes from the medical team, who should have taken a decision that it could be linked to the vaccine, [and that] therefore, there was a need for a post mortem. But when it was too late, and the person had been buried, then the MHRA said, “Well, there wasn’t a post mortem.”
And the other thing that happened in the UK, about two years ago, [was a change:] originally, death certificates had to be signed by two doctors, and this, within the “pandemic”, was changed so that there only had to be one signature. Constantly, on the death certificates, “Covid” was recorded when family members said, “But my father, my mother, my brother died of cancer!” But because they had supposedly tested positive for Covid-19, that was actually recorded as the cause of death.
So this is the official falsification of statistics, with a direct impact on the health of the nation. This is calculated. And this is why I come back to the statement that it is not madness; if you analyse very carefully the political decisions, the policies, the documents, what we are looking at is genocide. It’s planned. It’s premeditated.
I’ve even had a senior member of the National Health Service—who has spoken to us as a whistleblower—use that very term. Her words were, “What I have watched unfolding within the health service in the UK is genocide.”
Reiner Füllmich: Was that a member of the medical community?
Brian Gerrish: That was a board member of one of the NHS Boards. And we have nurses telling us this; we have nurses using the term “genocide”. I have some doctors who are also using this term, but they’re not using it lightly, and they’re not using it because they’re aware that that other individual used it. It comes out as a word when you interview them about their experiences and what they have seen.
Viviane Fischer: Do you think the rush to vaccinate the children … The [German] Government has now said that from 7 June on, children are supposed to be vaccinated, and everything is supposed to be over and done before the next school year. So this seems to be pretty outrageous; obviously, a lot of people are very upset about this new thing.
They say it’s not going to be mandatory, but with peer pressure, and with them saying you can only access the schools again with testing or with vaccination, or only with vaccination, of course, there’s pressure; it’s basically mandatory, or it’s going to become mandatory.
I wonder, do you think they are now rushing this through because they see that the side effects of the vaccinations are going to become more and more obvious?
Maybe if they introduced this later in the year, quite a few parents might shy away from the vaccinations, whereas now it’s still in-between, and maybe with the option of going on vacations, it’s maybe a good idea to lure people or nudge people into getting even their children vaccinated now? What’s your take on that?
Brian Gerrish: I totally agree with your analysis there. It is very clear that there is now a massive urgency to vaccinate children, and we can see that in open statements of politicians. One politician, [the former Health Secretary] Jeremy Hunt, stood up in Westminster a couple of days ago and basically said that it was vital that we started to vaccinate schoolchildren.
So we can see open statements, but we can also see other documentation circulating where, again, there is this malicious use of psychology, because schoolteachers are being told that if they encounter parents who are reluctant to have their children vaccinated, those parents are effectively going to be listed as extremists.
So we can again see this psychological wedge coming in, to break people away from their children. Of course, if you get parents away from the children, then the Government can do what they like with the children.
And, as I say this to you, I think it’s reasonable for me to say that many years ago, twenty years ago, I was reading a very informative political book called The European Union Collective: Enemy of its Member States [by Christopher Story], and in that book there was a table which purported to be a table of the psychological attack on Western nations. It involved a period of demoralisation; it involved a period of destabilisation; and the ultimate five years was that there was going to be complete chaos and collapse.
And as I read that table—and I had not long been out of the military at that stage—my mind said, “Some of this is happening around us. I can think of examples!” And I have given public talks on part of this idea—I will call it an “idea”—that a psychological attack, a demoralising attack, is being unleashed on our respective nations. I believe that that is the case.
And I believe that when you see how the policy for this Covid scam, this lie, is being mirrored in the UK, in France, in Germany, and across all the other countries, then we can see that clearly, the power base that’s injecting this is not democratic in any form. It’s hostile to us.
I’ll just add, because it’s a little thing that I didn’t want to forget, that Bill Gates has supported an organisation called CEPI: the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had put in several hundred million dollars to that organisation.
Well, by a “miracle”, CEPI ended up funding the very biological testing laboratory that the MHRA in the UK was going to use, and is using, to tell us whether the vaccines are safe! So Bill Gates’ money goes into CEPI; and from CEPI, it goes to support the very laboratory that is being used to tell us that vaccines are safe—on the basis that they’ve recorded 860,000 side effects, officially!
But they haven’t done any correlation as to whether there’s causation there with the vaccines themselves. That research has not been done.
So it’s obvious that what you have is a system that has been set up in order to deceive the public about what is truly happening with these vaccines. And I think they want the children because they are now quite scared to see the right questions being asked, and they know that if they want to get the children vaccinated, they’ve got to hurry.
Viviane Fischer: I have one more question. We’re looking at all the measures: the masks, this bizarre testing, now the vaccination, and the social distancing. Do you think these have foremost a psychological aspect, of being that you’re power-struck or that you have to show obedience?
And also, I was wondering: do you think it’s maybe also, in addition, that they’re all technologically, pharmacologically, all elements of the same goal: to get you sick?
Because there’s stuff in the tests, the swabs, we know, that is not good, and the masks are making people get infected more easily with a virus or the flu or whatever. So could it be that it’s also really elegantly orchestrated on a medical basis?
Brian Gerrish: Yes. I think what you are saying is correct. It’s difficult for people [to imagine]. If we say that we are reasonable people—we, the assembled people here today, are not perfect, but we’re reasonable people and we’re concerned about our fellow man and woman; that’s what’s in our heads—when you have that in your head, it’s very difficult for you then to look at somebody who is unleashing an utterly brutal plan on people.
If even [just] tens of thousands of elderly people were deliberately killed in the UK (and I believe the evidence for that is overwhelming), then the people who took the decision to kill the elderly people are also capable of taking the decision to kill off other members of society that they don’t believe are worth anything.
Just to come back to psychology and documents: I have a National Health Service document which is talking about patient safety, and it says “If we did this or that, we could perhaps save the lives of 160 people a year. That would be worth £23 million.”
Every time the NHS document is talking about protecting human beings, it puts a financial value on that. And when I see those sentences, I know that the person who has written that document does not think in the way that I suspect you and we all think.
So, what they’re doing to the children with the masks and the social distancing—and giving them lessons in “how dangerous the virus is”—that is frightening the children. This is all a psychological attack on their minds, and the people are doing it know full well that this is going to result in all sorts of mental health problems in the children.
There’s a very important paper which is called Biderman’s Chart of Coercion. It’s a World Health Organisation-recognised paper about non-physical techniques of torture. Virtually every Covid pandemic measure can be ticked off against one of the entries in Biderman’s chart.
And as I was waiting to come live with you, a very well-informed lady has sent me a document where in the UK, they’re now saying that if a baby is born and there is any suspicion that that child may test positive for Covid, there should be no skin contact.
Viviane Fischer: It’s really getting out of hand. Do you think that the spin for this whole thing is written in England? Do you think that [the UK] is really the spider in the web? Would you discover [that], together with the French people? Is it an American script? It must be centrally organised somehow.
Brian Gerrish: Well, this of course is a very interesting question, because when I talked about the destabilisation chart [in Christopher Story’s book], that allegedly was part of a Communist plan to destabilise the West.
But I think that if we take a more mature view of it at the moment, if we look at the power base (and at the moment, we’re focused on the power base of the pharmaceutical companies), the power base is within the networks of those companies. And, of course, those companies can only function with the people who control their billions of dollars of working capital and profits.
So, for me, it’s very easy to say that if you want to start working out who is doing this, then you have to look at who is actually controlling the sums of money.
And this can be quite emotive, depending on how you put this argument across, but in the UK, the Government—which has not been able to build hospitals, which can’t fill in holes in the road, which can’t run the schools—suddenly announces that we have got £800 billion which has appeared out of thin air in order to fight Covid. Well, this tells us something very important.
The other thing which I think is significant at the moment is: you might have thought a few years ago that if such a pandemic happened, then at this stage, when the economy is so badly hit, we would be hearing the banks complain; we would be hearing the banks saying that “This is disastrous, because the British economy has shrunk by 30% to 40%. The banks can’t function.”
But actually, the banks are silent. And that says to me that the banks are happy. They must be happy, because they’re silent.
Reiner Füllmich: It is, according to what we have learnt by now, the banks. It’s high finance which is profiting from all this, through their investments in the pharmaceutical and the tech industry.
But the bottom line of all this, if this is an agenda (and I have no doubt that it is an agenda; it’s a calculated effort), is that the killing of the middle class, of the small and medium-sized businesses, driving them into bankruptcy, and the actual killing of people, is not collateral damage; it’s the intended damage, right?
Brian Gerrish: It’s intended, and about nine months ago (I can’t substantiate it further, because it’s a whistleblower), a whistleblower who had clearly been within some reasonably high-level meetings within the British Government told us he was shocked that at one stage, they’d discussed the need to destroy small to medium-sized businesses.
He said it was discussed in a way that was so cold that it really disturbed him. When he came out of the meeting, he could not believe what he had just heard.
The previous Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, announced publicly several times that companies that did not adhere to the new “climate change” greening agenda would be punished. They would be put out of business. He said that publicly, and anybody operating a small business really should have paid attention to what that man was talking about.
And, of course, if you stop small businesses from working, you are stopping people from earning a living; and when they can’t pay to live, when they can’t pay to eat, that also increases mental health problems.
The word in English for this is “malevolent”: it’s a poisonous agenda. But it’s deliberate, because it’s being spoken in Parliament and it’s appearing in the documents that are being put out.
Viviane Fischer: What was the pseudo-argument that people from the Government used when they talked about the small and medium-sized businesses needing to be taken out? Climate change?
Brian Gerrish: Well, of course, they’re selling to the wider public that there is a climate change problem, and it’s desperate[ly important] that we take any and every measure to deal with the climate issue; and if that means that a few hundred thousand small businesses are going to be destroyed, well, that’s what’s got to happen.
So the fear factor is the constant thing: the psychology is based on fear and control. We’ve got to be fearful, because the world’s going to end because of climate change. We’ve got to be fearful of a pandemic. We’ve got to be fearful of a war with China and Russia. This is deliberate, calculated psychology.
And, to my mind, this is why, if we want to fight what’s happening with Covid and vaccination, then we have to address this issue as well. When we can prove that our governments are lying and using propaganda, that has to be hit as hard as saying to the public, “We can show you that the vaccines are dangerous, because of these statistics around adverse reactions.” We have to do the two things simultaneously.
One of the ironies is that lockdown has been very good for the UK Column, because many, many more people are coming to us, and every week, we will probably get six, seven, eight e-mails where people say, “We would like to thank you for keeping us sane. Your news, your information, your facts, your analysis has helped keep us sane, because we were getting distressed; we were getting anxious.”
And that is a huge compliment to us. That is something very special that those people are telling us. But, of course, what it also told us was how powerful this effect was on the minds of the public.
Viviane Fischer: I have one last question. We have the impression—and it’s maybe connected to what you said about neurolinguistic programming—that people are under some sort of spell. We’ve discussed this with a lot of psychologists.
Brian Gerrish: Well, we also believe this. This is [the conclusion] we’ve come to. We can say that people are under a spell, and the best description, we believe, is that they’ve been mesmerised.
Viviane Fischer: Yes, mesmerised. But how do you think we can break through this spell? Is there a way?
Reiner Füllmich: Information. We have to get the information out, because knowledge is what kills the illusion. Real knowledge kills the illusion that they’ve created.
Brian Gerrish: This is true, but we also have to be realistic: if you look at what happens when you attempt to hypnotise a group of people, then you get a bell curve distribution. Some people are very susceptible to it and will be extremely hypnotised; some people might be slightly affected; and some people it’s very difficult to hypnotise.
So, across the population, I believe you need to think about it in a bit more of a measured way: you’re going to have some people that I think, probably, we’re not going to get to. They’re gone. They can’t think for themselves. And you’ll have other people—you are clearly some; I hope I am one—who see through what’s happening. It doesn’t matter what they say or “show” us; we can see what the truth is.
So, by exposing it and putting out the correct information ourselves, we are getting through that hypnosis. And, to be positive, I think that is accelerating. The British Government has just announced that it’s spending £1.6 billion to interface with media companies! £1.6 billion. The BBC’s budget is £5 billion on its own.
So a £5 billion BBC [evidently isn’t sufficing], which is the biggest propaganda machine the world has ever seen. It is the most dangerous organisation. You should not believe anything the BBC says without checking it with another source. I could talk to you for an hour about what the BBC really is.
Reiner Füllmich: Yes, well, we have the very same problem with our national public radio and television stations, I believe. It may be worse in Great Britain, however, because I think your history is a lot longer with that kind of propaganda!
Brian Gerrish: I’m sorry, I didn’t answer Viviane’s question fully on whether I thought the seat for this was in the UK. I am very embarrassed to say that I do believe it is in the UK. We are looking at a power base which is a mixture of the monetary power of the City of London, and what is very clear from the documentation is that that monetary power base is now fully working with the wider security services.
This is part of what in the UK they are calling the Fusion Doctrine. That’s another discussion, but essentially, we can see that the monetary power base is now controlling both the intelligence networks, like GCHQ [equivalent of Germany’s BND], but also the secret services. They are acting together.
It is fact, I assure you, because it was announced publicly (but very quietly!) that we now have both Google and GCHQ, the British signals intelligence organisation, working inside the National Health Service. This is outrageous.
Reiner Füllmich: But as the picture emerges, it is becoming ever clearer for more and people to understand: to first see and then ask questions and understand. That’s why they’re pushing so hard, because they understand that something is going off the rails right now.
Brian Gerrish: Yes, they’re understanding that people are waking up, and we are seeing this. I think that there has been a great … Social media has stabilised. I think, in many places on social media, you’re seeing a huge improvement in the quality and the accuracy of information coming out, and I don’t think they ever realised that people would use social media for professional analysis and reporting, as you’re doing today. This frightens them a lot.
Reiner Füllmich: Good.
Brian Gerrish: So I think we’ve got to expose what’s going on. The other thing that we have learnt over ten years is that it’s always better to slightly understate what you’re talking about.
If you tell it reasonably gently, you can always come back and have another go; but if you’re too aggressive, if you’re too forceful, if you scare people, then you lose them. So we’ve tried to always be talking about what’s happening very quietly, in a measured way, and also we don’t cover all of the things that we’re watching.
To take an example, people are talking about magnets sticking to you after an injection. Now, I don’t know whether that’s true or not; I’m interested to follow it, to see; [but] I’m not going to report on it, because until I can prove it, I don’t want to say anything that could undermine what else we’ve talked about.
So I think the [approach] of not being caught up in being too outspoken and aggressive helps people to come to us, to absorb the information.
If you want to end on a really positive note, I decided I would put some greenery behind me today, because I thought a little bit of sunshine and some greenness might lift our spirits a bit. I believe that something very interesting has happened in the last four or five months: professional people are beginning to ask the right questions.
I think that the speed at which this is happening is now causing all of these strange decisions you’re seeing by the establishment: [the sacrificing of] Fauci, the rush to get the children vaccinated even when they haven’t got the rest of the policy through—this, to me, is a sign that they are very frightened people.
The last thing I’d like to say—and I have to smile when I say it—is that there was an activist in Chicago called Saul Alinsky, who wrote an extremely good book which is called Rules for Radicals, and in the book he’s talking essentially about techniques to overthrow government, but one of the things he says is “Always make the argument personal.”
Reiner Füllmich: That’s what we’re doing, yes.
Brian Gerrish: And so it’s not enough to talk about “the BBC”; we’ve got to talk about Tim Davie, the Director-General of the BBC. It’s not enough for me to talk about “the MHRA”; I’ve got to talk about Dr June Raine, the Chief Executive of the MHRA.
The other little thing, which you can accept or laugh at—I’m very happy either way—is that even in writing to some of these officials, it’s very powerful if you put their picture on the letter or the e-mail that you send to them, because what that does is it takes it from a dry communication to actually putting straight into their minds that you are looking at them as an individual.
And, of course, what am I doing here? I’m using applied psychology, but if the bad people use it on us, I think we can use a little bit of it back on them.
Reiner Füllmich: Well, that’s what we’re doing, actually. We’re making it personal. We’re going after these people personally, not after the institutions. Brian, thank you very, very much.
This was extremely interesting and very important, and I think we’re going to be able to hear more of each other, because we have to stay in touch now that we realise—I mean, we’ve had this suspicion all along, but now we realise that this is an internationally-concerted effort by some very, very evil people.
Brian Gerrish: Yes, and what a wonderful opportunity that is, because whatever else these people do, they are constantly pitting nations against nations. If we get a little bit broader and we look back at the wars and the trouble, it was this type of people that caused it, and I think we’ve got a wonderful opportunity now.
The “pandemic” that’s been thrown at us to make us fearful could actually be the very thing to get people coming back as human beings, no matter what their nationality or religion or colour is. I think we’ve got a very exciting opportunity here.
Reiner Füllmich: We agree. It’s a real pleasure, Brian. Thanks so much. I think we’ll talk more.
July 15, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
As YouTube continues to censor a wide array of topics, not least those around the Covid pandemic, so it’s independent competitors like Rumble continue to attract more creators.
The trend was unbroken last week when Google’s video giant censored a video showing a New Jersey Senate hearing on the topic of forcing school children to wear masks, which concluded the policy may be harmful.
New Jersey-based talk show host and former chair of the College Republican National Committee Bill Spadea announced this, accusing the Democratic majority in the state’s capital, Trenton, of shunning the official event, and YouTube of eventually “not liking” the content of the discussion, and for that reason removing the video.
However, as Spadea explained, the video can still be found on his new channel on Rumble.
Scientists, doctors, lawyers and senators who chose to participate were there to debate the validity of one of the more controversial topics relating to Covid mandates in the US – masking children.
Like most other rules around masks and their efficacy in preventing infection, these have been changing over the past 18 months – but the consensus seems to be that children are least at risk of contracting and spreading the virus.
However, YouTube’s pro-masking, pro-distancing censorship algorithms aren’t very sophisticated so it appears that even to this day, even a discussion of the issue, let alone directly opposing the policy of masking children, will get content banned – even if the source is an official gathering of experts and lawmakers.
Spadea himself has little doubt that masks should not be mandated, because after covering the topic for over a year, he sees no proof that masks protect children.
This, however, runs contrary to what the US political and medical establishment thinks, and those doctors and scientists who disagree with official narratives and are willing to speak their mind are also often getting censored by Big Tech – the New Jersey Senate hearing, that concluded forcing children to wear masks could be dangerous, being no different.
Spadea blasted these acts of suppression of information as “the aggressive and immoral efforts of the social media oligarchs,” at the same time referring to Rumble as “a sliver of free speech” left out there.
July 14, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, United States, YouTube |
Leave a comment
Spain’s top court has ruled that the country’s national COVID-19 lockdown was unconstitutional following a lawsuit filed by the populist Vox party.
“While leaving intact most of the state of emergency’s terms, the court said that the key articles ordering the population off the streets except for shorts trips for shopping and unavoidable commutes for work and other official business were unconstitutional,” reports the Associated Press.
“According to TVE, the ruling said that the limitations on movement violated citizens´ basic rights and therefore the state of emergency was insufficient to give them constitutional backing. The six magistrates said that a state of exception, which does allow the government to suspend basic rights, would have been necessary.”
During the first six weeks of the lockdown, stay at home measures were so strict that Spaniards weren’t even allowed to go outside to exercise or walk their dogs.
In one case, police were called after a neighbor spotted two brothers playing soccer in their own back yard.
As we previously highlighted, Spain’s lockdown laws were so draconian that at one point authorities briefly told citizens that wearing masks while swimming in the sea was mandatory.
For many months during hot weather, wearing masks in every outdoor setting, even on beaches, was compulsory.
People were also issued fines of €2,000 euros for “disrespecting” a police officer during lockdown.
Numerous instances of police beating people for not wearing masks also emerged, while protesters at one point freed a woman from police arrest while cops were trying to handcuff her for not wearing a face covering.
Early on during the first lockdown, police helicopters fitted with loudspeakers were also used to aggressively order beachgoers to go home.
The Spanish government many now face multiple lawsuits as a result of the lockdown being declared unlawful.
July 14, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties | Covid-19, European Union, Human rights, Spain |
Leave a comment
So, it looks like GloboCap isn’t going to be happy until they have fomented the widespread social unrest — or de facto global civil war — that they need as a pretext to lock in the new pathologized totalitarianism and remake whatever remains of society into a global pseudo-medicalized police state, or that appears to where we’re headed currently. We appear to be heading there at breakneck speed. I don’t have a crystal ball or anything, but I’m expecting things to get rather ugly this Autumn, and probably even uglier in the foreseeable future.
Yes, friends, a storm is coming. It has been coming for the last 16 months. And GloboCap is steering right into it. I, and many others like me, have been tracking its relentless advance like a self-appointed International Pathologized-Totalitarian Hurricane Center (you know, like the one in Miami, except all the meteorologists are “conspiracy theorists”). We have documented all the propaganda, the lies, the manipulation of statistics, the abrogation of constitutional rights, the New Normal goon squads, the corporate censorship, and all the rest of the roll-out of the new official ideology and the totalitarian measures deployed to enforce it.
Our efforts have not been in vain, but they have not been successful enough to change the course events are now taking … a course of events that has always been clear, a course that every totalitarian movement needs to take to get where it’s going. You can’t remake entire societies into quasi-totalitarian systems without civil unrest, chaos, rioting, war, or some other form of cataclysm. Brainwashing the masses is all fine and good, but, at some point, you need to goad the people who are resisting your new totalitarian “reality” into getting unruly, so you can crack down on them, and transform them into official enemies, which appears to be what is happening currently.
GloboCap is dialing up the totalitarianism, and they are rubbing it in our faces. Here in New Normal Germany, government officials are openly barking out Goebbelsian slogans like “NO FREEDOM FOR THE UNVACCINATED!” and “THE UNVACCINATED ARE A DANGER TO SOCIETY!” All over Europe, including the UK, where “Freedom Day” is fast approaching, pseudo-medical social-segregation systems are being implemented. In France, Greece, and many other countries, people who refuse to be “vaccinated” are being stripped of their jobs and otherwise punished. In the USA, where the Unvaccinated are also being segregated, New Normal goon squads are going door-to-door, bullying “vaccine hesitant” families into conforming to the new official ideology.
And so on … I’m tired of citing the facts. They do not make the slightest difference to the vast majority of New Normals, anyway. As I’ve noted in several previous columns, these people have surrendered their rationality, and have been subsumed into a totalitarian movement, which has become their perceptual and social “reality,” which their “sanity” now depends upon defending, so the facts mean absolutely nothing to them.
And you already know the facts.
Yes, you. Us. The others. The Unvaccinated. The “Covid deniers.” You don’t really think any hardcore New Normals have made it this far into this column, do you? They haven’t. If they stumbled into it on the Internet and accidentally started to read it, their brains switched off in the opening paragraph … literally, neurologically, switched off. They recognized it as a threat to their “reality” and instantly erased it from their consciousness, or they reported it to the proper authorities, perhaps the FBI, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, or Facebook, or some other global corporation.
This is what it has come to, folks … people are reporting other people’s “thoughtcrimes” to global corporations and the law enforcement agencies of “democratic” governments in the hopes of destroying or damaging their lives, or, at the very least, getting them censored, or otherwise erased from public view.
As I noted in my previous column, our societies have been torn apart. We’re living in two mutually hostile “realities,” a state which cannot continue indefinitely. The problem for us (i.e., the Unvaccinated) is, we probably constitute somewhere around 20 to 25 percent of the population, so we are massively outnumbered by New Normals. The problem for the New Normals is that 20 to 25 percent of the population is way too many people to imprison or otherwise remove from society.
Thus, their plan is to make our lives as miserable as possible, to segregate us, stigmatize us, demonize us, bully, and harrass us, and pressure us to conform at every turn. They are not going to put us on the trains to the camps. GloboCap is not the Nazis. They need to maintain the simulation of democracy. So they need to transform us into an underclass of “anti-social conspiracy theorists,” “anti-vaxxer disinformationists,” “white-supremacist election-result deniers,” “potentially violent domestic extremists,” and whatever other epithets they come up with, so that we can be painted as dangerously unhinged freaks and cast out of society in a way that makes it appear that we have cast out ourselves.
This process is already well underway, and it’s only going to get more intense, which will inevitably lead to social unrest. The hardcore “Unvaccinated” are not going to go quietly. Again, this isn’t Nazi Germany. There are too many of us who are already resisting. They can segregate us, ban us from travelling, blackout our protests, censor us, deplatform us, cancel our bank accounts, and otherwise harass us, but they cannot forcibly disappear us. So, they are going to keep goading us until we lose it. We have demonstrated incredible discipline so far, but eventually, we’re going to run out of patience. It’s going to get messy. People will get hurt.
Which, of course, is exactly what GloboCap wants. Nothing will make them happier than if we turn ourselves into the “violent extremists” they have been conjuring into existence for the last five years. They desperately need us to become those “extremists” before we “embolden” too many others with our “disinformation,” “vaccine hesitancy,” “election result denial,” and general distaste for the whole global-capitalist ideological program.
Unfortunately, they are probably going to get their wish.
What we need is an organized, global campaign of classic, non-violent civil disobedience, but they are not going to give us time to organize that. They are going to keep the pressure on, and crank up the pace, and the official propaganda, and the absurdity, and the confusion, and the ever-changing rules, and the mass hysteria, and the blatant lies, until we start flipping out in restaurants, and in pubs, and schools, and on public transportation, and segregated New Normal establishments start getting nocturnally vandalized, or worse, and other forms of “direct action” are taken.
At which point, game over, because they will have won. We will be the “extremists” they warned themselves about, and they’ll be able to do whatever they want with us, and our former (now New Normal) friends will applaud, or just look away in silence.
Or … I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe some New Normals are still reading this essay, and can still, at this late stage, regain their senses. Maybe we can still avoid the storm, and the full implementation of “New Normal Reality.” I know, I’m probably a hopeless idealist, but let me tell you a quick anecdote before I let you go.
I’ve been kind of nudging, or politely badgering, Glenn Greenwald, who I respect, and have always respected, to grow a pair and at least speak out against the totalitarian features of the New Normal movement. Glenn is totally on board with the official Covid narrative, and has made it clear that he has no interest in using his investigative-journalism skills to investigate that official narrative. Despite that, I have continued to nudge him, and politely prod him, and otherwise urge him, to maybe post a few critical words, or raise a few investigative-journalist questions, about the most flagrant official propaganda campaign in the history of official propaganda campaigns and the blatantly totalitarian actions of governments all over the world.
For example, I posted this on Twitter recently.
Shortly thereafter — and I’m sure this was just a coincidence, because Glenn doesn’t follow the Consent Factory — he tweeted this bit of New Normal blasphemy:
So, apparently, it is, in fact, still possible for people who believe the official Covid narrative as if it were the Word of God to speak out against some aspect of it, or just politely question the logic of it, or otherwise stop behaving like a bunch of mindlessly obedient “Good Germans” as a new iteration of totalitarianism is rolled out right in front of their eyes.
Yes, I know. I’m clutching at straws, but I have this crazy faith in people. On top of which, I’m getting old, so I am not looking forward to the street-fighting part of this as much as I would have 30 or 40 years ago.
Oh, and, I almost forgot, to all my friends in the New Normal UK … have a lovely Freedom Day!
#
July 14, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties | Covid-19, Human rights |
Leave a comment
A police officer checks a woman’s self-certified note for being out near the Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris on April 15, 2020. © THOMAS COEX / AFP
President Macron’s announcement that citizens must adhere to a Covid-19 vaccination schedule, or pay for nose-swab tests every 2-3 days to live any semblance of a normal life, is the final nail in the coffin of civil liberties.
In the dead of summer, just a couple of days before the July 14 Bastille Day national holiday, when many French citizens had tuned out and left the big cities for some respite from a long stretch of sanitary restrictions – including months of curfews – French President Emmanuel Macron took advantage of the lull to drop a bomb on their lives that few were expecting.
From July 21, a health pass including a government QR code will be necessary for those over the age of 12 to access bars, restaurants, cinemas, gyms, swimming pools, museums, shopping centers, and any other venues capable of holding at least 50 people. Employees of these venues are included, if they want to keep their jobs.
The government will issue people a QR code to activate the pass by only two means: pricey PCR or antigenic nose-swab tests that Macron says will have to be paid out of pocket starting in October, or a full course of two jabs of the Covid-19 vaccination, which he also said will be the subject of a new round of third doses, starting in September.
What’s particularly stunning is that there is little recognition of acquired immunity – as though our immune systems are virtually useless. There is no way for someone who has recovered from Covid-19 to obtain a QR code as the result of a blood test proving the presence of adequate post-infection antibodies conferring immunity. The government considers their naturally acquired protection invalid and wants those who already have proven antibodies to take at least one dose of the vaccine.
The system does allow those who have a QR code from a positive Covid-19 PCR test up to six months old to obtain the health pass, after which they are then expected to take the shot as well – all this despite ample research indicating lasting immunity in previously infected individuals.
By shoehorning everyone into just two government-defined camps – compliant vaccinated individuals who will be allowed to live normally, and the unvaccinated non-compliant who will be denied access, despite the fact that both are capable of catching and transmitting the disease – it feels like the public health crisis is being used to implement a new dystopian system that permits tracking of everyone who wants to participate in everyday life.
And, as of September 15, healthcare workers who aren’t fully vaccinated “won’t be able to work and won’t be paid,” according to health minister Olivier Veran.
So much for France’s motto of “Liberty, equality, fraternity.” Liberty no longer exists when the government decides with a flash of a QR code generated at its whim whether you can live normally or not.
And while Macron was adamant about maintaining solidarity and equality among citizens by not singling out either the most vulnerable fatsos or the elderly for restrictions at the height of the pandemic – choosing instead to lock down the entire country – he now has no qualms about treating Covid victims with natural immunity, and those who simply don’t think that vaccination is the right decision for them, as second-class citizens who can rot at home with no access to daily life.
Fraternity? Pitting the vaccinated against the anti-vaccinated – with Macron treating the former as the ‘good’ citizens and the other as the ‘bad’ in his official narrative – has been adopted far too easily and uncritically by many. These people fail to see that vaccination status is a false dichotomy that effectively herds every single citizen into a single camp: those with a QR code issued and mandated by the government. It just so happens that those who refuse the QR code have to be unvaccinated by definition. Therefore, anyone who is resistant to the implementation of this new government tracking system should oppose any attempt to divide society by personal medical decisions and support individual choice of all – including the unvaccinated.
This destruction of fundamental freedoms is all the more striking at a time when Covid deaths and hospitalizations are incredibly low. First this crisis was about saving the hospitals, then it was about saving lives, then it became about reducing cases, and now that sound you hear are the goalposts being dragged again to make it all about preventing some potential future event.
It all seems like a system is now being implemented that will last well beyond Covid-19. If that thought doesn’t wake up the French, who last hit the streets en masse for months on end to protest a rise of a few cents in the price of gas, then it’s because the government they so distrusted has now successfully managed to co-opt and neutralize them.
Now is the time to take a stand against this continuing erosion of our freedoms. But how many French are even still awake?
Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist and host of an independently produced French-language program that airs on Sputnik France. Her website can be found at rachelmarsden.com
July 14, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, France, Human rights |
Leave a comment
A 20-YEAR trail of patent applications concerning the virus responsible for Covid-19 proves it is neither new nor the result of a jump from animals to humans, an inquiry has been told.
Instead, the patents show that a natural virus, harmless to humans, was subjected to numerous laboratory modifications which ‘weaponised’ it, such that it could become the basis of a marketing campaign for tests and vaccines which are of questionable value to the public health, but which have proved to be a financial bonanza for drug companies.
A dossier of evidence supporting these claims has been presented to the international Corona Investigative Committee headed by Reiner Fuellmich, a senior German lawyer specialising in exposing corporate swindles. The committee has been taking testimony from scientists and other experts since July last year.
The dossier was submitted last week by Dr David Martin, who heads M-CAM International, a US company which monitors innovations relevant to financial interests.
First made public more than a year ago, Martin’s allegations were widely dismissed as ‘conspiracy’ by so-called fact-checkers, who at the time were promoting the view fostered by the scientific establishment that the virus had a natural origin.
That view has become seen as in itself based on a conspiracy to mislead involving British scientist Dr Peter Daszak, head of the EcoHealth Alliance, which has received tens of millions of US dollars for investigating coronaviruses, but who was appointed by the Lancet medical journal to head an inquiry into the virus’s origins.
Last month Daszak ‘recused himself’ without explanation from the inquiry. He played a leading role in a similar investigation by the World Health Organisation, widely dismissed as a whitewash when published on March 30.
On Friday last week Martin gave a two-hour, live-streamed interview to Fuellmich and his team in which he spelled out the patent data that led to his explosive conclusions; you can watch it here.)
He said that ‘somebody knew something in 2015 and 2016 which gave rise to my favourite quote of this entire pandemic’. This was a statement made by Peter Daszak in 2015, and reported in the National Academies Press on February 12, 2016, in which he declared: ‘We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical counter-measures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage, to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.’
Of his own company, Martin said: ‘We have since 1998 been the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries. Our underwriting systems include the entire corpus of all patents, patent applications, federal grants, procurement records, e-government records, etc. We have the ability to track not only what is happening, and who is involved in what’s happening, but we monitor a series of thematic interests for a variety of organisations and individuals as well as for our own commercial use.
‘We have reviewed over 4,000 patents issued around SARS-coronavirus and done a very comprehensive review of the financing of all the manipulation of coronavirus which gave rise to SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome).
‘We took the actual genetic sequences that were reportedly novel, and reviewed those against the patent records available as of the spring of 2020. What we found, as you’ll see in this report, are over 120 patented pieces of evidence to suggest that the declaration of a novel coronavirus was entirely a fallacy. There was no novel coronavirus. There are countless, very subtle modifications of coronavirus sequences that have been uploaded. But there was no single identifiable novel coronavirus at all.
‘As a matter of fact, we found patent records of sequences attributed to novelty going to patents sought as early as 1999. So not only was this not a novel anything, it’s actually not been novel for over two decades.’
Martin took the inquiry team on what he called a ‘short journey through the patent landscape, to make sure people understand what happened’.
Until 1999, he said, patenting activity around coronavirus applied only within veterinary science. As early as January 2000, the Pfizer drug company filed for a patent on a genetic sequence giving rise to a coronavirus spike protein, ‘the exact same thing we have allegedly rushed into invention’, to be used in a vaccine against a canine disease.
So, based on patent filings more than two decades old, neither the coronavirus concept of a vaccine, nor the principle of the coronavirus itself as a pathogen of interest with regard to the spike protein’s behaviour, were ‘anything novel at all’.
Even more problematic, the patent record showed that in 1999 Anthony Fauci, head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), found the ‘malleability’ of the coronavirus made it a potential candidate for vaccines against HIV (the purported cause of AIDS, for which US taxpayers have contributed more than $300billion in research and treatment over the past 35 years).
‘Anthony Fauci funded research at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, specifically to create – and you cannot help but lament what I am about to read, because this comes directly from a patent application filed on April 19, 2002 – “an infectious replication defective coronavirus”.’
This virus was specifically targeted to invade human lung epithelia, the protective cells lining the lungs, Martin said.
‘In other words, we made SARS. Before there was ever any alleged outbreak in Asia, which as you know followed that by several months.
‘That patent, issued as US patent 7279327, clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing the fact that we know that the . . . ACE-2 binding domain [a protein on the surface of many cell types, through which both SARS-CoV-2 and the original SARS coronavirus enter host cells], the S1 spike protein, and other elements of what we have come to know as this scourge pathogen, was not only engineered but could be synthetically modified in the laboratory, using nothing more than gene sequencing technologies taking computer code, and turning it into a pathogen.
‘And the technology was funded exclusively in the early days as a means by which we could harness coronavirus as a vector to distribute HIV vaccine.’
Martin went on: ‘It gets worse.’ His organisation was asked to monitor biological and chemical weapons treaty violations, and was part of an investigation into events in October 2001, in which letters containing anthrax spores were sent to several news media offices and two senators.
‘Throughout the fall of 2001 we began monitoring an enormous number of bacterial and viral pathogens that were being patented through the National Institutes of Health, NIAID, USAMRIID [the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases], and a number of other agencies internationally that collaborated with them.
‘Our concern was that coronavirus was being seen not only as a potential manipulable agent for potential use as a vaccine vector, but it was also very clearly being considered as a biological weapon candidate.
‘Our first public reporting on this took place prior to the SARS outbreak in the latter part of 2001. So you can imagine how disappointed I am to be sitting here 20 years later, having 20 years earlier pointed that there was a problem looming on the horizon with respect to coronavirus.’
That first SARS event gave rise to a ‘very problematic’ April 2003 patent filing by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It was for the entire SARS gene sequence, and for a series of derivative patents covering means of detection, including the PCR test [widely used today purportedly to diagnose cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection].
‘The reason why that is a problem is that if you both own the patent on the gene itself, and on its detection, you have a cunning advantage to being able to control 100 per cent of the provenance of not only the virus itself, but also its detection. Meaning, you have the entire scientific and message control.’
The CDC’s public relations team sought to justify the application on the grounds that it would enable everyone to be free to research coronavirus.
That was a lie, Martin said. The US Patent Office twice rejected the application for the entire SARS sequence, on the grounds that it was already recorded in the public domain, but the CDC started a process to override this rejection. After repeated applications, and paying an appeal fine, they got the patent approved in 2007. They also paid an additional fee to keep the application private. ‘So every public statement the CDC has made that said this was in the public interest is falsifiable by their own, paid bribe to the Patent Office.’
Furthermore, three days after the CDC’s April 2003 attempt to patent the SARS sequence, Sequoia Pharmaceuticals, a private venture-capital funded company founded in 2002, filed a patent application on antiviral agents, treatment and control of infections by coronavirus. This was approved, and published, before the CDC patent was allowed.
‘So the degree to which the information could have been known by any means other than insider information between those parties is zero. It is not physically possible for you to patent a thing that treats a thing that had not been published, because CDC had paid to keep it secret.
‘This is the definition of criminal conspiracy, racketeering and collusion. This is not theory. This is evidence.’
July 14, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19 |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 