Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

COVID QUESTIONERS DEEMED ‘DOMESTIC TERRORISTS’

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | August 3, 2023

A trip down memory lane chronicling how Homeland Security labeled us all ‘domestic terrorists’ for trying to warn people about the harms of the COVID shots, masking kids, warnings and attacks meant to achieve COVID compliance. Will the same op be run during a climate emergency?

August 7, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

How the current version of the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty (aka Bureau Text) encourages rather than prevents pandemics

BY MERYL NASS | AUGUST 5, 2023

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Chem Bio

Traditionally, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were Chemical, Biological, Radiologic and Nuclear (CBRN).

The people of the world don’t want them used on us—they are cheap ways to kill and maim lots of people at once. And so international treaties were created to try to prevent their development (sometimes) and use. First was the Geneva Protocol of 1925, banning the use of biological and chemical weapons in war. The US and many nations signed it, but it took 50 years for the US to ratify it, so we believed we were not bound by it.

The US used chemical weapons subsequently. The US probably used biological weapons in the Korean War, and perhaps in Vietnam, which experienced an odd outbreak of plague during the war. The use of napalm, white phosphorus, agent orange (with its dioxin excipient causing massive numbers of birth defects and other tragedies) and possibly other chemical weapons led to much pushback, especially since we had signed the Geneva Protocol and we were supposed to be a civilized nation.

In 1968, a young Seymour Hersh wrote a book about the US chemical and biological warfare program. In 1969 Congressman Richard D. McCarthy wrote the book “Ultimate Folly” about the US production and use of chemical and biological weapons. Prof. Matthew Meselson’s review of the book noted,

Our operation, “Flying Ranch Hand, ” has sprayed anti-plant chemi-

cals over an area almost the size of the state of Massachusetts, over

10 per cent of it cropland. “Ranch Hand” no longer has much to do with

the official justification of preventing ambush. Rather, it has become

a kind of environmental warfare, devastating vast tracts of forest in

order to facilitate our aerial reconnaisance. Our use of “super tear

gas” (it is also a powerful lung irritant) has escalated from the originally

announced purpose of saving lives in “riot control-like situations” to the

full-scale combat use of gas artillery shells, gas rockets and gas bombs

to enhance the killing power of conventional high explosive and flame

weapons. Fourteen million pounds have been used thus far, enough

to cover all of Vietnam with a field effective concentration. Many

nations, including some of our own allies have expressed the opinion

that this kind of gas warfare violates the Geneva Protocol, a view

shared by M cCarthy.

A Biological Weapons Convention

Amid great pushback over US conduct in Vietnam, in November 1969 President Nixon announced to the world we were going to end the US biowarfare program (but not the chemical program). In February 1970 Nixon announced we would also get rid of our toxin weapons (snake, snail, frog, fish, bacterial and fungal toxins that could be used for assassinations, etc.). Furthermore, Nixon said the US would initiate an international treaty to prevent the use of these weapons ever again. And we did: the 1972 Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction, or Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) for short, which entered into force in 1975.

The BWC established conferences to be held every 5 years to strengthen the Convention. The expectation was that these would add a method to call for ‘challenge inspections’ to prevent cheating and would add sanctions (punishments) if nations did not comply with the treaty. However, the US has consistently blocked the addition of protocols that would have an impact on cheating. By now, everyone knows that cheating occurs and is likely widespread.

A leak in an anthrax production facility in Sverdlovsk, USSR in 1979 caused the deaths of about 60 people. A clear BWC violation. US experiments with anthrax production during the Clinton administration, detailed by Judith Miller et al. in the 2001 book Germs were also thought by experts to have transgressed the BWC.

In 1997 a Chemical Weapons Convention came into force. It took over 20 years, but all official stocks of chemical weapons have been destroyed by the USA and by Russia and the other 193 member nation signatories.

Pandemics or Biological Warfare?

So here we are. It is 2023 and the WHO Director General has declared 2 pandemics (the current terminology is ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’) over the past 3 and a half years: COVID-19 and monkeypox, which was renamed MPOX to “avoid stigma.” I am sure the monkeys were relieved by the name change.

I have previously (in my substack) described why I believe both SARS-CoV-2 and MPOX were bioengineered pathogens that came from labs. I do not know if they leaked or were deliberately released, but I am leaning toward deliberately released for both of them, based on where they appeared, how they spread, and in particular the official responses to each—neither of which was explained accurately to the public, and yet we never changed course, even when the lack of efficacy with masks, social distancing, EUA drugs and vaccines had become clear.

Vaccines: the Chicken or the Egg?

Both the monkeypox vaccines (there are two, Jynneos and ACAM2000) are known to cause myocarditis, as do the two COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the Novavax vaccine. The Novavax vaccine was first associated with myocarditis during its clinical trial in Australia. I have written about all this previously on substack.

How frequently does myocarditis occur after these vaccines? If you use elevated cardiac enzymes as your marker, ACAM2000 caused this in one in thirty people receiving it for the first time. If you use other measures like abnormal cardiac MRI or echo, according to the CDC it occurs in one in 175 vaccinees. We do not know the number for Jynneos, but there was some degree of elevation of cardiac enzymes in 10% and 18% of recipients in two small prelicensure studies. My guess for the mRNA vaccines is that they are somewhere in this range. I don’t know about Novavax’ vaccine.

Why would our governments push 5 separate vaccines all known to cause myocarditis on young males who have been at extremely low risk from COVID, and who simply get a few pimples for 1-4 weeks from monkeypox unless they are immunocompromised? It’s an important question. It does not make medical sense. Especially when the vaccine probably does not work — Jynneos didn’t on the monkeys in whom it was tested. And CDC has clammed up about the 2,000 Congolese healthcare workers on whom CDC tested it for efficacy and safety in 2017. (I have detailed this too in earlier substacks.)

The health authorities could have just been ignorant—that could explain the first 8 months of the COVID vaccines’ rollout. But once they figured out, and even announced in August 2021 that the vaccines did not prevent catching COVID or transmitting it, why did they still push it on low risk populations who were clearly at greater risk from a vaccine side effect?

Once this is acknowledged, you realize that maybe the vaccines were not made for the pandemic, and instead the pandemic was made to roll out the vaccines. I’m not sure. But I’m suspicious. And the fact that multiple countries contracted for 10 doses per person makes me even more suspicious—for vaccines whose safety and efficacy had not been established. WHY would you want ten doses apiece? Three maybe. But ten?

Furthermore, you don’t need a vaccine passport aka digital ID aka justification to convert to all-electronic money unless you are giving out regular boosters. Were the vaccines conceived of as the pathway to getting our vaccinations, health records, official documents and financial transactions all online—as Ukraine has already done?

A Pandemic Treaty and Amendments: Brought to you by the same people who mismanaged the past 3 years, to save us from themselves?

The same US government and western governments that imposed draconian measures on their citizens to force us to be vaccinated and take dangerous, expensive, experimental drugs and withheld the good drugs, decided in 2021 we needed a pandemic treaty to prevent and ameliorate future pandemics or biological warfare events… so we would not suffer as we did with the COVID pandemic.

Except COVID was a disaster due to its mismanagement (or should I say dismanagement or malmanagement?) by our nations’ rulers, their bosses and the WHO. Hundreds of millions of our fellow human being were slammed into extreme poverty—by nations following guidelines issued by the WHO, whose main job it was to protect exactly those people. Tens of millions died from starvation as a result. Yet the WHO blathers on about equity, diversity and solidarity—having itself caused the worst (manmade) food crisis in our lifetimes. Have you heard any apology or explanation?

How can anyone with a brain believe the public health officials who messed up COVID so badly want to spare us from another medical and economic disaster, after they imposed the last one on us? And the fact that no governments or health officials will admit their mistakes — especially how they made it nearly impossible to obtain the cheap and safe drugs that effectively treat COVID — why would we let them plan anything, let alone an international treaty that will bind our governments to obey the WHO’s dictates? How thoughtful of these officials to want to spend a king’s ransom of our money to prevent the next government-caused disaster.

We are fed up with secret vaccine contracts, waivers of liability for junk medical products, and spikes in sudden deaths and chronic disabilities. No more secret negotiations. Please shove your pandemic planning where the sun…

The Gain of Function farce

Obviously, the best way to spare us from another pandemic is to immediately stop funding “Gain of Function”* research, and get rid of what has already been funded and created. Let all the nations make big bonfires and burn up their evil creations at the same time, while allowing other nations to inspect their biological facilities and records.

But the WHO in its Bureau Text of the draft Pandemic Treaty has a plan that is the exact opposite of this. In the WHO’s world, which almost all nations’ rulers have bought into, all the governments will share any and all viruses and bacteria they come up with that have “pandemic potential” — share them with all the other governments. They are supposed to sequence them and then put the sequence online. No kidding. Then the WHO and all the Faucis of the world would gain access to every Frankenstein virus, at once. Presumably a bunch of hackers would also gain access to the sequences. Does this make you feel more secure?

The WHO Treaty draft incentivizes Gain Of Function research

At least this plan makes clear whose side everyone is on. Fauci, Tedros and their ilk at the WHO, and those managing biodefense and biomedical research for nation states are on one side, the side that gains access to even more biological weapons, and the rest of us are on the other, at their mercy.

This crazy plan used to be called proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—and it is almost certainly illegal. But it is their plan. Governments will all share the weapons. And they are to put a lot more money into biolabs, and especially into genomic sequencing. Presumably so they can make even better weapons, and maybe they will even get around to cures or antidotes. But who will get the cures? It wasn’t us during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here is where you can read the current Treaty draft:

https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb5/A_INB5_6-en.pdf

Pages 10 and 11:

What else is in the Treaty? Gain of Function research (designed to make pathogens more transmissible or more virulent) is explicitly incentivized. Administrative hurdles to it must be minimized, while unintended consequences (pandemics) should be prevented: (page 14)

Vaccines will be rolled out speedily under future testing protocols

Just in case you thought the COVID vaccines took too long to be rolled out, the WHO has plans to shorten testing. There will be new clinical trial platforms. Nations must increase clinical trial capacity. (Might that mean mandating people to be human subjects in out-of-the-way Africa, for example?). And there will be new “mechanisms to facilitate the rapid interpretation of data from clinical trials” as well as “strategies for managing liability risks.” (page 14)

Manufacturer and government liability will be “managed”

Nations are supposed to use existing models as a reference for compensation of injuries due to pandemic vaccines. Of course, most countries do not have vaccine injury compensation schemes, and when they do the benefits are usually minimal. The US government scheme for injuries due to COVID pandemic products (the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program or CICP) has compensated 4 (yes, FOUR) people as of July 1, 2023. All pandemic EUA drugs and vaccines fall into this program (monoclonal antibodies, early remdesivir, paxlovid, molnupiravir, some ventilators and all COVID vaccines). There have been nearly 12,000 claims made to the CICP related to a COVID product. Slightly over 1,000 have been adjudicated while 10,886 are pending review. Twenty claims were deemed eligible and are waiting to see whether they can collect. A total of 983 people, or 98% had their claims denied. About 90% of all claimants filed for a vaccine injury.

The treaty draft also demands weakening the regulation of medical drugs and vaccines during emergencies under the rubric of Regulatory Strengthening. As announced in the UK last week, where ‘trusted partner’ approvals will be used to speed licensure, this is moving toward a single regulatory agency approval or authorization, to be immediately adopted by other nations (p 25)

Why would any developed country sign up for this? Is this what we the people want?

The WHO did sweeten the pot, however. Remember how the need to respect “human rights, dignity, and freedom of persons” was removed in the WHO’s draft IHR Amendments that are being negotiated? Well, WHO apparently did not like us pointing that out—so the old human rights language that was removed from the International Health Regulations draft has been added to this newest version of the Treaty.

There is much more I could say about problems with this draft of the Treaty, but I will save them for another time.

Please share this brief analysis of the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty. We must EXIT the WHO.

*Gain of Function is a euphemism for biological warfare reserch or germ warfare research. It is so foolhardy that it was banned in the US for SARS coronaviruses and avian flu viruses from 2014-2017 due to public outcry by scientists. Then in 2017 Fauci and Collins lifted the moratorium, claimed they were putting safeguards in place, which were just a handwaving exercise, and off we were to the races: creating new bioweapons. Fauci and Collins had the nerve to publish their opinion that the risk was ‘worth it.’

August 6, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

PSYOP-19 UPDATE: New Variant Spreading Across UK – As Overall Cases Continue to Rise

2nd Smartest Guy in the World | August 5, 2023

The followup “pandemic” trial balloon intended to gauge the level of future societal “mandate” compliance has now been officially deployed.

According to the latest Mockingbird article by SKY NEWS entitled, COVID-19: New variant spreading across UK – as overall cases continue to rise:

A new COVID variant is spreading across the UK, according to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) – and already makes up one in seven new cases.

Scientifically known as EG.5.1, it is descended from the Omicron variant of COVID.

The UKHSA has been monitoring its prevalence in the country due to increasing cases internationally, particularly in Asia, and it was classified as a variant here on 31 July.

Since viruses never mutate into more virulent strains, we must ask: is this another gain of function (GoF) release by the usual Intelligence Industrial Complex criminals, and their useful idiot “expert” apparatchiks ahead of the fall and winter flu season, or is this a consequence of the “vaccinated” genetically modified humans incubating and transmitting new viral mutations as a function of the Modified mRNA slow kill bioweapon injections?

In the week beginning 10 July, one in nine cases were down to the variant.

The latest data suggests it now accounts for 14.6% of cases – the second most prevalent in the UK.

It appears to be spreading quickly and could be one reason why there has been a recent rise in cases and hospitalisations.

COVID-19 rates have continued to increase – up from 3.7% of 4,403 respiratory cases last week to 5.4% of 4,396 this week.

The latest data also shows the COVID-19 hospital admission rate was 1.97 per 100,000 population, an increase from 1.17 per 100,000 in the previous UKHSA report.

Officials say they are “closely” monitoring the situation as COVID case rates continue to rise.

It is no surprise that the wholly fraudulent PCR tests are what these “officials” are yet again referencing; in other words, they are up to their same old junk science tricks.

“We have also seen a small rise in hospital admission rates in most age groups, particularly among the elderly,” said Dr Mary Ramsay, head of immunisation at the UKHSA.

“Overall levels of admission still remain extremely low and we are not currently seeing a similar increase in ICU admissions.

“We will continue to monitor these rates closely.”

Senicide is the gift that keeps on giving, as said “officials” happily discharge liabilities and assets of the elderly useless eaters. Any eugenics program worth it’s salt always commences with the oldsters, and then works it way across ever larger swaths of society.

The Arcturus XBB.1.16 variant – another descendant of Omicron – is the most dominant, UKHSA figures show. It makes up 39.4% of all cases.

Another variant with a menacing name and lots of decimals, another opportunity for the One World Government’s main eugenics node in the WHO to fear-monger:

The World Health Organisation (WHO) started tracking the EG.5.1 variant just over two weeks ago.

As this Substack has exposed on several occasions now, the WHO’s director-general is a Marxist war criminal deliberately selected for his extreme sociopathy by the Rockefeller Crime Syndicate’s most prominent puppet and genocidal frankenmosquito advocate Billy Boy Gates:

WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said though people are better protected by vaccines and prior infection, countries should not let down their guard.

“WHO continues to advise people at high risk to wear a mask in crowded places, to get boosters when recommended, and to ensure adequate ventilation indoors,” he said.

They also just can’t let up on the absurdly useless MK Ultra masks, because ensuring that the genetically ruined slaves reinforce their mass induced fear slavery is an effective means of self-policing into ever more mindless compliance.

“And we urge governments to maintain and not dismantle the systems they built for COVID-19.”

Of course, the WHO urges that their unconstitutional and anti-human systems for PSYOP-19 not to be dismantled because they need their said systems for their followup PSYOP-23 “pandemic” this fall.

What the WHO certainly does not want you to know is that inexpensive repurposed drugs will act as prophylaxis against all of their “pandemics,” along with the associated plethora of their “vaccine” induced adverse events like turbo cancers, and prion-based diseases, all while also protecting the genetically unmodified refuseniks from “vaccine” shedding, and environmental damage.

 

Do NOT comply.

August 6, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , | Leave a comment

The “War on Climate Change” is coming… again

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | August 3, 2023

Last week, a senior member of Parliament for the UK’s Labour Party went on television demanding the UK – maybe even the entire world – be on a “war-like footing” to combat climate change.

Speaking on the BBC’s flagship political magazine Newsnight, Barry Gardiner MP argued for unity of purpose against climate change’s “existential threat”:

“… if this were a war we wouldn’t be arguing about whether the Labour strategy or the Tory strategy were better, we would be working together to try and win […] Well, it is a war. It is a war for survival and climate change threatens everything […] So actually instead of playing party political games about who is up, who is down, what we need to be doing is saying let’s get together, let’s mobilise on a war footing and that is what is needed…”

Two days later, the exact same thoughts were expressed in a Financial Times column by Camilla Cavendish, former head of David Cameron’s Downing Street policy unit and Kennedy School of Government alumnus:

The answer is surely to invoke a wartime spirit, and make the fight against climate change a joint endeavour against a common enemy. If the public and political will is there, human ingenuity can prevail, with remarkable speed. In the second world war, America transformed its manufacturing base to produce tanks and ammunition. The Covid pandemic resulted in the discovery and development of vaccines at scale, saving millions of lives.

It’s interesting to note the comparison to Covid, but we’ll come back that.

The campaign isn’t isolated to the UK, in fact it kicked off on the other side of the Atlantic, with the Inquirer running an article headlined “President Biden should address the nation and declare war…on climate change” on July 16th, which argued:

Biden and his aides need to grab that metaphorical bullhorn and call the TV networks to announce a prime-time address from the Oval Office that will declare a national emergency — in essence, a state of war — to fight climate change.

Joe Biden himself called climate change an “existential threat” on July 27th.

The invocation of metaphorical war is of course nothing new.

“War” is a very important word in the world of politics and propaganda. It has – or is assumed to have –  an immediate effect on the collective public mind; an instant connection to generations of shared memories, that promotes feelings of conformity and solidarity.

Some psychological study or focus group clearly figured this out decades ago, and as such the word “war” is frequently used to control narratives.

In Western “democracies” the deployment of the W word is code for bi-partisan agreement, attempting to breed faux solidarity between the same people they encourage to hate each other 90% of the time, whilst branding any dissenters as outsiders who are a threat to the safety of the group.

More pragmatically, being “at war” creates an “emergency” which justifies “temporary” suppression of human rights and freedoms and permits increases in the powers assumed by the state.

OffG – and others – have discussed this ad infinitum, past a certain point any authoritarian government needs to exist in a state of war in order to avoid collapse, and so enemies are created that, by their nature, can remain forever never undefeated.

See: “The War on Drugs”, “The War on Terror”, “The War on Covid”

… and, now, the war on climate change.

Or, more properly, “the war on climate change… again”.

Because neither Barry Gardiner nor Camilla Cavendish are the first person to express this thought. Not even close.

Then-Prince now-King Charles expressed the exact same sentiment in the exact same words in a speech to the COP26 in November 2021, contemporary opinion pieces in the Guardian agreed with him.

They were, in fact, echoing a University College London report from May 2021.

CNN warned we were “losing the war on climate change” in April 2019, plagiarizing the exact same headline in The Economist from a year earlier in August 2018.

Bill McKibben wrote “We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII” for the New Republic in August 2016.

Venkatesh Rao wrote “Why Solving Climate Change Will Be Like Mobilizing for War” for the Atlantic in October 2015, repeating the same arguments from a CNN article four months earlier.

Hell, all the way back in 2003 the New York Times was running editorials “After Iraq: Declare war on global warming”

(Ah, remember when Climate Change hadn’t yet received it’s unfalsifiability makeover and was still just known as “global warming”?)

Essentially, every few months they trot out this idea of “declaring war on climate change”, get almost no engagement from the public, and then go back to spouting alarmism and fear porn for a while before trying again.

They have been doing this for years. So far it has not worked.

… but this time might be a little different.

Why? Because we now live in a post-Covid society.

Consider, with the exception of the vaccines, everything brought on by Covid – the lockdowns, the financial collapse, all of the “Great Reset” – was originally meant to be a “response” to climate change.

They had a package of “solutions” ready and waiting for a public “reaction” that never came. People were simply never scared enough at the idea the world might get a bit warmer.

It could be argued that global warming’s repeated failure to spark a global panic is the very reason they resorted to “Covid” in the first place, but whatever the cause-and-effect relationship the fact of the matter is that Covid has laid a foundation for the “war on climate change” that never existed before.

  • “anti-Covid measures” provide precedent both for the use of extreme ‘responses’ and their apparent “effectiveness”
  • Covid created enough fear that they can increase climate hysteria by linking environmentalism to future potential “pandemics”
  • Covid (allegedly) “inspired global cooperation” and “demonstrated what we can achieve when we all work together”
  • Covid lockdowns (allegedly) “showed how the world can heal” by cutting emissions.
  • And, most vitally, the roll out of the Covid narrative demonstrated that once people have invested their virtue or personality in a story you can tell them almost anything relating to that story and they’ll be incentivised to believe you – NO MATTER HOW ABSURD IT MIGHT BE.

We noted earlier that several recent articles “declaring war on climate change” reference Covid, almost always as a global success story.

It is now commonplace to talk about avoiding climate disaster through the medium of Covid. The United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations and International Monetary Fund have all run articles in the last couple of years with near-identical titles eg:

What the Coronavirus Pandemic Teaches Us About Fighting Climate Change

Perhaps the most blatant example of using Covid imagery to sell climate change and globalism is the call to create a “Global Climate Organization”, from Dr David King in the Independent a few days ago (our emphasis):

“In terms of a health crisis, such as the Covid crisis, we have a World Health Organisation and it’s based in Geneva and is part of the United Nations. We don’t have a world climate crisis organisation. That’s what we need, so that all countries of the world could come together through a body of this kind, as we do when there’s a health crisis, we all contribute to the cost of the WHO. We need a global system that pulls us all together to battle with this external threat to our manageable future.”

We know what this is, this is the “pivot from Covid to climate” they literally told us was coming.

The “Great Reset” has made a good start, but they still have a raft of fun policies they want to introduce (eg. rationing food). In a post Covid world, they are hoping to finally make “climate change” frightening enough that people will beg them to completely reshape the world as they see fit.

The amusing part is that it still doesn’t feel like it’s landing, to be honest.

Outside of the media echo-chamber and the virtue-signalers, all the “terrifying” temperature maps, the experts warning that “millions will die instantly” if they turn their air conditioning off, the new buzzphrase of “global boiling” is being met with a bit of a “meh”.

Unfortunate for them, because they’ve set themselves a deadline. Every year that passes without catastrophic climate breakdown, every summer the ice caps don’t disappear, every unseasonably cold or wet July is another nail in the coffin of their narrative, a few more normies disengaging from the story.

Which is probably why the coverage of “heatwave cerberus” and “global boiling” is fervid verging on feverish. There is an element of sweaty-palmed desperation seeping into every tweet, every headline.

They are running out of time.

The dark corollary of that is that someday soon they may well give up trying to persuade people, and start trying to force them.

August 3, 2023 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Pfizer Ad Spreads Misinformation

BY DAVID ZWEIG | SILENT LUNCH | AUGUST 1, 2023

A Pfizer ad on Twitter claims that 3 out of 4 US adults are at “high risk” for severe Covid-19.

This ad is highly misleading or, arguably, outright false.

Problem 1: What is “high” risk?

We don’t know because Pfizer doesn’t define it.

The graphic in the ad cites a study as the source of its claim “3 out of 4 US adults are at high risk for severe Covid-19.” Except the study never uses the term “high risk.” Rather, the study is on people at “increased risk.”

“Increased risk,” of course is quite different from “high risk.” Obviously, high risk is worse than merely increased risk. I need not explain why Pfizer would choose language in its ad that exaggerates the risk of Covid.

Problem 2: The cited study itself doesn’t even define “increased risk.” Does that mean a 0.1% increase, a 1% increase, 20% increase, 1000% increase? On this point, the study includes the following caveat: “the effect size of each risk factor was not taken into account in our analysis, so this report does not address degree of risk. Effect estimates of severe COVID-19 risk factors are widely variable and ultimately unreliable.”

Digging a little deeper, the study links to a CDC webpage that gives a list of conditions for people who are “more likely to get very sick with COVID-19” and uses “higher risk,” “increased risk,” “greater risk” and “high risk” in its text, seemingly interchangeably. The page gives a long list of medical conditions—from cancer to diabetes to depression. Still, we don’t know what “more likely” or “increased risk” actually means. This webpage, in turn, links to another CDC webpage that describes “Underlying Medical Conditions Associated with Higher Risk for Severe COVID-19.”

We’ve gone from the scary “high” risk (not defined), to “increased” risk (also not defined), to “higher risk.” How is “higher risk” defined? Here is what the page says:

Higher risk is defined as an underlying medical condition or risk factor that has a published meta-analysis or systematic review or underwent the CDC systematic review process. The meta-analysis or systematic review demonstrates a conclusive increase in risk for at least one severe COVID-19 outcome.

So we are now three layers deep and we still don’t have a quantifiable definition for what, exactly, “high,” “increased,” or “higher” even means, nor a clear differentiation of what the first study acknowledges is a wide variability in estimates of risk factors. I’m sure there is a quantifiable threshold defined somewhere, but I stopped digging because this isn’t even the main problem.

Problem 3 (the main problem): The data from the cited study in the Pfizer ad saying 3 out of 4 US adults are at high (aka increased) risk of severe Covid are from 2015-2018. But this ad is being run in July 2023—after nearly the entire population has either already been infected, vaccinated, or both, each circumstance, we have been told, decreases one’s risk of severe Covid. In other words, Pfizer’s own ad suggests that prior infection and vaccination have not reduced the number of people at high risk of severe Covid. Does Pfizer want us to believe that its product—the vaccine—did not lower the rate of people at high risk of severe Covid?

The fact is, 3 out of 4 US adults are not at “high” risk of severe Covid. This statement is based on data from before accounting for the protective effect of infection and vaccination. Moreover, “high risk” is not defined and appears to simply be a made up description.

We’ve heard a lot about “misinformation” in the past few years. Generally, the government and media have pointed the finger at so-called “anti-vaxxers” and “conspiracy theorists.” A critical spotlight from the government has rarely seemed to shine on claims made by Pfizer. Advertisements like this misinform and unnecessarily scare people, perhaps pushing some of them into taking additional doses of the vaccine, or therapeutics like Paxlovid (also made by Pfizer), that have potential harms, and for many people, especially now, without clear benefit.

August 2, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

‘It’s Murder’: Remdesivir Victims Decry FDA’s Shocking New Move

By Stella Paul | American Thinker | July 28, 2023

Remdesivir may be the most despised drug in American history, earning the nickname Run Death Is Near for its lethal record during COVID. Experts claimed that it would stop COVID; instead, it stopped kidney function, then blasted the liver and other organs. Now this reviled destroyer of kidneys has been approved by the FDA for COVID treatment of kidney patients. Does anybody else feel as if the FDA is shoving its power in our faces and laughing at us?

I’ve been joining online support groups for people who lost loved ones to the Remdesivir Protocol — a nightmarish sequence in which a patient is isolated in the hospital, bullied into taking Remdesivir, ventilated, and then sedated to death. Thousands of Americans were killed this way, possibly hundreds of thousands.

These support groups are a deeply somber business. Grieving faces fill the screen of people who lost a parent, spouse, sibling, or child. Some speak with icy anger; some choke back sobs as they tell of the deadly abuse inflicted on their loved ones, shattering their families forever.

I asked them what they thought of the FDA’s decision to approve Remdesivir for people with severe renal impairment, including dialysis. “Morally, how can you do that?” Joyce Wilson said. “It’s a death sentence. They didn’t care if people had kidney issues or not. My husband went into the hospital in kidney distress. They exacerbated it with Remdesivir. Then they ventilated him, and he died.”

“This is absurd,” Tracy Bird told me. “The FDA can no longer be trusted with any drug under any circumstances. It’s all conflicts of interest. My husband Jeff had strong kidney function when he went in the hospital. They gave him Remdesivir, and three days later, he was in kidney failure.”

“My daughter’s story is no different than anyone else’s,” Denise Fritter said. “Jamie was 36 and looking forward to getting married. The hospital refused to consider any other modalities of treatment for her. They insisted on Remdesivir. Then they put her on a vent and murdered her. I think the FDA is using Remdesivir to fulfill their own agenda.”

Cheri Martin, who lost her husband Steven to the protocol, chimed in with thoughts on the agenda: “They’re going to use this decision as a way to clean house of renal patients and people on dialysis. It’s saving a ton of money for Medicare over the next twenty years.”

“I can’t believe the FDA would approve this,” MaryLou said. “My son was 37 years old. He went into the hospital with two blood clots, but his kidneys were functioning. They gave him Remdesivir, and in twelve hours, his kidneys stopped working, and his organs began to fail. We never saw him open his eyes again.”

Michelle Conway said, “I took my husband to the E.R., and the next day, they told me he was going on Remdesivir. I said absolutely not. I wanted him on other treatments, but they refused all of it. They isolated him and told him he had to have Remdesivir or he’d die, and he agreed. I got to watch his last rites over a video conference. I know he was murdered by Remdesivir.”

A woman I’ll call Maya joined the support group for the first time to share her story. She’s a survivor of the hospital protocol, and there aren’t many of those. “I refused Remdesivir, and I refused the ventilator. But they find other ways to take you out. The doctors were pissed at me. They called my husband to pressure him. They fear-monger you with all these lies.  And they pull your loved ones away from you. I was all by myself trying to make decisions.”

The discussion often turned to the weird carelessness and indifference to standard medical procedures in the hospitals during COVID. “Multiple times in my husband’s record, it said he was not a candidate for Remdesivir,” Lisa said. “They gave it to him anyway, and he went into renal failure and died.”

“The Remdesivir fact sheet clearly states that it may cause kidney and liver failure. And that’s exactly what happened to my husband Richard,” Michelle Strassburg said. “They’re doubling down on this preposterous decision. I’m at a loss for words.”

“It’s so important that in their own literature of Remdesivir, they state that it’s supposed to be given early,” Catherine said. “Yet they kept stalling my husband. They sent him home and said to sign up for monoclonal antibodies. But when he showed up for it, they said they were too backed up. By the time he was hospitalized, he was really sick. They gave him Remdesivir, and he had a stroke.”

Everyone in the group knows about the financial incentives that drove the hospital’s insistence on Remdesivir. The federal government paid hospitals a staggering 20% bonus on the entire hospital bill of patients treated with Remdesivir. They also handed out lavish extra payments for ventilating patients.  And, perhaps most tellingly, the feds rewarded hospitals with more money for patients who died of COVID instead of those who were healed.

Gregory Gandrud, the treasurer of the California Republican Party, understands financial incentives well. He explained the money behind his hospitalization. “They gave me $37,000’s worth of Remdesivir, but it obviously didn’t help because I wound up on a ventilator. My hospital bill was $920,000 for the 44 days I was there. Nobody offered me ivermectin, which is cheap, effective, has no side effects, and you can take at home.”

Many in the group expressed frustration at trying to get justice. The PREP Act indemnified medical institutions from any actions they took during the federally declared COVID emergency.  Lawyers are reluctant to take cases because they don’t see how to break through the hospitals’ indemnity shield.

After the support group, I spoke with Jamie Scher, who told me that her legal team was ready to file a complaint against Gilead today. Gilead is the lucky maker of Remdesivir, enjoying fabulous profits from this previous loser of a drug, which turned into a billion-dollar winner during COVID.

Jamie said she has over 1,000 plaintiffs, and, unfortunately, the list is growing daily.  She’s working hard to raise funds for the lawsuit; people interested in finding out more can visit her website at myerandscher.com.

Another way to circumvent the PREP Act may be to get malpractice insurance carriers to not insure hospitals and doctors for the use of this protocol and lethal drugs like Remdesivir. Jamie said prosecutors could then hold them accountable for intentionally killing people, knowing that these drugs do not help; they only harm.

I confess that after these support groups, I find it difficult to sleep. I keep reliving the anguish of these wonderful people. “They think we’re stupid,” I hear Erin say. Denise’s sobs echo in my head, as she cries, “Why did God take my daughter from me?  I’ll never know.” But her voice strengthens as she adds, “I do know we’re all warriors in a spiritual battle.”  And Catherine offers words of hope: “Despite it all, I believe we’re going to get justice.”

Follow Stella on Twitter at @StellaPaulNY.  Email: StellaPaulNY@gmail.com.

August 1, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Document Specials: Dr. Peter McCullough about mRNA-vaccine death

Dr. Peter McCullough | July 27, 2023

Death counts were very important for government and public institutions during the Covid-19 pandemic and yet again death is being used as fearporn to scare people into accepting climate change, whilst sudden death, an increase in hospitalizations and an increase in diseases somehow never seemed to interest governments nor the public institutions. Why? Because it’s all connected to the “safe and effective” mRNA-products.

Dr. Peter McCullough, cardiologist and president of the McCullough Foundation, has yet again experienced censorship as the medical journal The Lancet removed a study written by Dr. McCullough and his colleague, within the first 24 hours of it being published. Dr. McCullough and his colleagues found that 74 percent of 325 autopsies of people who died after covid vaccination, were caused by the vaccine.

In this interview Dr. McCullough fills us in on the study, why it was removed and also what was found in the Danish study, which shows that the Pfizer vaccine was an experiment with peoples lives.

Welcome to Document Specials.

Follow Dr. Peter McCullough:
Website, www.petermcculloughmd.com
President, McCullough Foundation, www.mcculloughfnd.org 
Author, Courage to Face COVID-19, www.couragetofacecovid.com 
Radio Show,  www.americaoutloud.com/author/dr-peter-mccullough/
Substack,  petermcculloughmd.substack.com/

Follow our Document News Rumble channel where all our international broadcasts are streamed and uploaded.

August 1, 2023 Posted by | Video | , | Leave a comment

Mask Indoctrination is Strong in Boston

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | July 28, 2023

Boston.com, a regional website providing news and information about the Boston, Massachusetts region, posted an article a few days ago that reads as if it was from 2021.

Many businesses in the Greater Boston area have decided to continue requiring masks in stores because they are concerned about the 745 confirmed Covid cases! With that in mind, Boston.com asked their readers whether they agree with the businesses who still require masks. 87% of 2,300 readers who responded agreed that wearing masks is the right thing to do.

One of the main reasons given for masking was to protect the immunocompromised and vulnerable. Great if that worked or made a difference, but it doesn’t.

Sammie H. from Boston says that wearing masks to stop the spread can show that one cares about others.

“Preventing spread of illness shows that you care about others around you,” she said. “Masking is one small way to do just that. You might even save some lives, like the lives of those who are immunocompromised.”

Readers also decided masking was the correct course of action to prevent Long Covid.

“[Long COVID] took out myself, my partner, and many people I know with fatigue, lung issues, cold like symptoms and weird stuff like stomach issues. Masks help limit the spread and save people years of pain for a few minutes of minor discomfort, like a seatbelt,” said reader Berinthia from Somerville.

Many readers still think that preventative measures are needed for good now that Covid is endemic and will always be around.

“Nothing has changed, there is still a virus circulating that has killed millions and is continuing to do so, as well as disabling countless more,” she said. “When we all wear masks, we are all protected. It’s good for business and it’s good for people’s health.”

Other reasons given included:

  • “I think essential services, especially medical settings, and transportation should still require masks so they are safe for people who can’t avoid them, and I applaud any businesses that choose to require masks — it reduces community spread and helps everybody.”
  • “It would be much more physically safe for me, both as a retail employee and as a customer, if masks were still required in businesses around town.”
  • “I want to stay alive and want others to be alive too.”
  • “Because I care about keeping others safe(r) from COVID and other airborne disease. And because ‘high risk’ people (which include people who’ve been infected with COVID once or more) deserve to have access to spaces that are too high risk if everyone is unmasked. “
  • “We should follow the science, not the latest fashions of political fanaticism. Wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience; long COVID or death is not.”
  • “COVID-19 is still very much with us — killing and disabling a mass amount of people every day. Masks are an effective way to protect yourself and others, especially the most vulnerable. I want those that I know and love, and even those that I don’t, to live a long, long time.”
  • “Business owners who require masks are doing community service by keeping themselves safe (thus able to stay healthy enough to continue operations) and our communities safer by reducing viral spread.”

The brainwashing is strong in Boston.

July 31, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

How Real-World Evidence Contradicts ‘The Science’

BY DR CLARE CRAIG | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | JULY 29, 2023

In September 2020, I became one of the first U.K. doctors to speak out about damaging Covid policy. Since January 2021, I have co-chaired the multidisciplinary HART group, publishing evidence-based analysis on Covid issues in an attempt to educate the public.

In 2021 it became clear that it was very challenging to persuade people face-to-face that the Government had chosen a dangerous path with its Covid policies. If someone listened long enough to understand one crucial point, the conversation would end with them in cognitive dissonance, unable to reconcile their other beliefs with what they had just learned.

The obvious answer to requiring someone’s attention for a little longer was to write a book. The challenge was to write in a way that ensured no reader would feel angry or foolish. The result was, Expired – Covid the untold story, a book that tackles 12 key Covid myths related to virus spread, lockdowns, asymptomatic infections and the efficacy of masks. Each one is addressed from the starting point of what was the dominant belief system before showing where the arguments did not fit. Each of these beliefs is interspersed with chapters which investigate the psychology of our beliefs, why we believe what we believe, the impact of fear and what it takes to change our minds.

It is a readable book for a layperson and consequently it is not the maths book that many people expected me to write. Instead, it is a summary of what the evidence shows and leaves the details to be referenced elsewhere. It is rich with metaphors and analogies to ensure that even complex concepts are digestible. It also covers far more than just science and psychology. To fully understand the issues requires a history lesson, a bit of religion and plenty of understanding of human failing!

A central theme is the significantly overlooked role of aerosols in exhaled breath – a crucial factor in virus transmission. A comprehensive understanding of this sheds light on why lockdowns and other restrictions failed to yield expected results. However, the physicists specialising in aerosols, despite their expertise, were disregarded and silenced by the medical community, which was tenaciously holding on to a misinformed belief about aerosols that almost unbelievably centred on the wrong number being used in a textbook.

Complicating the matter, the medical community still held onto echoes of a 150 year-old debate between germ theory and miasma theory, causing physicians to dismiss the possibility that microorganisms could be airborne via aerosols, despite a substantial body of evidence supporting this.

The irony is that the proponents of germ theory, who had to fight fiercely for their views to be accepted, adopted some beliefs, specifically about close-contact transmission and asymptomatic transmission, which were not supported by empirical evidence. Because these ideas had been entrenched in medical education and textbooks, they were perceived as fact and seldom challenged.

I have always enjoyed reading non-fiction but was always in awe of how much work the authors must have put into their books. It turns out I was right about just how much work such a book takes! The meticulous research meant that I learnt a lot on the way too so I hope that even if some of the story is familiar to you, there will be plenty for you to learn too.

More than any of the above, Expired is a call to action to reinforce the ethical principles that have guided Western societies for centuries, highlighting the damage done by overriding them during the pandemic and the urgent need to restore them.

Now that the fear and panic era of Covid is finally dissipating it is time for a rational and calm reanalysis of events. The Covid Inquiry is years away from reporting on political decision-making and so far there is marked evidence of bias in the approach being taken. Expired makes sense of the real-world evidence and exposes how ‘The Science’ was based on flawed assumptions that led to devastating policy.

I thoroughly explored avoiding Amazon altogether and using independent publishers, warehousing and shipping but it was simply not economically viable. It is therefore available exclusively on Amazon. It is available as a paperback, on Kindle or as an audiobook (read by me). The reviews so far have been overwhelmingly positive and I would really appreciate your feedback too.


Dr. Clare Craig is a diagnostic pathologist and co-Chair of the HART group. She is the author of Expired – Covid the untold story.

July 31, 2023 Posted by | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

The Money Trails of the Pandemic Planning Racket

By Jeffrey A. Tucker | Brownstone Institute | July 30, 2023

The Justice Department has dismissed all charges related to campaign finance leveled against Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), the founder and CEO of the Bahamas-based crypto exchange FTX. The grounds were a bit unusual. Officials in the Bahamas said that such charges were not the basis of the extradition. “The Bahamas did not intend to extradite the defendant on the campaign contributions count,” said the Justice Department. “Accordingly, in keeping with its treaty obligations to the Bahamas, the Government does not intend to proceed to trial on the campaign contributions count.”

And just like that, charges are gone. What’s strange is that this claim jumps out in the financial trail of FTX. Indeed, it seems obvious. It was an impressive caper. FTX said it practiced “effective altruism” and so intended to give away $1 billion to charity. It raised venture funding from many sources that wanted to pay off politicians but were restricted from doing so by law. FTX classified this as investment and then altruistically gave money to many charities involved in “pandemic planning” but many were not real charities. They were 501c4s that fund political campaigns. With just a few hops in the money trail, this mechanism allowed vast funding of mostly Democratic political interests in advance of the 2020 election.

Once you have a look at the details and players (and we have done so in two articles here and here), it becomes clear that “effective altruism” was simply a cover for a politically driven money scheme. FTX was founded and then went into bankruptcy exactly in keeping with this purpose. It remains possible that SBF will face trouble over claims of wire fraud but that could be plea-bargained away. We shall see. What’s striking is that the most obvious issues have been swept away on a legal technicality.

Central to the charity of FTX was the issue of pandemic planning, or so they said. SBF’s brother ran a pandemic organization. Linda Fried, Sam’s aunt on his mother’s side, was Dean of the School of Public Health at Columbia University and on the board of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Aging. SBF’s girlfriend Caroline Ellison’s mother is a professor of economics at MIT with a research specialization in the pharmaceutical industry while her father has written at least four papers on epidemiological modeling.

The “Together Trial” was a trial of therapeutics that ended up inveighing against Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and was generously funded by FTX together with the Koch Foundation. The head of Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, Moncef Slaoui, received $150,000 from FTX to write SBF’s autobiography. HelixNano, a vaccine company that claims to be developing mutation-resistant vaccines, received $10M in funding from FTX Future Fund. And Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security: This institution ran the Event 201 lockdown tabletop exercise in 2019, and received at least $175,000 for a single employee, from FTX coffers.

This barely scratches the surface and we would like to know more. It would be glorious if the New York Times or some other big media organ would assign 50 reporters to dig deeper, as they did with the supposed Trump-Russia connection that turned up nothing after years of high dudgeon. But nope: all we get is silence. In contrast, the national media mostly treats SBF as a confused genius who got in over his head because his wonderful company achieved too much too fast.

How the national media treats money trails entirely depends on the political drive behind the effort. In the second term of the Reagan administration, the executive branch became involved in an effort to fund the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Contras in Nicaragua in the name of fighting the spread of Soviet influence and winning the Cold War. Congress had specifically stopped these funding efforts so the Reaganites turned to the usual suite of shell companies, friendly governments, intelligence agencies, and secure money-movers to get the cash to those who wanted it.

The result was many years of intense investigation. Every center-left and left-wing outfit was all over the Iran-Contra money scandal, seeking receipts and subjecting the major players like Oliver North to sworn Congressional testimony. There was nothing wrong with this and everything right: in the American system, the executive branch cannot fund global projects without the approval of Congress. The search to ferret out the scandals seemed like part of the effort to clean up government.

Here we are nearly 40 years later and the Biden administration is embroiled in an astonishing version of something similar, with familial connections, shell companies, cash moving here and there, foreign governments like Ukraine, and intelligence agencies serving as essential tools of covering it all up. It was the Hunter Biden laptop that provided the clues and that led to more receipts of an amazing nature. This week I received a call from a man who was instrumental in discovering the laptop who explained many of the funding connections but after about 15 minutes of detail I could not keep up even though he went on for another 30 minutes. It was all mind-boggling. This one makes the Iran-Contra scandal seem like the age of innocence.

How deep does this rabbit hole go? Consider the attacks on Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and the attempt to close the primary such that only Biden can win it? The effort is primarily funded by Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder of Facebook which itself cooperated very closely with the federal government in suppressing contrary opinions on lockdowns and vaccines. Liam Sturgess explains:

The group behind the campaign is the Progressive Turnout Project, a political action committee (PAC) that has been described as “the largest voter contact organization in the country.” It has a series of sub-organizations operating under different names, two of which are also engaged in the BAN RFK petition: Stop Republicans and Progressive Takeover. … Using the most recent publicly-available data from OpenSecrets, we discovered that the single largest donation to the PTP came from Dustin Moskovitz.

Moskovitz also co-founded a project management application called Asana in 2008. Between these two massively profitable companies, Moskovitz generated so much wealth that he was identified by Forbes in 2011 as the world’s youngest self-made billionaire, even beating out Zuckerberg.

After earning his fortune in Big Tech, Moskovitz and his future wife, Cari Tuna, signed on to “The Giving Pledge,” committing to give away the vast majority of their money before the end of their lives. The Giving Pledge was the creation of mega-millionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, with co-signatories including Elon Musk, Zuckerberg, George Lucas, David Rockefeller, and Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of the recently-collapsed FTX cryptocurrency trading platform.

To accomplish their goal, Moskovitz and Tuna embraced a philosophy of “effective altruism.” According to its proponents, effective altruists seek to direct funding towards the people and organizations most likely to accomplish a given intended outcome for the betterment of humanity and the planet —often focusing on topics such as artificial intelligence, natural disasters, and combating “misinformation/disinformation.”

With effective altruism as their anchor, Moskovitz and Tuna started the Good Ventures Foundation in 2011. The focus of their philanthropy was to include biomedical research, pandemics and bioterrorism, education, food security, foreign aid, geoengineering, global health and development, immigration, nanotechnology and treatment of animals. Good Ventures also partnered with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to co-fund research related to infectious diseases in Africa.

In August 2014, Good Ventures partnered with a similar organization called GiveWell to launch the Open Philanthropy Project, which would recommend grants for Good Ventures to fulfill (paid for by Moskovitz).

In the years leading up to COVID-19, Moskovitz used Open Philanthropy and Good Ventures to provide significant funding toward pandemic preparedness and biosecurity. Open Philanthropy is also listed as the primary sponsor of a series of tabletop pandemic “war games,” during which world leaders practice how they might respond to various scenarios involving outbreaks of novel viruses, whether man-made or of natural origin. Some examples include Clade X (May 2018); A Spreading Plague (February 2019); and of course, the infamous Event 201 (October 2019).

If you have followed this article carefully, you see that we have come full circle, from the effort to silence and stop Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., back to Sam Bankman-Fried, the phony crypto exchange FTX, and the money trails through pandemic planning straight to political control of people by a single political party that tolerates no competition. One might suppose these connections would launch a thousand investigations and calls for reform. They should.

Instead, the charges were dismissed, by the very regime that stands to lose all credibility in light of all these strange money trails. And now we see major banks canceling accounts by major medical dissidents, as a warning to others.

Let there be no mystery as to why the public has lost trust in government, public health, media, and virtually every other official institution. Even as Americans have been pillaged and had their foundational rights violated by governments, the people on the inside have done very well for themselves within this tangled web of graft and corruption. They have every intention to forever block curious journalists from knowing more.

July 30, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , | Leave a comment

Don’t investigate this … or this … or this ….

Because if officials did, they might have to ‘confirm’ something that blows up all their bogus narratives.

BY BILL RICE, JR. | JULY 29, 2023

In Part 1 of this article, I presented my iron-clad Covid maxim: “Officials never investigate that which they don’t want to confirm.”

One of the first Reader Comments this article generated was from the always-astute Substacker SimulationCommander:

“This goes for much more than Covid, too. Like the Nordstream bombings or cocaine in the White House. Then you can have the press parrot, “No evidence exists…”

And how, SC. This maxim does apply to every “taboo” subject that could/might detonate any false or bogus narrative. Alas, if I was going to list examples of every taboo topic that can’t be investigated (because inconvenient truths might be “confirmed”), I’d be writing until midnight.

This caveat stipulated, what follows are a few more Covid examples I think “confirm” my maxim that non-authorized conclusions cannot be “confirmed” … because they simply won’t be investigated. Or, if they are “investigated,” said investigation will itself be a scam, designed to protect the authorized conclusion.

Unauthorized findings and the ‘solution’ to make sure the public never learns of these narrative-destroying conclusions …

Possible Vaccine-Caused Deaths:

Don’t perform autopsies.

Don’t investigate or follow-up on all the people listed on the VAERS data base.

Make sure medical personnel don’t go overboard inputting VAERS reports. (Make sure the VAERS system is capturing only a tiny percentage of the possible vaccine-injured).

Make sure the MSM doesn’t interview or investigate the claims of family members who possibly died or had vaccine injuries.

Possible Iatrogenic Deaths: 

Don’t perform any statistical comparisons from previous years.

Don’t interview any doctors, nurses or hospital administrators who believe the “Covid protocols” were actually killing patients.

Spike in All-Cause Mortality:

Don’t report it or investigate it.

Don’t question any life insurance companies or their actuary experts.

Don’t question any funeral home directors or coroners about any possible spike in deaths.

Don’t question any clergy that perform funeral services.

Don’t survey ambulance companies to see if they were/are responding to more emergency calls.

Don’t question florists to see if they were/are preparing more floral arrangements for funerals.

If some journalist or official must mention a spike in all-cause deaths, attribute these deaths to “long Covid” or “Covid that won’t go away” (even though the “vaccines” were supposed to prevent death in at least 95 percent of cases.)

Spike in “sudden deaths” or athletes suffering fatalities or serious medical emergencies while participating in their sports:

Don’t seek to tally these incidents or compare them to previous years.

Censor the YouTube videos of hundreds of athletes collapsing while in competition.

Or: make sure said videos do NOT “go viral.”

Censor or “de-boost” the many thousands of headlines and stories that report on these incidents.

Possible early spread: 

To reduce the length of this article, I refer readers to this article (“27 ways officials concealed evidence of early spread.”)

One mechanism that might suppress evidence of early virus spread would be to NOT perform any antibody studies of all naval personnel who were on a ship between November 2019 through March 2020.

(See end of this article for my latest “eureka!” observation/theory. This possibility is a stunner even to me.)

General techniques that make sure no counter-factual evidence is ever confirmed …

Don’t give research money to any college or “scientific” research organization that might perform studies on taboo topics that could de-bunk the authorized narratives.

If some awkward or embarrassing studies are performed, censor them … or produce a “counter-study” designed to discredit the previous inconvenient study/anecdotes.

Steer studies to researchers who will produce results that match the authorized narratives.

Note: This is the “carrot” approach: “We’ll pay you if you produce a good study for us!”

More yummy carrots: Pay news organizations (via advertising spends and “Excellence-in- Journalism” grants) that run stories that support the narrative.

The stick: Boycott, censor, de-platform the few media organizations that persist in challenging the authorized narratives. Try to shut these sites down or get their key dissenting journalists fired (Tucker Carlson, James O’Keefe, etc).

Or: Put dissidents or “dangerous extremists/traitors” in jail for the rest of their lives (Julian Assange).

Or: Force them to flee to Russia (Edward Snowden).

Use non-stop propaganda to encourage other vaccines: “Don’t forget to get your flu shot. It’s not too late to get your flu shot. Flu shots prevent the flu.”

More carrots: “$10 gift card at Publix for everyone who gets their flu shot … or Covid shot.”

More sticks: “We’ll fire you if you don’t get your shot.”

Carrot and stick at the same time: “You can now go to a Broadway play … If you’ve gotten your shots and can prove it to us.”

Teasing my upcoming story on the outbreak on the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier … and my latest discombobulating thought that flows from this research …

As I’ll soon report, the CDC and Navy actually tested 382 crew members (out of 4,800 crew members) of the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier for antibodies. Blood for these antibody tests was collected from a “voluntary … convenience sample” on April 20-24, 2020.

The results showed that 60 to 62* percent of the Roosevelt crew members who got an antibody assay tested positive for antibodies (which provide antigen evidence of “prior infection.”)

*Note: Some sentences in this study say “62 percent” of crew members tested positive for antibodies, other sentences say “60 percent.”

Previously-reported PCR test results had suggested only 20 percent of Roosevelt crew members had been infected by the time this ship made it to port in Guam in late March, 2020.

In researching the “Roosevelt outbreak,” I learned there’d also been Covid outbreaks on a French aircraft carrier (the Charles de Gaulle) in the approximate same time period as the Roosevelt outbreak; there was also an outbreak on the USS Kidd missile destroyer.

The French aircraft carrier had about 1,800 crew members and 90 percent of these crew members were later tested for antibodies (for some odd reason, only 7.9 percent of Roosevelt crew members were tested for antibodies).

The de Gaulle antibody results were almost identical to the percentage of the Roosevelt study, showing that 60 to 65 percent of these sailors had been previously infected.

On the USS Kidd, which had 333 crew members, at least 41 percent of its crew members had been previously infected based on PCR and antibody results.

I believe the antibody results on the Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle and Kidd are trying to tell us something about the real R-naught number of the novel coronavirus. 

The R-naught number tries to quantify how contagious a particular virus is. It seeks to tell researchers how many people one infected person might later – directly or indirectly – infect.

An R-naught number over 2 means “virus” spread” is going to be significant. If this number is 3 or 4 (or more), Katie bar the door!

True, naval vessels constitute  the worst possible “spread” environments, but, if nothing else, these antibody results tell us that the majority of people in any “congregate” and extended virus-spread environment will at some point contract this virus.

NOTE: If any person has relevant information about a potential “early outbreak” on the Roosevelt or any naval ship (and a possible cover-up of same), please email me at: wjricejunior@gmail.com

On 3 ships with extreme outbreaks, only 1 sailor died from Covid …

Another key take-away from my non-authorized research project is that only one of approximately 7,000 sailors on these three ships died from Covid (and this lone Covid victim was 41.)

In other words, the antibody studies show that of at least 4,000 or so sailors infected with this virus, only one infected person died (and details of this one fatality are sketchy and include odd elements).

This means the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for sailors under the age of 41 on these three ships was 0.0000 percent.

I argue this finding – if widely publicized – would have slain the false narrative that Covid was a threat to young adults.

And then this crazy thought hit me …

Upon deeper contemplation, I find it very interesting that no antibody studies were done of crew members of other ships that were at sea between December 2019 and March 2020.

Question: What if later antibody studies had been done of all naval crew members who had been at sea in these “pre-official Covid” months?

If this pro-active prevalence investigation (or “active surveillance” as Alex Berenson highlighted in a recent study about vaccine-caused heart issues) had been performed, I think researchers and the public might have found that 40 to 60 percent of crew members who served on every ship in any nation’s Navy might have also tested positive for Covid antibodies.

The reason more antibody studies weren’t performed is probably that no other “outbreaks” were publicly identified on any other ships.

However, the reason no or few possible early “cases” were identified on other ships is that no PCR tests were available on these others ships and no sailors were being tested with PCR tests before mid-March 2020.

So we got only “passive surveillance.” This, I argue, is why more early cases throughout the population weren’t identified. There were simply no PCR tests being given to people who may have been infected.

In my opinion, if these tests had been available and had been administered, PCR positive results would have started coming back “positive” just like they did on the other ships that did get these (then) scarce tests and started testing crew members.

Maybe more “PCR evidence” of early infections on more naval vessels would have prompted more later antibody studies of all the crew members of those ships (just like what happened on the Roosevelt, Kidd and de Gaulle).

With the exception of the outbreaks on these three ships, PCR and antibody testing didn’t happen. I suspect that wide-spread antibody testing of all naval vessels didn’t happen … for a reason.

Again: Don’t test for (or genuinely “investigate”) that which you don’t want to “confirm.” This strategy works every time!

July 30, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

NYT blows the ‘aging demographic’ horn

Pensions etc. can’t be paid in future. More fear porn to push 7 very important narratives.

BY MERYL NASS | JULY 30, 2023

The NY Times ran a major story today to get in front of the depopulation narrative, it seems. Countries don’t actually need to depopulate to stop the world population from increasing. Depopulation is already here, happening organically. [By that I mean families are having fewer children in response to the strip mining of the middle classes everywhere.] I described the lack of a growing world population last February, here.

No doubt both depopulation and the aging of all our nations has sped up as a result of COVID vaccinations being forced on 2/3 of the world’s population.

Yes, forced. Illegally forced. By spewing lies at everyone about the vaccines’ benefits and harms, which governments, regulators and manufacturers knew were lies, by scaring the Bejesus out of people by lying about the severity of COVID, by threatening and sanctioning refusers, by exhorting the world to shun refusers, by demanding vaccine passports to participate in normal activities like shopping… the list goes on and on. The people who wrote, spread and repeated these lies are culpable of crimes against humanity.

But the COVID lies and the vaccine lies were only the beginning. Governments also lied about borders, about immigration, about unaccompanied children crossing borders, and most importantly about WHY all these bizarre policies were being hoisted on most of the developed and developing world. The NY Times has been front and center in carrying the dirty water—and amplifying it—for each of these criminal lies and the policies they buttressed.

Now the NYT is at it again.

I see many narratives that the NY Times may be trying to push with this piece:

ONE: Lack of intent. We did not create the COVID virus nor the vaccines with the intent to depopulate, because we actually need more young people as workers. Therefore, such claims make no sense, and must be dismissed in their entirety.

TWO: In fact, we knew the population was decreasing. It has been obvious for years. Why would we shoot our economies in the foot by depopulating? Don’t blame us. [Ignores the fact that by crashing our economies, the assets can be purchased on the cheap, while putting people and nations into a debt trap that will close in on them later as interest rates rise, or money gets tight, or using other schemes.]

THREE: The NYT provides the justification why pensions cannot be paid in full, and why retirement ages must increase.

FOUR: If we were in fact trying to depopulate, we would have aimed for the elderly. The fact that so many young people have myocarditis, sudden deaths, and that there are 40% more deaths in working age groups should be additional evidence that vaccine depopulation was accidental, not intentional.

FIVE: To justify crazy ‘immigration’ policies [the border is open, just wade across] the NYT reveals that with a younger group of workers entering the country, maybe we can pay your pension after all. Fingers crossed. So shut up about immigration if you want to retire.

SIX: All those unaccompanied minors crossing the border? Shut up, they will become our young workers in a few years, the ones that pay for your pensions. Stop asking what happened to them.

SEVEN: We could so easily fix this if it wasn’t for those right-wing populist movements nipping at the heels of our totalitarian one world governance project.

Excerpts follow.

The world’s demographics have already been transformed. Europe is shrinking. China is shrinking, with India, a much younger country, overtaking it this year as the world’s most populous nation.

But what we’ve seen so far is just the beginning.

The projections are reliable, and stark: By 2050, people age 65 and older will make up nearly 40 percent of the population in some parts of East Asia and Europe. That’s almost twice the share of older adults in Florida, America’s retirement capital. Extraordinary numbers of retirees will be dependent on a shrinking number of working-age people to support them.

In all of recorded history, no country has ever been as old as these nations are expected to get.

As a result, experts predict, things many wealthier countries take for granted — like pensions, retirement ages and strict immigration policies — will need overhauls to be sustainable. And today’s wealthier countries will almost inevitably make up a smaller share of global G.D.P., economists say….

As in many young countries, birth rates in Kenya have declined drastically in recent years. Women had an average of eight children 50 years ago, but only just over three last year. Demographically, Kenya looks something like South Korea in the mid-1970s, as its economy was beginning a historic rise, although its birth rate is declining somewhat more slowly. Much of South Asia and Africa have similar age structures…

there is evidence that sub-Saharan African countries’ fertility rates are dropping even faster than the U.N. projects… [Uh oh, what else have we done to them?]

The transformation of rich countries has only just begun. If these countries fail to prepare for a shrinking number of workers, they will face a gradual decline in well-being and economic power….

To cope, experts say, aging rich countries will need to rethink pensions, immigration policies and what life in old age looks like. [Do they mean what life in old age looks like, or do they mean enforced death in old age?]

Change will not come easy. More than a million people have taken to the streets in France to protest raising the retirement age to 64 from 62, highlighting the difficult politics of adjusting. Immigration fears have fueled support for right-wing candidates across aging countries in the West and East Asia.

“Much of the challenges at the global level are questions of distribution,” Dr. Myrskylä said. “So some places have too many old people. Some places have too many young people. It would of course make enormous sense to open the borders much more. And at the same time we see that’s incredibly difficult with the increasing right-wing populist movements.”…

“You can say with some kind of degree of confidence what the demographics will look like,” Mr. O’Keefe said. “What the society will look like depends enormously on policy choices and behavioral change.”

July 30, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »