Only two days after the Journal of the Academy of Public Health‘s official launch, Science Magazine criticised it in a news item. A scientist I had recommended as a member of our Academy wrote to me that the fact that Science feared our new journal suggested that we were on the right track.
Indeed. Science scored an own goal by illustrating so clearly what is wrong with the legacy media and traditional scientific journals. It started out with denigrating remarks about the journal being the brainchild of President Donald Trump’s pick to direct the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Jay Bhattacharya, and Martin Kulldorff “who became known for his opposition to lockdowns, child vaccination, and other public health measures during the Covid-19 pandemic. Its editorial board also includes Trump’s pick to lead the Food and Drug Administration, Johns Hopkins University surgeon Marty [wrongly spelled as Martin] Makary, who also opposed vaccine mandates.”
Why did Science mention that Trump picked Jay and Marty? This is irrelevant for any scientific judgments about these people. And what was wrong with their positions during the pandemic? Nothing.
Sweden did not lock down and yet had one of the lowest mortalities in the world. To vaccinate children against Covid-19 down to 6 months of age as in the US is highly likely harmful, and we have not recommended this in Europe. Many people, me included, have argued against vaccine mandates and it was never a requirement in Denmark to become vaccinated against Covid-19. Such mandates are ethically and scientifically indefensible and can increase vaccine hesitancy for vaccines in general.
Science’s denigration continued: “The journal, which has already published eight articles on topics including COVID-19 vaccine trials and mask mandates, eschews several aspects of traditional publishing. It lacks a subscription paywall.”
“Lacks” a paywall? This is a negative statement, although it is positive not to have a paywall like Science has. And mask mandates? There is no need to mandate whole populations to dress as bank robbers given masking’s tenuous – and potentially nonexistent – benefits on a population level.
Since only members of the Academy of Public Health can submit articles, Science is worried that the journal will be used “to sow doubt about scientific consensus on matters such as vaccine efficacy and safety.”
Scientific consensus is rare, and even when it exists, it has often been proven wrong by later research. Science is the opposite of consensus. The status quo should be challenged, and free scientific debate – that so many traditional journals have suppressed – moves science forward. There are many good reasons why some top scientists have abandoned publishing in top scientific journals, and they include censorship, and financial and other conflicts of interest among anonymous peer reviewers, editors, and journal owners.
All my life, I have produced numerous scientific results that went against the so-called scientific consensus, and when my opponents had no valid counterarguments, they called me controversial. I realised that this denigrating term always meant that my results threatened financial or other conflicts of interest, not least guild interests. When my statistician and I demonstrated in 1999 that mammography screening might do more harm than good, which I have confirmed many times ever since, a journalist wrote that there is nothing that hurts like the truth about healthcare.
It is not enough for Science to cast doubt about our new journal by referring to Trump: “JAPH is a nonprofit subsidiary of the Real Clear Foundation, itself a donor-financed nonprofit that has attracted support from major funders of conservative causes, according to The New York Times. Kulldorff and many other members of the 21-person editorial board have attracted criticism for their views and research during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Ah well, I am one of these 21 people and I know many of the others. We are anything but conservative. We try to keep an open mind and are not easily fooled by fraudsters. In 2023, I explained that the origin of Covid-19 is the biggest coverup in medical history. And on 31 January 2025, I tweeted: “The CIA said Saturday that it’s more likely a lab leak caused the Covid-19 pandemic than an infected animal that spread the virus to people. They are very slow at the CIA. I have known this for five years and have written a lot about it incl a whole book.”
Science lamented that Jay, Martin, and Sunetra Gupta, also an editorial board member, authored the Great Barrington Declaration that opposed lockdowns. But yet again, they were right and Science and most other journals were wrong.
Science said that Jay and John Ioannidis, the most cited medical scientist, and another board member, “drew fire in 2020 for a study that claimed SARS-CoV-2 had infected far more people than currently thought, and was therefore far less dangerous than assumed.” This was totally misleading. Jay has explained how they were exposed to inappropriate attacks and censorship from Stanford where they worked. Their initial results, that the infection fatality rate was only 0.2%, were reproduced in other studies.
They first published their results as a preprint, in April 2020. If their results had been accepted at the time, instead of being roundly condemned, also in the media, the draconian lockdowns could have been avoided, as they showed that the virus spread very rapidly.
Science and the Covid-19 Pandemic
Since Science criticised us so heavily for our Covid research and views, even though we were correct, we should look at what Science’s own role has been. It claimed that the Covid-19 vaccines are 100% effective against severe disease, which wasn’t even correct when Science made the claim because we knew that respiratory viruses mutate fast.
I wrote in my book, The Chinese Virus, that Beijing’s useful idiots included Science, which was overly friendly with Peter Daszak – whose EcoHealth Alliance channelled an NIH grant to Wuhan to fund the highly dangerous gain-of-function research, which he denied.
In February 2020, Science reported that scientists “strongly condemn” rumours and conspiracy theories about the origin of the pandemic. If you have no arguments, you raise your voice. This sentence does not belong in a scientific journal but in a tabloid, and it cannot be a conspiracy theory to suggest that the virus escaped from a lab and was likely manufactured there. In the same article, Daszak said that “We’re in the midst of the social media misinformation age,” but forgot to say he was the main driver of it.
In 2020, researchers sent a modelling study to Science arguing that herd immunity would be achieved earlier than the usual estimates of an infection rate of 60-80% of the population. Science admitted that the paper was rejected for political reasons: “Given the implications for public health, it is appropriate to hold claims around the herd immunity threshold to a very high evidence bar, as these would be interpreted to justify relaxation of interventions, potentially placing people at risk.” Science was concerned that opponents of lockdown would use the paper to undermine the policy. The lead author said she might leave the field because every paper she had written on this issue had been rejected with the claim that it was not useful or new.
In November 2021, Science published an almost 5,000-word article about Daszak that told nothing new. A reporter had spent seven hours with Daszak to put a nice gloss on him. A photo of Daszak appeared on Science’s front page with the title of the article: Prophet in purgatory: Peter Daszak is fighting accusations that his work on the pandemic prevention helped spark Covid-19.
Science published this when the death toll was about 6 million and depicted Daszak as a hero who works on preventing pandemics when it is extremely likely that he and “the bat lady,” Shi Zhengli in Wuhan, created one, which he had covered up for in two years.
Science didn’t care much about conflicts of interest either. When NIH’s David Morens praised Daszak, they didn’t tell the readers that he was Daszak’s funder, colleague, and co-author. Science mentioned that Freedom of Information Act requests by the US Right to Know and others had uncovered inconvenient truths, but it used Angela Rasmussen to dismiss this as “weaponized FOIA requests.” She was the one who, in Nature Medicine, called it a worldwide conspiracy when people discussed a possible lab leak. It is still the case that there is not a thread of good evidence that the virus has a natural origin but a lot that tells us it was produced in a laboratory in Wuhan.
Wait and See
In the Science article, Kulldorff said that people had a right to be worried about what might happen and added that our journal should be judged on its output a year or more from now, once it’s more established. I agree. I am very enthusiastic about the journal. And this is not because I cannot publish in traditional journals. I am the only Dane who has over 100 publications in “the big five” (BMJ, the Lancet, JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine).
Disclosures, Funding & Conflicts of Interest
Peter C Gøtzsche, Professor emeritus, Institute for Scientific Freedom, Copenhagen, DK
March 29, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, United States |
Leave a comment
Renowned French physician, microbiologist, and infectious disease expert Didier Raoult, M.D., sits down with Del to revisit the injustices of the COVID-19 pandemic. As one of the most controversial figures of the pandemic, Raoult was among the first to advocate for a cheap, repurposed drug that he claimed showed promise in treating COVID. But what followed was a storm of censorship, scientific suppression, and personal attacks.
In this explosive interview, Raoult reveals what really happened, the global forces that worked to discredit his findings, and why the scientific community turned against him. Plus, hear his startling position on the origins of COVID-19, including his unexpected take on the Chinese lab leak theory.
Guest: Didier Raoult, M.D.
March 24, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, France, United States |
Leave a comment
Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Physicians for Informed Consent and a group of doctors who sued the Medical Board of California after it disciplined them for allegedly spreading COVID-19 “misinformation” have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their case.
The plaintiffs in Kory v. Bonta submitted their petition on March 1, following the November 2024 dismissal of their case by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta is named in the suit, along with the state’s medical board.
The lawsuit, filed in January 2024, is a follow-up to a previous complaint filed in 2022 and an amended suit filed in 2023, which challenged California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 2098 — a law allowing the medical board to discipline doctors who give “false” information about COVID-19 for engaging in unprofessional conduct.
A federal judge blocked AB 2098 in January 2023, and the law was later repealed. However, according to the lawsuit, the Medical Board of California is still targeting “COVID misinformation” and is threatening physicians with disciplinary action.
Three medical professionals — Dr. Brian Tyson, a board-certified family practitioner who owns an urgent care facility; Dr. LeTrinh Hoang, a pediatric osteopathic physician; and Dr. Pierre Kory, president emeritus of the Independent Medical Alliance, launched the lawsuit.
According to the petition to the Supreme Court, the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, “with the assistance of the California Legislature,” have threatened disciplinary actions against the plaintiffs and other physicians for offering information to patients that departs from official COVID-19 narratives.
In April 2024, a federal district court rejected the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction against the medical board. The 9th Circuit upheld the ruling in November 2024. In January, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ emergency application for an injunction.
Lawsuit hopes to set precedent that ‘informed consent is free speech’
The case seeks to resolve contradictory precedents from two federal appeals courts on whether the First Amendment protects physicians’ communications to patients — “a question that is particularly significant in a field like medicine, where scientific understanding is continually advancing and rarely settled.”
In a Physicians for Informed Consent press release, Rick Jaffe, who represents the plaintiffs, said the lawsuit “touches on the foundational rights of professionals to share knowledge and opinions essential for patient autonomy and informed consent.”
Tyson said patients cannot provide informed consent if their physicians are denied the opportunity to speak freely.
“We want doctors and all providers to be able to discuss risks and benefits with our patients, be able to speak out against things that are wrong, and be heard when breakthroughs are made,” Tyson said. “The hope is the Supreme Court will set the precedent that informed consent is free speech.”
Supreme Court asked to decide between competing legal precedents
According to the petition, federal courts have established competing legal precedents relating to medical free speech.
In a 2022 decision in Tingley v. Ferguson, the 9th Circuit upheld the ability of professional boards in Washington to restrict members’ speech, arguing this is similar to the boards’ enforcement of “other restrictions on unprofessional conduct.”
But in a 2020 decision in Otto v. City of Boca Raton, the 11th Circuit struck down local ordinances that limited the speech of therapists and counselors, finding that such content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions violate the First Amendment, which has no carveout for controversial speech.
Tyson said the California Medical Board’s disciplinary proceedings against him jeopardized his career. “I had to defend my position against the [board] and almost lost my license … That would have been devastating to the community I serve and to all those I employ.”
Jaffe said Kory v. Bonta is similar to another First Amendment case relating to medical speech, Stockton v. Ferguson. Filed in March 2024, the lawsuit seeks “to protect the right of physicians to speak” and the public’s right to hear such speech.
CHD is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, as are several doctors facing disciplinary proceedings by the Washington Medical Commission for their public statements criticizing mainstream COVID-19 narratives. Basketball legend John Stockton is also a plaintiff, advocating for the public’s right to access and listen to “soapbox speech.”
In January, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ emergency appeal in Stockton v. Ferguson. The case remains active before the 9th Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for May 14, Jaffe said.
“The two cases represent the entire spectrum of cases involving what physicians say and would allow the court to give a definitive and comprehensive answer to whether and how much the First Amendment protects professionals when they communicate to patients and the public,” Jaffe said.
According to Physicians for Informed Consent, four justices must agree before the full court can hear Kory v. Bonta. If the Supreme Court decides to take the case, it will hear Kory v. Bonta in October.
Jaffe said the Supreme Court may ultimately jointly consider Kory v. Bonta and Stockton v. Ferguson. He credited CHD with its role in supporting both cases.
“We hope to establish the constitutional right of healthcare providers to speak out against the prevailing medical and scientific consensus about COVID-19, as well as whatever public health challenges face the country in the future,” Jaffe said.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
March 9, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
This article adds to the evidence presented in the COVID Dossier to support the following claim:
COVID was not a public health event, although it was presented as such to the world’s population. It was a global operation, coordinated through public-private intelligence and military alliances and invoking laws designed for CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) weapons attacks.
USAID-COVID CONNECTION
Deborah Birx, who became the White House Coronavirus Task Force Coordinator on February 27, 2020, came directly from USAID – the department everyone now knows to be a front for CIA propaganda and regime change operations. [ref]
She served as U.S. Special Representative for Global Health Diplomacy, a joint USAID and State Department office that had ” developed a strategic approach to accomplish their shared mission that focuses on robust diplomacy and development as central to solving global problems.” [ref]
Almost exactly five years ago, the public was told that Deborah Birx was appointed by Vice President Mike Pence who, on February 26, 2020, took over coordination of the U.S. government’s response to the novel coronavirus. [ref]
The announcement said:
Ambassador Birx is a world-renowned global health official and physician. She will be detailed to the Office of the Vice President and will report to Vice President Mike Pence. She will also join the Task Force led by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar. She will be supported by the National Security Council staff. [ref]
This announcement contains hints that Birx was not chosen by public health agencies or officials. Rather, she appears to be coming from the national security apparatus, and “will be supported by the National Security Council staff.”
Further supporting this supposition, on March 11, 2020, at a Heritage Foundation Talk, Trump’s National Security Advisor, Robert O’Brien, when discussing what the White House and NSC were doing about the virus, said:
We brought into the White House Debi Birx, a fantastic physician and ambassador from the State Department. We appreciate Secretary Pompeo immediately moving her over to the White House at our, well at the President’s, request. [min. 21:43 – 21:56]
In other words, Birx was “moved over to the White House” by the Secretary of State, at the request of the National Security Council.
The National Security Council Was in Charge of the U.S. Government’s Covid Response
These facts about Deborah Birx’s appointment to the Task Force are consistent with the government pandemic planning documents that show the NSC – not the HHS, CDC, NIAID, or any other public health agency – was in charge of the U.S. government’s Covid response policy.
Investigating Deborah Birx’s Role in the Covid Response
In August 2022 I published a series of articles investigating how Deborah Birx got the job on the Task Force, the bogus science she promoted, and her relationship with the public health officials on the Task Force.
Here are excerpts from, and links to, those articles:
How Did Deborah Birx Get the Job?
Deborah Birx, an immunologist and Army Colonel who worked for the Department of Defense and US Military on AIDS research, served as Directory of the CDC’s Division of Global HIV/AIDS and as the US Global AIDS Coordinator [ref], was appointed White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator on February 27th, 2020.
She had no training or experience in epidemiology, novel pathogen pandemic response, or airborne respiratory viruses like the coronavirus.
She was offered the position by Matt Pottinger, Deputy National Security Advisor for China, who told Birx that if she did not take the job American lives could be lost.
In her “excruciating story” of the pandemic, Silent Invasion, Deborah Birx does not even try to make coherent scientific or public health policy arguments in favor of the Chinese-style totalitarian measures she advocated. Instead, she provides self-contradictory assertions – some downright false and others long disproven in the scientific literature.
It Was Birx. All Birx.
We know Birx was not working with President Trump, although she was on a task force ostensibly representing the White House. Trump did not appoint her, nor did the leaders of the Task Force, as Scott Atlas recounts in his revelatory book on White House pandemic activity, A Plague Upon Our House. When Atlas asked Task Force members how Birx was appointed, he was surprised to find that “no one seemed to know.” (Atlas, p. 82)
Yet, somehow, Deborah Birx – a former military AIDS researcher and government AIDS ambassador with no training, experience, or publications in epidemiology or public health policy – found herself leading a White House Task Force on which she had the power to literally subvert the policy prescriptions of the President of the United States.
Debi Does Lockdowns
It is my (as yet unproven) theory that the lab-leak cabal, for which Birx was a primary agent in the US government, wanted to impose strict lockdowns all over the world.
Whatever their motives, the goal seems very clear: Get as many countries as possible to lock down for as long as possible, at least until vaccines become available.
But locking down entire countries full of healthy populations was never an accepted or ethically/medically/scientifically supported pandemic response, and people might object to such draconian measures. So Birx+cabal had to create enough panic to make it happen.
Given this connection between the U.S. government’s Covid response, the CIA-adjacent USAID, and the National Security Council, maybe those who say they are interested in full transparency can answer the questions presented here:
Hey, Jim Jordan: Ask Fauci Who His Bosses Were!
And the crucial questions raised by the Covid Dossier.
March 8, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States, USAID |
Leave a comment
Are there any sources of information we can still believe?
I was late to the sceptical party. For the first 60 years of my life I was largely oblivious to the institutionalised evil operating within our world. Belatedly – since early 2020 – I have begun the painful process of piecing it all together, bit by bit. Much of my time is now spent reading books and online articles penned by authors who realised the egregious activities of our global elite long before my awakening. This ongoing research is an often painful process, not least because it constantly reminds me of my previous gullibility; I have to resist the temptation to abort this mission of discovery and store this new, eye-opening information in the filing cabinet labelled, ‘too difficult to think about’, and never open it again. But, of course, this is no longer a viable option; once some of the horrors have been seen it is impossible to unsee them.
So my journey of discovery must continue.
My world view has evolved, and long-established ‘truths’ in my mind have consecutively fallen like a row of dominoes, each piece’s descent destabilising the next in line. Let me summarise my trajectory into scepticism:
The worst pandemic of the century?
In early 2020, the mainstream media, politicians and the science ‘experts’ repeatedly informed us that a uniquely lethal pathogen was spreading carnage across the world, and unprecedented and draconian restrictions on our day-to-day lives were essential to prevent Armageddon. But I wasn’t buying it. As detailed in a previous post, I quickly formed the view that a momentous event, unparalleled in my lifetime, was unfolding; but it was not primarily about a virus.
The government lies were grotesque and frequent. Under the pretence of ‘keeping us safe’ and the – ominous – ‘greater good’, our basic human rights were trampled upon: prohibition of travel; confinement in our homes; social isolation; closure of businesses; denial of access to leisure activities; de-humanising mask mandates; directives (scrawled on floors and walls) dictating which way to walk; an arbitrary ‘stay 2-metres apart’ rule; exclusion from the weddings and funerals of our loved ones; the seclusion and neglect of our elderly; school shut-downs; children’s playgrounds sealed off with yellow-and-black tape; muzzled children and toddlers; students denied both face-to-face tuition and a rites-of-passage social life; and coerced experimental ‘vaccines’ that turned out to be far more harmful and far less effective than initially claimed. Equally egregious were the strategies deployed to lever compliance with these restrictions, namely psychological manipulation (‘nudging’), pervasive censorship across the media and academic journals, and the cancellation and vilification of anyone brave enough to speak out against the dominant covid narrative. All-in-all, a state-driven assault on the core of our shared humanity.
Prior to the covid event, I believed that Western political leaders – and their state-funded experts – were, broadly speaking, trying to improve the lives of their citizens. In 2020, everything changed; trust in our institutions ceased. If the establishment could tell such blatant falsehoods about a ‘pandemic’, what else are they lying about?
Are we really spiralling towards climate Armageddon?
In the 1970s, I recall being told that planet earth was cooling down and we were all at imminent risk of hypothermia. Over recent years, the narrative has shifted and we are now told ‘human behaviour is unequivocally warming our planet’, ‘a code red for humanity’, and ‘there is nowhere to hide’. According to Antonio Guterres (Secretary General of the United Nations), the weather has become a ‘weapon of mass extinction’.
But are we really spiralling towards a climate emergency?
My scepticisms about the veracity of the dominant climate-apocalypse story were accelerated by a key observation: just as a lucrative and extensive pandemic industry were profiting from the enduring myth that we were all at increasing risk from future deadly viruses, a similarly bloated money-making infrastructure had grown around the premise of an imminent climate catastrophe. When the livelihoods and statuses of experts are directly dependent upon maintaining a dominant ideology – be it a looming plague or a boiling planet – these ideologies will be highly resistant to erosion, and those challenging these doom-ladened stories are likely to be labelled as heretics.
And the perusal of a few relevant statistics raises major doubts about the dominant climate narrative and its forecasts of pending weather-related disasters. Hasn’t the climate always been changing since the time of Adam and Eve? What about the fact that there has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of storms? And the number of people who lose their lives to temperature extremes, or who are affected by floods, has reduced; life expectancy has increased; and the number of people living in poverty has fallen. So how do these observations fit with Guterres’ climate catastrophe prediction?
Also, why are our politically elite impoverishing us all by waging war on carbon dioxide? Historically, hasn’t this ‘greenhouse gas’ constituted a much higher percentage of our atmosphere than the current miniscule 0.04%? Is it not true that all plants and vegetation depend on carbon dioxide to grow and flourish? And don’t increases in carbon dioxide concentrations follow temperature rises rather than preceding them?
The reality is that there is little evidence of ‘climate impacts’ and no evidence of a ‘climate crisis’. The alarmist predictions – from Antonio Guterres, and many others – seem to be based on ideology rather than objective evidence. In a striking parallel with the covid event, the primary risk to our health is not from the purported source of danger (climate), but from the subsequent global policies that are impoverishing us all. And – predictably – the state-funded behavioural scientists (‘nudgers’) are deeply involved in this manipulative exercise.
Further truths begin to wobble and fall
Following the indisputable covid scam, and my growing recognition of the gaping holes in the imminent climate-catastrophe narrative, I have begun to question the veracity of the official accounts of many world events, both ongoing and historical.
For example, is the enduring war in Ukraine directly a result of the evil Putin’s expansionism, as we in the West are repeatedly told? Or is it more to do with the NATO warmongers who apparently feel obliged to keep prodding the Russian bear with threats that countries on their border will soon be welcomed into the alliance?
In April 2018, did the Syrian government really use chemical weapons on its own people in Douma (a suburb of Damascus), or was it a ‘false flag’ incident, concocted by the governments of the US, UK and France so as to legitimise the subsequent bombing of the region (aka the ‘War on Terror’)?
Pre-covid, even I believed that the assassination of J.F Kennedy in 1963 was not the exclusive work of lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald; more recent readings have confirmed that – unless a single bullet can defy the laws of physics and perform a couple of 90-degree turns – the CIA facilitated the execution. Furthermore, I now think that the recent attempts to eliminate Donald Trump – that pesky, uncontrollable president-elect – were likely to have involved elements of the deep state.
As one becomes increasingly aware of the depths of depravity to which actors within an unelected global elite are willing to sink, one even starts to question the official 9/11 narrative, of how, in 2001, four hijacked planes were used as guided missiles to hit the World Trade Centre (New York). In-depth analyses of the evidence by physicists, structural engineers and other scientific experts have concluded that all three skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolition – indeed, one of the three towers to collapse was not even hit by a plane, a fact largely ignored by the media and the official (inhouse) inquiry. A month following the 9/11 horrors, George W Bush led a long sought-after invasion of Afghanistan supported by an international coalition, once again raising the suspicion that the destruction of the World Trade Centre was another – evilly grotesque – false-flag event.
Is the 5G network making us sick? Are state-funded geo-engineers deploying weather manipulation techniques (such as cloud seeding) on a far greater scale than is officially acknowledged? On the 20th of July 1969, did men really walk on the moon? Is the world indeed flat? … … But perhaps my imagination is running away with me.
Is there anyone left to trust?
As I continue to dig for information to clarify what is really happening in the world, a nagging thought intrudes into my mind: can I trust the veracity of what I’m reading and hearing?
As each week goes by, more people are – understandably – questioning the reliability of the outputs of official government sources. Throughout the covid event, ministers and civil servants parroted the globalist narrative of a rampaging plague and ‘safe and effective’ vaccines. Irrespective of the reasons for their distortions (group think, gullibility, or corruption), those that still believe the utterances of our elected politicians and their ‘expert’ advisors constitute a rapidly shrinking demographic. Furthermore, an escalating number of folks are realising that many of our academics are conflicted, the future of their research departments, and often their career progressions, dependent upon recurrent funding from Big Pharma, Bill Gates and billionaires pushing a green agenda. Meanwhile, NHS public health specialists seem to have lost the propensity for independent thought, mindlessly following protocols set by global organisations. And state sponsored behavioural scientists amplify the power of the official messaging, seemingly without regard for the validity and consequences of these communications.
Beyond our national border, the high-profile mouthpieces become even less trustworthy. Ideologically driven, globalist agendas underpin the bulk of the outputs emanating from the World Health Organisation, the World Economic Forum, the European Union and the United Nations. One glaring instance of the ideologically corrupted outputs of global organisations was the WHO flip-flop on masks in summer 2020, when ‘political lobbying’ led to an abrupt reversal in the WHO’s view of the (in)effectiveness of face coverings in reducing viral spread.
As for the legacy media – purportedly the ‘fourth pillar of democracy – it seems hardly worth repeating the claim that they simply regurgitated the dominant narrative throughout the covid event and currently peddle the ongoing climate-catastrophe story. The BBC effectively function as a government mouthpiece, aided and abetted by ITV, Sky News and Channel 4.
How reliable are those who question the dominant globalist narrative?
While it is now clear that we can confidently tag almost all mainstream mouthpieces – government agencies, global organisations, academics and journalists – as unreliable, how much trust can we have in the integrity of alternative sources of information? Are the voices that are openly critical of the dominant mainstream narratives to be believed? My answer to these questions would be, ‘not always’. And there are two main reasons for this conclusion.
First, there is the potential for what is often referred to as ‘controlled opposition’: those that pretend to oppose the mainstream narratives while covertly serving the establishment, thereby appeasing the masses by fallaciously giving the impression that there is some meaningful resistance to the dominant globalist agendas. Although I believe (as discussed in an earlier article) that the term ‘controlled opposition’ is bandied around far too easily, such entities undoubtedly exist within the ubiquitous network of state-generated propaganda.
Second, we must never forget that there are multiple perceptual biases in each of us; no human being views the world in a totally objective way. Once an individual forms a strong belief – irrespective of whether it is a dominant-narrative or sceptical one – that person no longer construes the world impartially, their memories, focus of attention, and inferences all being biased in favour of maintaining existing perspectives. Furthermore, we all routinely resort to cognitive short cuts (‘heuristics’) as we navigate our complex social and physical environments, the conclusions we draw informed by snap judgements that are often mistaken.
The ubiquity of these thinking errors means that NO ONE can be impartial in perceiving, and relaying their views about, what is going on in the world. My own take on world events is shaped by bias and distortions. Similarly, my sceptical allies will be less than 100% reliable as sources of information; anyone who confidently claims to have sussed the machinations of life on this planet, to have figured out what’s going on, and to be thereby expressing an accurate account – the definitive truth – about the use of state power to control the masses, is mistaken.
So is the seeking of the truth a futile exercise?
Given that we are all treading water in an ocean of misinformation – much of it generated by government institutions and mainstream media – is my journey of discovery a pointless endeavour? As no source of information will be 100% accurate (due to corruption, censorship, propaganda, psychological manipulation, and the distorted lens of fallible humans) should I, and others, stop trying to learn more about what’s going on?
Definitely not.
While we cannot rely on any mouthpiece to provide a perfectly factual account of what is happening in our communities, what we can reasonably expect is for commentators to display integrity and honesty when giving their takes on the world around them. Thus, we should strive to identify information sources that are not on the payroll of vested interests, voices who appear to gain nothing (and potentially risk a lot) by speaking out against the dominant narratives, and those who genuinely strive to access evidence from all shades of opinion.
Taking all of these factors into consideration, which sources of information do I currently listen to and respect? The medical doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, psychologists and well-informed laypeople, who collaboratively opposed the dominant covid narrative from the outset, definitely fall into this category of trusted sources; this alliance would include my colleagues in the Health Advisory & Recovery Team (HART), my Smile Free associates who fought (and continue to fight) the mask mandates, and all those active in the Together movement to retain our individual freedoms. For similar reasons, I always actively consider the viewpoints of media people such as Neil Oliver, Bev Turner, Sonia Poulton and Joe Rogan. Although I do not always agree with every aspect of their pronouncements, I believe their words derive from a place of integrity. Also, I have a small network of sceptical friends – drawn from across the span of the ‘left-right’ political spectrum – whose observations, and opinions, I value. Anything I read or hear from other sources I approach with caution and incredulity.
I have described some of the main mouthpieces I rely on when it comes to piecing together what is going on in the world today. (There are many others with similar credentials). While they, inevitably, will all display the universal perceptual biases that are inherent to the human condition, I am confident that no one on this list of my trusted messengers is compromised by additional layers of bias deriving from financial or vocational conflicts of interest. For the near future, these sources of information will be highly influential in shaping my understanding of the forces behind the global technocratic authoritarianism we are all having to endure.
February 24, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, UK, Ukraine |
Leave a comment
Part One (a): Are the facts, facts?
‘The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate and contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.’ – John F. Kennedy
I do not think that anyone can write about Covid without first recognising that the facts, may not actually be ‘the facts.’
My trust in medical research has been gradually draining away for the past forty years or so. I am uncertain how much remains. I do not have a handy ACME ‘trustometer’ to slap on my forehead, but I sense my levels are certainly below fifty per cent – and falling. I shall let you know when they reach zero.
There was certainly a rapid drop during Covid. Accelerated by the emergence of ‘fact checkers.’ If a group of people could be more ironically named, then I would love to hear of them. The idea that someone can be an officially verified ‘checker of the facts’ is so inimical to science that they should have been laughed out of existence the moment they appeared. Sadly not. Soviet Union anyone?
Richard Feynman believed that the very definition of science is the process of questioning, and that scientists must be sceptical. Or, as he once said. ‘Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.’ I have regularly been ‘accused’ of being a professional sceptic. My reply is usually ‘thanks, I consider that a great compliment. You, on the other hand …’
As I delved into medical research papers over the years, one painful reality emerged. Which is that you need to be wary of the findings contained therein. I came to learn that, at least in certain cases, I only needed to look at which institution the research came from and who the authors were, to know which ‘camp’ they were in. At which point I could tell you everything the paper was going to say – to paraphrase. ‘We have found that everything we previously said was absolutely correct.’ No need to read it.
Of course, this only works for areas I have been studying for many years, where the terrain is very familiar. Give me a paper on quantum physics and I would have to read the whole damned thing. Then accept that I have not the slightest idea what they are talking about.
In the world of Covid research, two camps emerged very rapidly. There was ‘establishment’ camp, or the ‘accepted narrative’ camp and the ‘alternative’ camp’. Or, as I initially thought of them, the roundheads and the cavaliers [English civil war analogy – for my overseas readers]. As far I could tell, fact checkers were fully paid-up supporters of the roundheads.
Which meant that you could write an article wildly overestimating the infection fatality rate, and nothing would be said. The fact checkers would rouse themselves momentarily, then airily wave it through. However, dare to suggest the Infection fatality rate was lower than the mainstream view, and all hell would break loose. Or, at the beginning of the Covid sage, dare to suggest that the Sars-Cov-2 emerged from a biolab in Wuhan. ‘Off with his head’.
It didn’t take too long before I decided to rename the two camps the ‘Faucistas’, and the ‘Partisans.’ Although I know there should not be two sides in a scientific discussion. We are not at war. Those who question, and probe, have a vital role to play in science.
They, we, are trying to ensure that the accepted ideas are as robust as possible. If the mainstream facts are correct, they will resist all assaults. If they cannot resist, they should wither and die, to be replaced by something far stronger. Or at least that is how I hope it works.
This is a slightly long-winded way of saying that, when it comes to Covid the first thing you have to do with any ‘fact’ is to ask where it came from. A Faucista, or a partisan. Then apply the ‘Kendrick bias constant’ to determine its validity. A figure that only exists in my head, and even I am not sure what size it is, which way round it goes, or how to use it.
You also need to accept that research is often far from clear cut, and the findings may simply be … wrong. Twenty years ago, John Ioannidis published his seminal paper called: ‘Why most published research findings are false.’ It is one of the most widely read medical research papers, ever.1
‘There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false … Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.’
The prevailing bias. I like that term. Perfectly polite yet still damning.
Was he correct, are most research findings false? Well, he has his own biases, as we all do. I still like to believe that the majority research can be relied on, at least to some extent. Boring, but reliable – yet still boring. However, there are areas where he is right about the influence of prevailing bias. Places where findings are more likely to be false than true.
I believe that Covid became one such area very quickly. Within a matter of weeks, you were a Faucista – the group which certainly had the support of the vast majority. Or you were a partisan. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
I believe the polarisation in this area was so rapid and intense in large part because of the huge amount of money that was getting burned, and the need to justify that cost. The UK spent around four hundred billion pounds (~$500Bn) on Covid measures. Maybe even more – I think it was more. Enough to fund the NHS, in its entirely, for three years. The figure from the US was ‘officially’ four point six trillion. Four …point …six …trillion … gasp, thud.2
In addition to the money, there was the unprecedented disruption of everyday life. Far greater than anything seen outside a full-scale war. There was also the damage to children’s education and everyone’s mental health. The other diseases left undiagnosed and untreated, the massive debt and residual damage to public services, the clampdown on human freedoms … The list is long. More harm than good? That is the question.
A huge amount was at stake. So many reputations, both scientific and political, became bound to the ‘accepted narrative’ camp. If the narrative went down, so did they, with all hands-on deck. Thus, all the measures taken had to be found worthwhile, or at the very at least, excusable. ‘It was all very difficult, no-one knew what was going on. We had to do something … A big boy made me do it.’
Very rapidly, the Faucistas built themselves a mighty citadel, bristling with armaments, and fact checkers. Everyone within that citadel became hair trigger sensitive to the slightest perceived ‘enemy’ touch. Ready to react with ruthless bombardment. Along with personal attacks on whoever stated them.
The Great Barrington Declaration for instance, which proposed focussing protection on the elderly, and allowing the virus to take its course in younger populations. Where the risk of death was exceedingly low. This was universally condemned. Along with its authors. Here is one press release, out of many, many…
20 public health organizations condemn herd immunity scheme for controlling spread of COVID-19.
‘If followed, the recommendations in the Great Barrington Declaration would haphazardly and unnecessarily sacrifice lives. The declaration is not a strategy, it is a political statement… What we do not need is wrong-headed proposals masquerading as science.’3
‘Unnecessarily sacrifice lives… Wrong-headed proposals masquerading as science …’ Who dares pop their head over the parapet after such attacks? Only the brave, or foolhardy. As for debate … you must be joking. I was invited to talk at an anti-lockdown rally in September 2020, in Edinburgh. I gave a talk. The organiser was threatened with five years in jail. Luckily that has all gone very quiet.
Sweden, alone amongst European countries, decided not to lockdown, or perhaps you could call what they did lockdown ‘lite’. Schools, restaurants and bars remained open. People travelled on public transport. This approach, too, was universally condemned. It was stated that Dr Tegnell (chief epidemiologist) and Stefan Löfven (the prime minister), were…
‘… playing Russian roulette with the Swedish population,” Carlsson said. “At least if we’re going to do this as a people … lay the facts on the table so that we understand the reasons. The way I am feeling now is that we are being herded like a flock of sheep towards disaster…
… Leading experts last week were fiercely critical of the Swedish public health authority in an email thread seen by state broadcaster SVT, accusing it of incompetence and lack of medical expertise.’4
But the Swedes held out. Which took some nerve, whilst their own medical experts were screaming blue bloody murder in the background. Things changed. Now the accepted wisdom is that the Swedish people effectively locked themselves down, without being told to. Being such a great public-spirited people. ‘Oh yes, I think that fully explains their figures … ahem, don’t you?’
Why this change in outlook? From outrage to a widely accepted explanation, and a collective shrug. I suspect it may be that, in comparison to other European countries, Sweden ended up with a death rate below that of:
- Bulgaria
- Hungary
- Bosnia Herzegovina
- North Macedonia
- Croatia
- Montenegro
- Georgia
- Czechia
- Slovakia
- San Marino
- Lithuania
- Greece
- Latvia
- Romania
- Slovenia
- UK
- Italy
- Poland
- Belgium
- Portugal
- Russia
They were within touching distance of Spain, Ukraine and France and – just to mention another Nordic country – Finland. Certainly, a long way below the US.
If lockdowns needed to be so harsh, or even instituted at all, why was Sweden not at the very top of this, and every other list? Answer, whisper it … Because lockdowns were ineffective? ‘Off with his head.’
No, don’t be silly, it is because the Swedes locked themselves down. And here is the evidence … [insert non-existent evidence here]. Memo to self. Just saying a thing does not make it true.
‘Overall, there’s no evidence that Sweden had a “voluntary lockdown”. Mobility changed far less there than in most other Western countries.’ 5
But what was it that drove the lockdowns around the world?
The Covid Infection Fatality Rate?
The accepted narrative around Covid developed very rapidly. It is a highly contagious and deadly disease with an Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of close to three per cent – you may have forgotten that figure. Perhaps you were unaware it ever existed.
The WHO provided an early estimate that eleven million Americans may die, discussed as part of a masterful essay by Jay Bhattacharya. One of the authors of the Great Barrington declaration, and now director of the National Institutes of Health. Oh, the irony. 6
The worldwide population is approximately eight billion. Using the initial WHO figures we would have seen two hundred and fifty million deaths. Equivalent to the Spanish flu – which is where I suspect the 3% figure was initially plucked from. Hospitals around the world would be overwhelmed. Millions would die if we did not act fast and hard. Something had to be done.
That ‘something’ was lockdowns. It included the widespread use of masks, restriction on travel, closed borders, closed schools, closed entertainment venues and restaurants, workplace closures, social distancing, test and trace, the rush to bring out vaccines, and so on. These actions became unquestionable and inseparable. All of them had to be equally defended.
Trying to get a handle on the Infection fatality rate
The three per cent IFR figure was downgraded rapidly and ended up hovering at around one per cent – or thereabouts. An IFR of one per cent means that, if one hundred people become infected with the SarsCov2 virus, then one will die. Is this … was this, does this remain a fact? At the start of Covid I became obsessed with trying to work out what the Infection Fatality Rate might be. Does it really matter?
I believe it drove everything. The 1% IFR is, to quote from Lord of the Rings: the one ring that finds them, and in the darkness binds them. If the IFR was 1%, then I think everyone can just about manage to assure themselves that all their actions were justifiable.
An IFR of 1% would have meant nearly three million deaths in the US, and well over half a million in the UK. Yes, it might not have been the Spanish flu, but ‘things’ obviously had to be done?
What about half a per cent? At this level the argument begins to look pretty damned shaky. An IFR of half a per cent, or below, would be the iceberg that sank the great lockdown ship Titanic. This, the IFR, is probably the most important fact that we need to establish.
Can we ever know the infection fatality rate of Sars-Cov2?
I know that most people would love a concrete fact here. Confirmation that the IFR of Covid was 0.213, or 0.934, or whatever. But I don’t think that is possible. Concrete facts here are very difficult to find. Or at least, facts that you can rely on. Read journal A you get one figure. Read journal B, and you get another. I can give you a thousand figures.
It also does very much depend on the age you are looking at. In the age group, nought to nineteen, the IFR was 0.00003% – in the first scientific paper that comes up on a Google search. That is three per million.
In the UK there are approximately twelve million in that age group. Which means that Covid may have resulted in thirty-six deaths. If, that is, everyone of that age ended up infected.7 Almost the same number who drown yearly – in that age group.
Moving back to the overall fatality figure rate, Imperial College London (ICL) in late 2022 concluded that it was 1.15%. But we already know which camp Neil Fergusion and the ICL was in. They were the original Faucistas. In this study they found that everything they said previously was absolutely correct. By the authority of … them.8
A well-known, and reasonably reliable worldwide resource is Worldometer, which kept a running count of Covid cases and deaths from every country. It stopped counting in April 2024. The grand totals on Worldometer, now frozen in time, were that there had been seven hundred million coronavirus cases worldwide, with almost exactly seven million deaths. Which represents an IFR of precisely one per cent. 9
My goodness, independent verification that Neil Ferguson and Imperial College were bang on with their modelling. Well, Ferguson did predict an IFR of 0.9% but what’s 0.1% between friends. And if we look at China on Worldometer, it tells us we had almost exactly five hundred thousand cases, with five thousand deaths. Again, an IFR of one per cent, bang on.
Case closed? Hang on, you might wish to probe a little deeper into, for instance, the Chinese figures. According to Worldometer, the population of China is around one point four billion and there were five hundred thousand reported cases of Covid. Which means that one in three hundred people caught Covid [precise figure 0.36%].
In comparison, sixty per cent of the population in Greece caught Covid. Which is two hundred times greater. This seems a remarkably large difference. The sort of difference you may struggle to believe.
What of the death rates? China ended up with four deaths per million of the population. A figure very similar to DPRK (the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), which had three deaths per million. Strange that.
In Greece, on the other hand, they had four thousand deaths per million. One thousand times higher than China.
As for total deaths.
- Greece: with a population of ten million had 37,869 deaths.
- China: with a population of one point four billion had 5,272 deaths.
Personally, I find one of these figures to be more believable than the other.
Turning back to the overall figures from Worldometer. There were just over seven hundred million reported cases of Covid in total. Which means that around 9% of the world’s population became infected. Seven hundred million out of eight billion.
This is a very long way off the ninety per cent figure that Neil Ferguson predicted in his model. He predicted 90%, Worldometer says 9%. Once again, a bit of an echoing gap.
If Worldometer is right, and only 9% of the population did become infected, and the IFR was 0.9%, the UK would never have seen five hundred thousand deaths – as predicted by Neil Fergusion in his hugely influential model.
His model was, essentially.
IFR 0.9%, percentage infected 90%. Population of the UK 69m:
69,000,000 x 0.9% x .9 = 558,900
However, if only 9% become infected, this figure falls by a factor of ten:
69,000,000 x 0.9% x .09 = 55,890
This is not a great deal more than a bad flu year.
Returning to the age group nought to nineteen, if only 9% of them became infected we would have seen four deaths instead of a possible thirty-six. Which would have made school closures and the social isolation of children virtually indefensible. Sorry, leave out the word virtually.
As you can gather, the overall rate of infection, and the IFR, are intimately linked when it comes to the overall impact of an infective disease. An issue little discussed. But do you think it might be important? Answer… yes.
Which facts are facts?
At this point I suppose I need to ask. Do you believe that the coronavirus figures collated by Worldometer are ‘facts?’ Or do you believe some of them are, and others are not. In which case, which ones would you like to believe. To quote the late, great, singer songwriter John Martyn. ‘Half the lies you tell me are not true.’
Wherever you look, there is uncertainly, and disagreement. Completely different facts and figures can be found everywhere. When it comes to IFR, John Ioannidis came up with an IFR figure of 0.23% for higher income countries.10
Nature published a figure ranging between 0.79 – 1.82% (for higher income countries). The average between 0.79 and 1.82 is 1.3%.11 As you have worked out for yourself, 1.3% is nearly six times more than 0.23%.
Which IFR is correct? Which is a fact? And why did the Nature study only look at higher income countries? Surely lower income countries should have fared worse – in that they could not afford to lockdown, and did not, and the standard of medical care would have been significantly lower, so more should have died?
I suspect lower income countries were ignored because, on paper, they all had very low death rates. Or very low reported death rates anyway. Just to choose a lower income African country at random … Chad. They reported one hundred and ninety-four covid deaths out of a population of seventeen million. Which is eleven deaths per million. In fact, according to Worldometer, Covid passed Africa by.
How could this be? In most higher income countries people of African origin were significantly more likely to die than the surrounding population. In the UK, Black British had a mortality rate of 273 per 100,000. Whereas those identifying as White, had a rate of 126. Less than half.12 [Figures from the office of national statistics, and as you may have noticed these figures demonstrate and IFR of 0.273% for Black British, and 0.126% for White British].
Given this, it is difficult to argue that Black Africans, in Africa, were genetically protected, in some way. Although, it has to be added that the average age in African countries is significantly lower than in, say, the UK – and that would have had an impact on Covid related deaths – although nothing that could remotely explain the reported figures.
I also lean towards Ioannidis because I believe him to be a well-established objective seeker of the truth. He has long been a thorn in the side of what I shall call, politely, ‘official narratives.’ Other researchers, and journals, have a strong tendency towards those twin curses of human thought. Confirmation bias and groupthink. As for the fact checkers, which figures do you think they prefer? The higher, the better.
Which leads us inevitably to the question who, or what facts, do you choose to believe … or not believe. In later articles I will tell you what I believe to be the most probable IFR for Covid. And I will tell you why this figure is reasonably accurate.
Before we reach that point, I want to highlight some more of the many issues that make it difficult to be certain about anything. There are so many of them. Just to list a few important ones:
- PCR testing – how accurate is it/was it?
- False positive, false negatives. Did they raise, or lower, the IFR?
- How do you determine if someone died of Covid – or simply died with Covid?
- How many times were people infected – and how much would this affect the IFR?
- Could you be exposed to Covid, and brush it aside, without becoming ‘infected’ or raising detectable antibodies?
- The impact of continuing to count Covid deaths for more than three years – over the lifespan of many different variants – did this create an artificially high IFR?
- What protection did vaccination provide?
- Financial benefits of diagnosing Covid, did this lead to overdiagnosis?
- Could aggressive treatment have been damaging, and possibly fatal?
- How many people reported they had Covid, when they did not?
- Which countries may have been economical with the truth about their Covid statistics?
- Does the Sarv-Cov2 virus exist?
Each of these issues represents a minefield, with conflicting ‘facts’ stretching to the far horizon. Each of them capable of shifting the IFR significantly – downwards.
Does this mean we can never really know what happened with Covid? Even to answer such a superficially straightforward a question as how many died is tricky. Indeed, most facts about Covid tend to crumble when you apply a little pressure. But I think we can navigate a course, or sorts.
Next. Starting with an easy one. Does the Sars-Cov-2 virus exist? Easy …?
1: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1182327/
2: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106647
3: https://www.bigcitieshealth.org/newsroom-great-barrington-declaration/
4: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/swedish-pm-warned-russian-roulette-covid-19-strategy-herd-immunity
5: https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-myth-of-swedens-voluntary-lockdown/
6: https://www.jospi.org/article/88046-dr-jay-bhattacharya-reveals-stanford-university-s-attempts-to-derail-covid-studies?ref=truth11.com
7: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+0.00003%25+per+million&oq=what+is+0.00003%25+per+million&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQBhhA0gEJMTUxNTlqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
8: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infection-fatality-ratio-about/
9: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
10: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/340124/PMC7947934.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
11: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-022-00106-7
12: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-reported-sars-cov-2-deaths-in-england/covid-19-confirmed-deaths-in-england-to-31-december-2020-report
February 22, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Africa, Covid-19, UK |
Leave a comment
Bird flu can be very confusing. This is true because, as is so often the case with our government, those who claim to be trying to solve the problem – our so-called “public health” and “pandemic preparedness” “experts” – are actually the ones who created the problem. What is worse, they are actively seeking to perpetuate it.
In this brief article, my goal is to explain what is happening with H5N1 Bird flu in the clearest, most fundamental terms. I hope to make it so clear that all our elected officials can understand what is going on, and therefore can take action to stop it.
The key to understanding the current Bird flu panic is this: Bird flu is a complete rerun of the Covid script. There is just one twist:
Last time, with Covid, the pandemic-planning bioterrorists directly blackmailed us by taking away our civil rights, in order to coerce us to accept their unsafe and ineffective vaccines.
This time, with Bird flu, the pandemic planning bioterrorists are indirectly blackmailing us by targeting our food, in order to coerce us to accept more of their unsafe and ineffective vaccines into our food supply and those who supply it.
Here is their playbook. Learn it, and you can understand how to put an end to it.
Let’s review. What happened during Covid?
- Over many years, bioweapons scientists, under the guise of “pandemic preparedness,” genetically manipulated a bat coronavirus to be both transmissible and virulent in humans. In other words, they created a bioweapon.
- Meanwhile, they also developed and patented technologies for vaccines against that same virus. In other words, they created the countermeasure to their bioweapon.
- In late 2019, the lab-manipulated coronavirus bioweapon, SARS CoV-2, was leaked from a lab.
- While the countermeasure vaccines were rushed into production, “public health” authorities took advantage of the lab leak by denying its occurrence, while simultaneously coercing governments to impose lockdowns and other civil rights violations on the human population.
- To perpetuate the lockdowns, “public health” authorities performed indiscriminate PCR testing for the virus among the population, knowing full well this would generate countless false positives.
- The authorities used this excessive testing along with media-generated fear-mongering and governmental abuse of power, to prolong the lockdowns and the civil rights abuses.
- The lockdowns and civil rights abuses were used to blackmail the population into mass acceptance of the vaccines into their own bodies, in exchange for a return to normal life.
What is happening now, with H5N1 Bird flu?
- Over many years, bioweapons scientists, under the guise of “pandemic preparedness,” have genetically manipulated the H5N1 avian influenza virus to cross classes of animals and even become more transmissible to humans. In other words, they created a bioweapon.
- Meanwhile, they also developed and patented technologies for vaccines against that same virus. In other words, they created the countermeasure to their bioweapon.
- In early 2022, a lab-manipulated Bird flu bioweapon leaked from the USDA Southeast Poultry Lab in Athens, GA. Multiple Bird flu leaks have also occurred from other labs.
- While the countermeasure vaccines are being rushed into production, “public health” authorities take advantage of these lab leaks by denying their occurrence, while simultaneously coercing our government to impose mass slaughter of farm animals, creating food shortages for the human population.
- To perpetuate the mass slaughter and worsen food shortages, “public health” authorities are performing indiscriminate PCR testing for the virus among the animal population and farmers, knowing full well this will generate countless false positives.
- Authorities are using this excessive testing along with media-generated fear-mongering and governmental abuse of power, to prolong the mass slaughter of farm animals and the food shortages.
- The mass slaughter of farm animals and resulting food shortages are being used to blackmail the population into mass acceptance of the vaccines in their food supply, in exchange for a return to normal life.
This is not conspiracy theory. This is basic pattern recognition.
The “pandemic planners” are operating just like a moderately competent, if unimaginative, high school football coach. If you run a play, and it works, run it again. Keep running it until they stop it.
How do we stop it?
Here’s how:
- End the brutal mass slaughter of poultry flocks immediately. This disgusting, death-wish practice is directly analogous to the deadly and unconstitutional human lockdowns during Covid. It is also an act of biological terrorism. It traumatizes farmers, wastes resources, creates food shortages, is inhumane in the extreme to animals, and does nothing to stop the virus. Let the flocks develop natural immunity. Slaughtered flocks cannot develop natural immunity to a virus, just as locked-down human populations cannot either. Sound familiar?
- End the indiscriminate PCR testing for Bird flu in animals and humans immediately. A positive PCR test is like the proverbial grand jury indictment – you can get one on a ham sandwich if you try hard enough. Willy-nilly PCR testing creates innumerable false positives, which fuels the fear porn and hysteria, paralyzes decision-makers, and promotes population-wide blackmail.
- The USDA appears to be acting as a rogue agency. The USDA’s leadership needs to be thoroughly reviewed and, well, culled. All those attached to the pandemic preparedness industry, and all those perpetuating the fear-mongering, irresponsible mass PCR testing, mass slaughter of animals, etc. must be immediately removed from the agency. They represent not only a threat to animals and the food supply but to President Trump’s entire second term.
- The personnel at the CDC need a similar prompt and thorough overhaul. The CDC, while somewhat chastened by President Trump’s executive order silencing HHS agencies, and benefitting from the departure of former Director Mandy Cohen, is still led by Biden-era appointments whose past resumes raise serious doubt about their willingness to abandon the Covid-era “pandemic planning” model of public health. For example, acting director Susan Monarez, PhD’s bio shows multiple Deep State connections to the pandemic preparedness industry. Should she remain at the CDC?
- The USDA Southeast Poultry Research Lab in Athens, Ga. should be shut down and thoroughly investigated.
- The Kawaoka Bird flu lab at the University of Wisconsin, which has been doing reckless gain-of-function research for decades, and which has had multiple lab leaks, should be shut down and investigated as well.
- Brooke Rollins, the new USDA Secretary, needs to be fully briefed on H5N1 Bird flu by honest experts who are not embedded in the pandemic preparedness industry. Individuals such as Meryl Nass, MD, and Peter McCullough, MD and his team would both be excellent choices.
- President Trump should follow through on his 2024 promise to disband the redundant, Biden-created Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy (OPPR). Mr. Trump’s instinct was correct then, and it remains correct now.
- The $590 Million dollar Bird flu vaccine development contract to Moderna that the Biden administration approved a couple of days before President Trump’s inauguration should be cancelled.
- The USDA’s reported “conditional approval” of a Bird flu vaccine with Zoetis should be cancelled. Bird flu vaccination in poultry flocks has been demonstrated in other countries to select for more virulent strains. Furthermore, the CEO of Zoetis has close ties to Pfizer, BlackRock, and the Gates Foundation, all well-established bad actors during the Covid era. Beware, Mr. President.
The “pandemic preparedness” racket isn’t as complicated as it seems. Once one comes to terms with the fact that the arsonists are running the fire department – as they have been demonstrated by DOGE to be doing in so many other areas of government as well – we can recognize what is actually happening and apply the necessary solutions.
C.J. Baker, M.D. is an internal medicine physician with a quarter century in clinical practice. He has held numerous academic medical appointments, and his work has appeared in many journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. From 2012 to 2018 he was Clinical Associate Professor of Medical Humanities and Bioethics at the University of Rochester.
February 22, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, Susan Monarez, United States, USDA |
Leave a comment
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) educational resources for K-12 students on disease outbreaks, the transmission of pathogens and how to trace their spread, on the surface, appear well-intended.
However, critics said the materials — which include lesson plans and classroom activities titled “Operation Outbreak” and a graphic novel targeting teens — also could be interpreted as propaganda designed to encourage compliance with public health policies and initiatives.
The materials present hypothetical scenarios necessitating a public health response to the outbreak and spread of a disease with a zoonotic — or animal — origin. Students are asked to employ a “One Health” approach and methods such as contact tracing to respond to these hypothetical outbreaks.
According to the materials, “One Health recognizes that human health, animal health, and the environment are connected.”
The One Health approach “requires human, animal, and environmental health professionals to work together at the local, state, federal, and global levels to improve the health of people, animals, and their shared environment.”
Dr. Michelle Perro, a pediatrician, said the CDC’s educational initiatives “appear to be a well-intentioned educational effort under the One Health framework.” But instead, “a closer examination suggests it may also serve to acclimate students to compliance during future public health crises.”
Perro said:
“By emphasizing the inevitability of ‘the next pandemic’ and reinforcing a specific perspective on zoonotic transmission, these materials can condition naive minds to accept certain public health policies without room for opposing discussions. … This initiative prioritizes messaging over genuine scientific inquiry.”
Dr. Margaret Christensen, a clinical educator called the materials “propaganda,” that “groom the younger generation early to believe our biggest threat is from some disease jumping out of an animal, whether birds or cows or pigs, and attacking us without defense, unless we’ve been vaccinated.”
According to attorney Sheri Snow Powers, the educational resources are intended to foster an uncritical attitude toward public health authorities.
“These materials are inappropriate for teenagers and children because they promote and idolize public health authorities as heroes and saviors,” Powers said. “This is detrimental to young developing minds and conditions children to be future compliant citizens.”
CDC educational resources use ‘a fear-based narrative’
The CDC’s educational resources include material meant to teach students “about the roots of American public health,” including the history and role of the CDC in domestic and global disease outbreaks.
The materials include modules on “lessons learned” during the 1976 swine flu outbreak, the CDC’s role in food and water safety, and in responding to the “21st century public health challenge” of chronic diseases.
However, the main focus of the materials for high school students is the “Operation Outbreak” series of classroom activities, centered around a graphic novel targeting teenagers.
Featuring a cover page reminiscent of the popular series “Stranger Things,” “The Junior Disease Detectives: Operation Outbreak a novel produced in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, presents a fictional disease outbreak scenario involving teenagers and animals. It’s connected to three in-class activities focusing on “zoonotic disease prevention and response.”
The first activity, “The Outbreak Team,” focuses on the “various roles and responsibilities of the professionals involved in an outbreak response. The next two activities, “Eddie’s Story” and “Hamlet’s Story,” focus on investigating a disease outbreak and its subsequent spread from a pig (Hamlet) to a teenager (Eddie).
According to the CDC, upon completion of the activities, students should be able to “identify steps in an influenza outbreak investigation,” “identify roles and responsibilities of public health, animal health, environmental health, and other relevant professionals” and “describe why using a One Health approach … is best when investigating or preventing zoonotic diseases.”
Students are also expected to learn how to define a series of terms, including “zoonotic influenza virus,” “novel influenza virus,” and “case” — including the differences between “suspected,” “probable” and “confirmed” cases.
“Most human infections with novel influenza A viruses have occurred after close contact with infected animals,” the materials state, noting that “global surveillance” is necessary “to detect the emergence of novel influenza A viruses that could trigger a pandemic.”
The materials also state, “There are associations between zoonotic influenza viruses and pandemics.”
But according to Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, the graphic novel and activities use a “fear-based” narrative. She said the materials lack “a balanced and factual approach that pathogens, viruses and bacteria are a natural part of life that can be mostly handled by each person’s immune system.”
Vaccination also is prominently featured in the educational materials. According to the graphic novel:
“As we learned during Disease Detective Camp, our bodies’ immune system produces antibodies to fight against infection, and the safest way to get antibodies is through vaccination.
“Although the flu vaccine isn’t designed to protect against variant flu, it is still important to get, because it can help protect us from getting the flu and spreading it to others.”
One Health approach ‘subtly promotes compliance over critical thinking’
Perro questioned the CDC’s focus on the One Health approach, “due to its biased, one-sided narrative.”
“By focusing solely on zoonotic transmission, it ignores key factors like environmental toxicants, industrial farming and genetic engineering risks,” Perro said. This promotes “compliance over critical thinking” and serves as “institutional propaganda,” she said.
The materials ultimately “shape narratives about the origins of pandemics — particularly regarding COVID-19 having emerged ‘naturally’ rather than from a lab-related incident,” Perro said.
Powers said the materials “condition” children to fear specific pathogens and “to be ignorant of their own bodies’ amazing immune system, by not mentioning it.”
“Teaching children how to take care of themselves with healthy food, exercise, and sunshine is a much more valuable lesson,” Powers said.
The CDC’s focus on the flu and children is not new. Documents Children’s Health Defense obtained in 2023 through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request revealed that the agency hired an advertising firm to write “news” articles promoting flu shots for kids and the elderly.
The CDC’s “Operation Outbreak” materials appear to be unrelated to an online simulation activity by the same name, developed by the Broad Institute, UMass Chan Medical School and The Inspire Project — funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.
This simulation, introduced in 2017 and described as an “infectious way to learn,” operates through a mobile app and “unleashes a virtual pathogen through Bluetooth across participant devices, prompting a contagious outbreak that participants strive to contain.”
Related articles in The Defender
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
February 8, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | CDC, Covid-19, United States |
Leave a comment
As of this writing, when you attempt to access the US Agency for International Development (USAID) website or social media pages you are informed that, “This site can’t be reached.” The media reports that the new Trump Administration has not only frozen USAID activities but may be planning on bringing it back under control of the US State Department. Other reports, including statements by Elon Musk, suggest that it will be closed completely.
If true, the closing of USAID may be one of the most significant changes President Trump has made among many dramatic actions in his first couple of weeks in office. Many Americans may still have the idea that USAID is a government agency delivering relief at disaster sites overseas. They may still remember the bags of rice or grain with the USAID logo on them. But that is not USAID.
USAID is a key component of the US government’s “regime change” operations worldwide. USAID spends billions of dollars every year propping up “NGOs” overseas that function as shadow governments, eating away at elected governments that the US interventionists want to overthrow. Behind most US foreign policy disasters overseas you will see the fingerprints of USAID. From Ukraine to Georgia and far beyond, USAID is meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries – something that would infuriate Americans if it was happening to us.
When President Trump ordered a 90 day pause in USAID activities, we quickly learned just how pernicious the agency really is. The US media reported that Ukrainian press outlets were scrambling to keep their doors open when the US dollars stopped flowing. It is reported that 90 percent of the media outlets are funded by the US government!
This means that there is virtually no independent media in Ukraine, only fake news outlets willing to toe the US Administration’s propaganda line. Does anyone think these wholly US-funded “news” outlets would ever publish a story that the US government did not want published?
This is plainly immoral, but it is also dangerous. Most US mainstream media stories about Ukraine have their origins in the “reporting” of the local media. From battlefield news to casualties to the state of the Ukrainian military, the “news” from Ukraine is being written by US government-backed media outlets and then picked up by US and other western media. It is a closed propaganda loop that not only propagandizes the US citizen but also feeds false information into US government outlets – such as Congress – that rely on mainstream US media reporting for their news on Ukraine.
No wonder so many in Washington continue to support this hopeless war!
But USAID is not just in the business of disinformation. Elon Musk recently re-posted a New York Post article on X reporting that USAID funneled $53 million to EcoHealth Alliance to support gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab! Did USAID help fund COVID? Americans have a right to know.
In natural catastrophes overseas Americans have shown themselves to be extremely generous. Private volunteer assistance organizations can more effectively assist victims of disasters worldwide.
USAID needs a full and transparent audit. Americans deserve to know exactly what is being done in their name overseas. Then the agency needs to be shuttered completely, and its employees sent home. That would go a long way toward making America great again.
February 3, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Covid-19, EcoHealth Alliance, United States, USAID |
Leave a comment
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has closed its main office in Washington DC, with most personnel told to stay away from the building, multiple US media outlets reported on Monday. The development comes after US President Donald Trump accused the agency’s leadership of being “radical lunatics” and proposed major changes to the organization.
Established in 1961, USAID is responsible for administering foreign aid and development programs abroad to promote American interests.
According to an email obtained and shared by CNN, USAID leadership directed that the “headquarters at the Ronald Reagan building in Washington, D.C. be closed to Agency personnel on Monday, February 3, 2025.”
“Agency personnel normally assigned to work at USAID headquarters will work remotely tomorrow, with the exception of personnel with essential on-site and building maintenance functions individually contacted by senior leadership,” the letter said.
AP has confirmed the email, adding that more than 600 employees discovered overnight that they had been locked out of USAID’s computer systems.
The development comes after Trump blasted the agency, arguing that “it’s been run by a bunch of radical lunatics.” “We’re getting them out, and then we’ll make a decision,” he said.
Tech billionaire Elon Musk, the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and a close ally of the US president, has also been a fierce critic of USAID. He described it as a “criminal organization” which he believes was financing bioweapon research, including projects that allegedly led to the emergence of Covid-19.
“It became apparent that it’s not an apple with a worm in it. What we have is just a ball of worms. You’ve got to basically get rid of the whole thing. It’s beyond repair,” Musk said.
He also revealed that he had spoken with Trump, claiming that the president had “agreed” that USAID should be shut down.
The crackdown on USAID comes after the Trump administration suspended foreign assistance, with a few exceptions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the US would carry out a program-by-program review to determine which projects make “America safer, stronger or more prosperous.” He claimed that shutting down US-funded programs during the 90-day review had resulted in “a lot more cooperation” from recipients of various assistance.
February 3, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, War Crimes | Covid-19, United States, USAID |
Leave a comment
Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, head of the Russian Armed Forces’ Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Defense Troops, had previously exposed the Pentagon’s bioweapon program operating in Ukraine. He was killed in a bombing last December, which Russian investigators determined was carried out on the orders of Ukrainian special services.
Elon Musk called USAID a “criminal organization” and said it was “time for it to die,” alleging US tax dollars were funneled through the agency to fund bioweapons research.
Musk’s comments echo claims made by Lt. General Igor Kirillov, former head of Russia’s Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear Defense Troops, who was later assassinated by Ukrainian neo-Nazi forces.
Documents obtained during Russia’s special military operation have reportedly exposed:
USAID & Pentagon Links
Since 2019, USAID and its key contractor, Labyrinth Ukraine, have been involved in the US military biological program.
Labyrinth Ukraine is a branch of Labyrinth Global Health, whose founders were formerly with Metabiota, a major Pentagon bioweapons contractor.
Bioweapons Research
Labyrinth Ukraine participated in the US projects UP-9 and UP-10, studying African swine fever in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.
On February 24, 2022, pathogens of plague, anthrax, tularemia, cholera, and other deadly diseases were allegedly destroyed to cover up US-Ukraine violations of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC).
A letter from Ukraine’s military epidemiology chief to Labyrinth Ukraine confirmed cooperation with USAID on troop vaccinations and data collection for the US.
Under the US Department of Defense’s Biological Threat Reduction Program, coronaviruses and monkeypox were key research focuses for Labyrinth Global Health.
USAID & COVID-19
USAID’s 2009 PREDICT program studied emerging coronaviruses and was abruptly shut down in 2019.
The timing suggests a possible deliberate nature of the pandemic and US involvement in its outbreak
February 3, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, War Crimes | Covid-19, United States, USAID |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 