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
The fiery viral exchange between RFK Jr and Senator Bernie Sanders on Big Pharma money in politics has cast a new light on the Trump HHS pick’s uphill confirmation battle.
Among senators grilling Kennedy hardest in this week’s grueling confirmation hearings, here’s who’s gotten the most pharma money via PAC contributions and employee donations between 1990-2024, per calculations by OpenSecrets:
- Bernie Sanders: $1.9 mln
- Ralph Warnock: $1.76 mln
- Patty Murray: $1.6 mln
- Chuck Schumer: $1.55 mln
- Elizabeth Warren: $1.2 mln. Ironic that she’s recently accused Kennedy of “profiting from anti-vaccine conspiracies.”
- Ron Wyden: $1.2 mln
- Bill Cassidy: $1.2 mln
- Mark Warner: $654,000
- Maggie Hassan: $467,000
- Catherine Cortez Masto: $537,000
Bipartisan Consensus
And it’s not just Democrats. OpenSecrets records, which have 307 names on file, show former GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell got $2 mln, Mitt Romney $3.3 mln, Richard Burr $1.6 mln, the late John McCain $1.4 mln, Bill Cassidy $1.2 mln, and Roy Blunt, John Cornyn and Tim Scott $1.1 mln each over the past three-and-a-half decades.
A 2021 STAT study found that over two-thirds of Congress got a pharma check in 2020, with Pfizer alone contributing to 228 federal campaigns and over 1,000 state races. By last August alone, Big Pharma’s 2024 election PAC war chests hit $37 mln, per BioSpace.
OpenSecrets partial list of top Big Pharma donations to current and former US senators.
© Photo : OpenSecrets
Besides lobbying, lawmakers have taken advantage of their jobs to get rich off pharma-related insider trading, with a 2021 Business Insider report finding that 75 made timely investments into the federal Covid response.
Then there’s the combined payouts of healthcare industry, which includes pharma but also insurance, medical device suppliers, etc.
By these accounts, Sanders alone got $23+ mln since 1990, Warnock $14.7 mln, Warren $10.4 mln, Wyden $6.7 mln, Tim Kaine $3.3 mln, Ed Markey $2.3 mln, Patty Murray $5.8 mln, Tammy Baldwin $4.9 mln, etc.
Chart compiled by @MidwesternDoc based on OpenSecrets data on healthcare industry contributions to US lawmakers.
© Photo : X / @MidwesternDoc / OpenSecrets
Media Onboard Too
Major outlets aren’t running anti-RFK hit pieces for free. Dr. Leana Wen, author of a recent WaPo piece trashing Kennedy, received over $1.1 mln from Big Pharma over her career.
In 2021, MintPress News calculated that active Big Pharma cheerleader Bill Gates has given nearly $320 mln to media over the years to ensure favorable coverage of himself and the initiatives he’s pushing, including as it relates to the pharmaceutical industry.
February 2, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Gates Foundation, United States |
Leave a comment
Every modern president seems to promise transparency during their campaigns, but few ever seem to get around to it. Once in power, the value of being opaque becomes evident. We will have to wait to see if President Donald Trump will fulfill his pledges, but so far this is proving the cellophane administration. Putting aside his constant press gaggles and conferences, the Administration has ordered wholesale disclosures of long-withheld files from everything from the JFK investigation to, most recently, the CIA COVID origins report. That report is particularly stinging for both the Biden Administration and its media allies.
Newly-confirmed CIA Director John Ratcliffe released the report, which details how it views the lab theory as the most likely explanation for the virus. Expressing “low confidence,” the agency still favored that theory over the natural origins theory, which was treated as sacrosanct by the media and favored by figures like Anthony Fauci. (Other recent reports have contradicted the equally orthodox view on the closing of schools, showing no material benefit in terms of slowing the transmission of COVID).
Even a low-confidence finding shows the height of hypocrisy in Washington where politicians and pundits savaged any scientist who even suggested the possibility that the virus was man-made and likely originated in the Wuhan lab near the site of the outbreak.
This follows a recent disclosure in the Wall Street Journal of a report on how the Biden administration may have suppressed dissenting views supporting the lab theory on the origin of the COVID-19 virus. Not only were the FBI and its top experts excluded from a critical briefing of President Biden, but government scientists were reportedly warned that they were “off the reservation” in supporting the lab theory.
As previously discussed, many journalists used the rejection of the lab theory to paint Trump as a bigot. By the time Biden became president, not only were certain government officials heavily invested in the zoonotic or natural origin theory, but so were many in the media.
Reporters used opposition to the lab theory as another opportunity to pound their chests and signal their virtue.
MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace mocked Trump and others for spreading one of his favorite “conspiracy theories.” MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt insisted that “we know it’s been debunked that this virus was manmade or modified,”
MSNBC’s Joy Reid also called the lab leak theory “debunked bunkum,” while CNN reporter Drew Griffin criticized spreading the “widely debunked” theory. CNN host Fareed Zakaria told viewers that “the far right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory” in the lab leak.
NBC News’s Janis Mackey Frayer described it as the “heart of conspiracy theories.”
The Washington Post was particularly dogmatic. When Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark) raised the theory, he was chastised for “repeat[ing] a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China.”
Likewise, after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned the lab theory, Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler mocked him: “I fear @tedcruz missed the scientific animation in the video that shows how it is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab. Or the many interviews with actual scientists. We deal in facts, and viewers can judge for themselves.”
As these efforts failed and more information emerged supporting the lab theory, many media figures just looked at their shoes and shrugged. Others became more ardent. In 2021, New York Times science and health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was still calling on reporters not to mention the “racist” lab theory.
In Kessler’s case, he wrote that the lab theory was “suddenly credible” as if it had sprung from the head of Zeus rather than having been supported for years by scientists, many of whom had been canceled and banned.
As these figures were attacking reports, Biden officials were sitting on these reports. Figures like Fauci did nothing to support those academics being canceled or censored for raising the theory.
The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.
The suppression of the lab theory proves the ultimate fallacy of censorship. Throughout history, censorship has never succeeded. It has never stopped a single idea or a movement. It has a perfect failure rate. Ideas, like water, have a way of finding their way out in time.
Yet, as the last few years have shown, it does succeed in imposing costs on those with dissenting views. For years, figures like Bhattacharya (who was recently awarded the prestigious Intellectual Freedom Award by the American Academy of Sciences and Letters) were hounded and marginalized.
Others opposed Bhattacharya’s right to offer his scientific views, even under oath. For example, in one hearing, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) expressed disgust that Bhattacharya was even allowed to testify as “a purveyor of COVID-19 misinformation.”
Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik decried an event associated with Bhattacharya, writing that “we’re living in an upside-down world” because Stanford University allowed dissenting scientists to speak at a scientific forum. Hiltzik also wrote a column titled “The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health.”
One of the saddest aspects of this story is that many of these figures in government, academia and the media were not necessarily trying to shield China. Some were motivated by their investment in the narrative while others were drawn by the political and personal benefits that came from joining the mob against a minority of scientists.
The CIA report does not resolve this debate, but it shows that there is a legitimate debate despite the overwhelming message of the media and the attacks on scientists. Of course, the same media and political figures responsible for this culture of intimidation have simply moved on. The value of an alliance with the media is that such embarrassing contradictions are not reported. At most, these figures shrug and turn to the next subject for groupthink and mob action.
January 27, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, New York Times, Raja Krishnamoorthi, United States |
Leave a comment
Donald Trump wasted no time implementing his agenda by issuing a series of executive orders just hours after being sworn in as the 47th president. The orders covered subjects ranging from immigration, to energy production, to a freeze on both new federal regulations and hiring federal employees. One order that has not gotten nearly as much attention as it deserves is the one Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship. This order states that it is federal policy to “ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” It also requires the government to “ensure that no taxpayer resources” are used to “violate the First Amendment rights of American citizens.”
In order to carry out these pro-free speech policies, the order states that “no federal department, agency, entity, officer, employee, or agent may act or use any Federal resources” to violate the First Amendment rights of any American citizen. It also directs the Attorney General to work with “the heads of other executive agencies and departments” to investigate “the activities of the Federal Government over the last 4 years that are inconsistent” with the First Amendment. The Attorney General must then prepare a report for President Trump and his Chief of Policy that contains recommendations for “remedial actions for any violations of the First Amendment taken by the prior Administration.”
The explicit prohibition on federal officials violating the First Amendment may seem redundant since federal employees already take an oath to uphold the Constitution; thus they swore not to violate American citizens’ constitutionally protected rights. However, Biden administration officials, including the big guy, routinely violated the free speech rights of American citizens. As federal Judge Terry A. Doughty wrote in a July 4, 2023 preliminary injunction forbidding government officials from having any contact with social media companies, “the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.”
Leaked emails between officials and employees of social media companies back up Judge Doughty’s statement. The communications went beyond mere suggestions, constitutng threats of retribution if the social media companies did not comply with the administration’s “requests” that they censor their customers. For example, then-Surgeon General Vivek Murthy suggested that the administration may have to take “appropriate legal and regulatory” measures to stop the spread of COVID “misinformation.” Facebook creator and CEO of Meta (parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Whats App) Mark Zuckerberg, while appearing on the popular Joe Rogan Show described how Biden officials “would call up our team and, like, scream at them and curse.” Zuckerberg also told Joe Rogan that Biden administration officials brought up the possibility that the White House would support imposing new regulations on social media platforms, including modifying Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
This is the section of federal law that protects those who run online platforms like Facebook and Twitter/X from being held liable for the posts their users make. Section 230 has been instrumental in the growth of social media. Repealing or weakening Section 230 would hurt the big companies but the main victims would be small and start up companies who would find it more difficult to attract investors if there were the possibility the company could be held liable for posts by the site’s users. Government employees threatening private companies and treating them like subordinates should be unacceptable in a free society—and should be criminalized if done to coerce the companies to violate their customers’ constitutionally protected rights.
Fortunately, at least one cabinet member, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, has pledged to cooperate in an investigation into the Biden administration’s assault on free speech. When government officials pressure private social media companies to take down or suspend posts they violate the First Amendment just as much as if they had directly blocked the posts. Therefore, all who value free speech should be grateful to President Trump for his executive order stopping government officials from violating the First Amendment and trying to discover the full truth about the Biden administration’s efforts to silence those using social media to post “unapproved” news and opinions. Hopefully, Congress will ensure no future administration can reverse President Trump’s executive order by passing legislation forbidding federal employees from “suggesting” that social media companies censor American citizens.
January 27, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | Covid-19, Human rights, United States |
Leave a comment
The biggest scientific con of the century is finally being exposed. But will any politicians or government officials ever be held responsible for the carnage they unleashed on Americans?
In early 2020, when the Covid pandemic was starting to ravage America, federal bureaucrats and politicians rushed to suppress any suggestion that the pandemic originated from a Chinese government lab bankrolled by US government agencies. Key Biden administration officials effectively exonerated the Chinese government even though the Chinese completely stonewalled any outside investigation into the origin of the Covid virus, as the Wall Street Journal recently revealed in a front-page scoop.
The FBI’s top expert concluded that the virus leaked from the lab but he was derailed by the Biden administration, blocked from presenting his evidence at a key White House meeting in August 2021. Three scientists at the National Center for Medical Intelligence, part of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, concluded that Covid leaked from a lab but they were muzzled. The Inspector General is conducting an investigation to determine why those experts were silenced. The Department of Energy also concluded that Covid originated in a lab. In September 2023, a senior CIA analyst told a Congressional committee that six key CIA analysts had been bribed by the agency to abandon their conclusion that Covid originated in a lab leak.
The Chinese government first admitted that a pandemic had broken out in the city of Wuhan in early 2020. Though the Chinese military-affiliated Wuhan Institute of Virology had been experimenting with bats for years, the Chinese government insisted the new virus came from a nearby marketplace. But the lead scientists involved with bat research had all been struck down by Covid-19 symptoms shortly before the Chinese government denied any responsibility. There was a deluge of circumstantial evidence quickly linking the new virus to the lab.
The outbreak of Covid-19 spurred one of the most brazen cover-ups in modern US history. The National Institute for Health had been financing gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That type of research seeks to genetically alter organisms to enable the spread of viruses into new species. Such research is extremely dangerous; as MIT professor Kevin Esvelt asked in 2021, “Why is anyone trying to teach the world how to make viruses that could kill millions of people?” The risks were compounded because the Wuhan Institute had a very poor safety rating. Two years earlier, the State Department confidentially “warned other federal agencies about safety issues at Wuhan labs studying bat Covid,” but the public disclosure of that alert was delayed until 2022.
In January 2020, top federal scientists recognized that the pandemic could obliterate their reputations. Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes for Health, wrote in an email that “a swift convening of experts in a confidence-inspiring framework is needed or the voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate, doing great potential harm to science and international harmony.” The “conspiracy” was the facts of the matter.
Anthony Fauci, the chief of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), speedily enlisted a handful of trusted scientists to gin up a paper supposedly “proving” that the virus could not have originated in the lab. A top NIAID scientist accepted the task of debunking the lab-leak story because, as he emailed a colleague, “Tony doesn’t want his fingerprints on origin stories.” The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, enlisted in the cover-up with an op-ed by 27 scientists who proclaimed: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin.” Maybe the same scientists also sent an addendum to NIH: Keep giving us grant money or your reputation will “swim with the fishes.”
Further “proof” was provided by a torrent of accusations of racism against anyone who publicly suggested that the virus originated in a Chinese lab. The State Department’s Global Engagement Center added a federal fist to the debate, pressuring Twitter to suppress hundreds of thousands of accounts (including thousands of average Americans) in early 2020 for the crime of suggesting that Covid originated in a lab. Bureaucrats secretly decided that wildly exaggerated forecasts of pandemic mortality made the First Amendment null and void.
If Covid-19 had been initially recognized as the result of one of the biggest government boondoggles in history, it would have been far more difficult for American politicians and government scientists to pirouette as saviors as they seized sway over daily life.
The virus that the NIH financed provided push-button dictatorial power to politicians at every level of government. In the name of saving lives, politicians entitled themselves to destroy an unlimited number of livelihoods. Most governors responded to Covid-19 by dropping the equivalent of a Reverse Neutron Bomb — something that destroys the economy while leaving human beings unharmed. But the only way to assume people were uninjured was to presume that their lives were totally detached from their jobs, bank accounts, mortgage and rent payments, and friends and family.
A virus with a 99+% survival rate spawned a 100% presumption in favor of despotism. From the start of the pandemic, many people who swore allegiance to “science and data” also believed that absolute power would keep them safe. Doubters became dissidents who deserved to be covertly silenced.
Shutdown advocates appealed to science like righteous priests invoking God and the Bible to sanctify scourging enemies. But the “science” was often farcically unreliable. Mandatory mask mandates became the new version of the Emancipation Proclamation. Fauci and other top officials deceived Americans into believing that cloth masks offered far more protection than they delivered. Do Americans finally recognize that the federal government was the biggest source of disinformation during the pandemic?
A century ago, historian Henry Adams declared that politics has “always been the systematic organization of hatreds.” Covid-19 policies were so disruptive in part because politicians intentionally sought to maximize fear and rage against anyone who refused to submit to any dictate. After the efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines collapsed, Biden responded by dictating that a hundred million American adults must get injected based on his personal decree.
A few weeks later at a CNN town hall, Biden derided vaccine skeptics as murderers who only wanted “the freedom to kill you” with Covid. A few months later, a Rasmussen poll found that 59% of Democratic voters favored house arrest for the unvaccinated, and 45% favored locking the unvaxxed into government detention facilities. Almost half of Democrats favored empowering the government to “fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing Covid-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.” But hatred proved to be as ineffective as the Pfizer vaccine when it came to fighting Covid-19.
Fauci, who was also Biden’s chief medical advisor, justified Covid mandates because average citizens “don’t have the ability” to determine what is best for them. But Congressional investigations revealed that Fauci was at the center of string-pulling to shirk responsibility for the Wuhan debacle. After Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) suggested prosecuting Fauci for false testimony on bankrolling “gain-of-function” research, Fauci howled that his critics are “really criticizing science because I represent science. That’s dangerous.” But not nearly as dangerous as vesting vast power in secretive federal agencies.
On September 20, 2023, the Biden administration belatedly banned the Wuhan Institute of Virology from receiving any US government research funding for 10 years as punishment for its unauthorized gain-of-function experiments on bat coronaviruses. But why did the Biden administration omit the same condemnation and similar prohibitions from any American scientist, institute, or government officials that had any role in this debacle?
Instead of Tony Fauci bobbleheads, the slogan “Your Government at Work” superimposed atop a million American caskets captured the reality of Covid-19.
January 25, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Anthony Fauci, CIA, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, NIAID, United States |
Leave a comment
The recent decision of the United States government to announce an intended withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) marks a significant shift in international relations and health policy. This move comes amid ongoing debates about the WHO’s role in managing global health crises, financial transparency, and influence on national sovereignty.
In 2021,the World Council for Health (WCH) emerged as a prominent organization that challenges the WHO’s pervasive and damaging influence. The WCH is a coalition of independent health organizations, medical professionals, and advocacy groups that emphasizes a more decentralized, holistic, and patient-centered approach to health care. It advocates for local health sovereignty, individual choice, and the decentralization of power away from large international organizations like the WHO. The WCH has been particularly vocal about opposing what it sees as the WHO’s overreach, particularly in terms of its management of public health policies during crises like the COVID-19 chapter, while ignoring real health issues like heart health, cancer, diabetes, and mental health.
A better way forward for health, rooted in our Better Way Principles, would focus on strengthening local and national health systems, ensuring that decision-making is transparent, accountable, and driven by scientific evidence rather than political or financial interests. This approach would involve greater collaboration between governments, health professionals, and communities, rather than relying on a centralized body like the WHO to dictate policy internationally. By prioritizing national sovereignty, autonomy, and local expertise, a more resilient and responsive international health framework can be developed, one that respects individual freedoms and prioritizes people over institutional power.
A. Concerns about WHO’s monopoly through Collaborating Centres
Our extensive research has revealed WHO collaborating centres in the US, including the CDC and the NIH. As a matter of urgency and priority, to effectively exit the World Health Organization, it is essential to have both critical awareness and transparent knowledge of the arguably binding agreements made between the secretive USA WHO Collaborating Centres and USA GOARN Partner Institutions, with the World Health Organization.
To truly exit the WHO, we must acknowledge the vast network and reach of the designated WHO Collaborating Centres and GOARN Partner Institutions. We must investigate the potential conflicts of interest in public – private collaborations / collaborations that may exist, which affect the delivery of the ultimate healthcare available for the people and the planet.
World Council for Health calls for an Urgent Independent International Review / Investigation of the World Health Organization and its established collaborations and ‘binding’ agreements with WHO Collaborating Centres. This is an essential requirement to assess an honest and transparent benefit and risk of WHO policies being utilised in and against sovereign nations through these established WHO networks. WCH is ready to advise.
B. WCH Country Councils leading the way for health freedom
WCH has established over 30 and growing independent Country Councils around the world.
These Country Councils are linked to over 200 local advocacy organisations in the fields pertinent to health, including medical choice and rights, 5G, sexual engineering, food supplies, agribusiness and climate ‘change’, all of which are tools being used by shadowy globalist corporations to usurp rights and freedoms of people around the world.
These Country Councils and allied grass-roots organisations are a critical counterbalance to the WHO and its puppeteers, advocating for a new, human and planetary wellbeing-focused vision for health care, prioritising the well-being and human rights of men, women and children. Country Councils are driven by ethical individuals, standing together to create the new healthcare paradigm, rooted in transparency and autonomy. This by definition includes freedom and sovereignty. Our country councils recognise that peace is central to health.
C. Our Legal Briefs and Policy Briefs
The WCH published a groundbreaking Legal Brief on Preventing the Abuse of Public Health Emergencies. It explains how governments used the declaration of an unjustifiable state of emergency as a legal instrument to deny people their basic human rights and freedoms and grant themselves extraordinary powers. WCH also published comprehensive policy briefs on Rejecting Monopoly Power Over Global Public Health, as well as Effects of Unregulated Digitalization on Health and Democracy, and Human Trafficking: A Call for Action
Our Resources Include:
Cooperation is the key to achieving shared goals
The WCH recognises the intention of the US government to withdraw from the WHO, urges investigation into the WHO’s collaborating centres, and is open to engage around the work of our country councils, our legal and policy briefs, and our pioneering detox study and guide.
January 22, 2025
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States, WHO |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
