Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Massachusetts Flu Shot Requirement Abandoned

The Highwire with Del Bigtree | January 22, 2021

Elizabeth Brehm, part of ICAN’s legal team, joins Del for an update on yet another win, a statewide influenza vaccine mandate that was withdrawn after being served with a lawsuit from our lawyers. Winning!

January 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Video | , | Leave a comment

The Question of Masks

By Jenin Younes | AIER | January 26, 2021

I envy the reader who can reach the end of Alex Berenson’s Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns: Masks, without tearing her hair out in frustration at the absurdity of the world today, which apparently is not so different from the one that Galileo inhabited four centuries ago.

Berenson makes an airtight case (no pun intended) that there is no evidence whatsoever that surgical and cloth masks work to control coronavirus spread, and a substantial amount that they do not. Nevertheless, as anyone who has tried to discuss the topic in a blue state knows, the subject has been so politicized that to make this contention amounts to heresy.

This is the third booklet in a series, Unreported Truths About Covid-19 and Lockdowns. The first two focus upon the deleterious effects of lockdowns and overestimation of the virus’s dangerousness. Berenson, who used to work as a reporter at the New York Times before he became a full-time novelist, has been known from the very beginning as a coronavirus “contrarian,” and has since attained unofficial status as king of the lockdown skeptics. As his Twitter profile famously depicts him smiling sardonically with a mask under his chin, it is about time he addressed the subject.

Initially, Berenson documents the so-called experts’ notorious about-face on masks this past March. Having said for weeks that face coverings do not stop transmission of the virus, Anthony Fauci, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Surgeon General, and others, did a 180 virtually overnight. The common explanation for this sudden change is that the first message was disingenuous, and given only to prevent a mask shortage among health care professionals. Berenson eschews this interpretation, arguing that the initial message was correct, but these people and institutions succumbed to political pressure.

What is the proof that this was political? Although Berenson does not explicitly state as much, it is worth noting that former President Trump immediately defied the idea of mask-wearing, as did many of his supporters, which I believe led to the extreme reaction in the opposite direction among Democrats and liberals.

Berenson points out that immediately, when mere weeks and months before Americans had been told not to wear masks, newspapers and magazines began publishing “insufferably arrogant” pieces portraying those who resisted mask-wearing as cretins, narcissists, and even sociopaths. This plays into the idea, held by many in this country, that those who are not on their side politically are fundamentally different, morally inferior, or perhaps even evil. Thus, to suggest that people who resist masks are narcissists or sociopaths fits squarely into the narrative that the political other is less-than.

But the real evidence lies in the fact that, contrary to the dogma that has taken root in American society, especially in Democratic circles, there is simply no scientific substantiation for the claim that masks, as they are worn in everyday life, protect either the wearer or those who encounter her. In Berenson’s words, “The evidence that face coverings do any good turns out to be even more porous than the masks themselves.” In my opinion, were the subject not so politically fraught, it is unlikely that the scientific evidence would be ignored.

Berenson describes the studies that evaluate whether surgical and cloth masks protect the wearer, and his verdict will, at this point, be unsurprising. Theoretical evidence establishes that surgical and cloth masks “offer next to no protection” because the virus typically travels on particles so small that in order to provide protection, the material must be fine enough to catch nearly all aerosols and droplets.

Apart from N95 respirators, which also are more effective because they are fitted to the individual’s face, masks are not made from such material. Not only are N95s expensive, but worn properly, they are “suffocating, uncomfortable, and difficult to tolerate for long durations.” Thus, as a practical matter, if non-medical professionals are going to wear face-coverings for an extended time period, they will be standard cloth or surgical masks.

The yet stronger proof, from randomized controlled studies (RCTs) — the “gold standard” in science – is overwhelming that these masks are not effective. As Berenson explains, research from Hong Kong and Vietnam found no evidence that surgical masks reduce influenza transmission, and evidence that cloth masks increase rates of infection, respectively.

The first large RCT, conducted in Denmark specifically to assess the utility of masks against SARS-CoV-2, found no difference in rates of infection between those who wore and those who did not wear masks (I have previously analyzed the distortion of the study’s results, especially by the New York Times and other center-left publications).

As for the proposition that masks may not protect the wearer but do protect those around her, again, “masks have almost no chance of catching most of the particles we exhale” because of the particles’ size, as explicated in a paper published in the Lancet. (From a logical standpoint, I have never found the concept that masks can protect those around the wearer though they do not protect her to be persuasive: either the mask functions as a barrier or it does not, although I am not a scientist and perhaps am missing something).

Berenson notes that the author “did not go so far as to call masks useless – a near impossibility in the current environment – but he was lukewarm at best on their value to protect other people even in the most obvious case, when they are worn by symptomatic cases in hospitals.”

Similarly, on June 5, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a paper stating that “widespread use of masks by health people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are other potential benefits and harms to consider.”

Again, given the political climate, the WHO “chok[ed] out” a tepid endorsement of mask usage: “Governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings.”

Berenson compellingly dispels the myth that observational studies prove masks’ efficacy, such as the much cited salon in Missouri where two hairdressers who had coronavirus symptoms wore masks and did not infect 139 clients. As Berenson notes, there are countless other explanations for this result. For example, maybe the salon had good ventilation, or maybe the hairdressers were not very infectious. Despite the lack of scientific and intellectual rigor underlying it, this anecdote served as the rationale for many jurisdictions’ mask mandates.  Moreover, the remaining observational data points staunchly in the opposite direction: worldwide, rising cases are not correlated with mask usage.

As anyone who has become embroiled in the mask debate knows well, the next question is always, why not wear one, since we don’t know for sure and there’s a chance they help? As Berenson argues, government directives should be supported by some evidence.

It has not been disproven that five-minute headstands prevent coronavirus spread, but most of us would see a problem with government requiring us to stand on our heads for five minutes a day just in case. Put otherwise, allowing the government to make rules without adequate evidence they are effective creates substantial danger that it will issue arbitrary directives to give the appearance of doing something.

Furthermore, as Berenson explains, masks are not harmless. He details two 2013 decisions from Canadian arbiters, addressing a challenge to hospital rules requiring nurses to wear masks if they had not been vaccinated against influenza. Both arbiters found in the nurses’ favor, and determined there was limited or no evidence that demonstrated the “utility of masks in reducing transmission” and substantial harms, including discomfort and skin irritation.

Although Berenson does not discuss this, widespread, long-term mask usage may cause significant psychological damage, especially to children and babies and even more so to those with disabilities such as autism. Even the New York Times acknowledged that masks likely impede children’s cognitive development, despite reaching the irrational conclusion that such harm is inevitable.

One of Berenson’s most critical points is that there is now substantial evidence that the coronavirus is very rarely, if ever, spread by asymptomatic individuals. The belief that asymptomatic transmission was one of the primary forces driving coronavirus spread propelled lockdowns and universal mask requirements in the spring.

If only symptomatic people spread the virus, then there is no justification whatsoever for quarantining and masking healthy populations: all that societies must do is ask people exhibiting symptoms to stay home.

Several large, recent studies have established that asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus is exceedingly uncommon, if it occurs at all; the WHO has also recognized this fact. Of course, these studies have been entirely ignored by the media. Those who have staked their personal and professional reputations on the efficacy and necessity of lockdowns and mask mandates cannot now acknowledge having made such a grave, crucial error.

Berenson ends by theorizing that mask mandates appear to reflect “an effort by governments to find out what restrictions on their civil liberties people will accept on the thinnest possible evidence . . . Today, we must wear masks. Tomorrow we’ll need negative Covid tests to travel between countries. Or vaccines to go to work.”

As I have written in the past, I agree resoundingly with Berenson’s conclusion, although I tend to blame governmental incompetence and refusal to concede error as well as more nefarious motives.

Of course, the media is at fault too, with publications and television channels such as the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC promoting a blindly pro-lockdown, pro-mask ideology, at the same time discounting the evidence pouring in from all corners of the earth that lockdowns do not work as long- or medium-term solutions while they are destroying millions of lives, and masks are ineffective. Even now, with a vaccine available, the New York Times is publishing articles arguing that the supposedly deadlier new strain of the virus means that countries must lock down harder and longer; Australia expects to keep its borders closed through the end of 2021, if not longer; and the United Kingdom has indicated it will remain in lockdown until at least July.

Berenson sees the writing on the wall. Until a substantial portion of us stand up and make clear that we will not tolerate being stripped of life, liberty, property, and dignity, our governments will continue to inflict these repressive measures.

Jenin Younes is a graduate of Cornell University and New York University School of Law. Jenin currently works as an appellate public defender in New York City.

January 26, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

“I do everything my TV tells me to do” – That’s why we’re hurtling towards the Great Reset

THE DAILY EXPOSE • JANUARY 18, 2021

If the current pandemic of dictatorial tyranny sweeping across the world has taught us anything, it is that the majority of humanity has been so well trained to obey authority that it is now incapable of free thought and afraid to ask questions. Never before have we seen such docile conformance to words echoing from the speakers of a television screen as when the Prime Minister of the UK announced in March 2020 that he had “one simple instruction” for the British people… ”You must stay at home”. But Mr Johnson spoke through the ‘telescreen’, and the nation listened.

Within an instant the UK economy came to a halt, without question, all because a man, in a suit, on the TV said it should. Hundreds of thousands of businesses closed their doors to customers and staff. Schools and nurseries closed their doors to children, which in turn lead to parents being unable to work because they could not find care for their children. Unless of course the man, in a suit on the TV told them that there job was deemed essential, in which case it was fine to send their children to school and go out to work.

“Three weeks” was what the man, in a suit, on the TV said the country needed “to flatten the curve,”. But three weeks turned into five weeks, which turned into eight weeks, which turned into fourteen weeks. I wonder how many would have complied for so long with an instruction given to them by a man, in a suit, on the TV if it had not been for another man, in a suit, on the TV promising to subsidize up to eighty percent of their wages for sitting at home and not working?

Sounds great doesn’t it, sitting at home and still being paid. The people so eager to accept this scheme most likely didn’t realise that A) it was not the man, in a suit, on the TV paying these wages, it was in fact the British taxpayer. B) They would have to pay this money back in the future via higher taxes, and C) that’s only if they still had a job to pay those taxes as the only purpose of this scheme was to delay everyone’s unemployment to ensure that they complied. It was never about making sure you were going to be okay and have a job to go back to, it was about making sure you were complicit in the destruction of the job market as we know it, in order to bring in the new age of AI.

We bet the authorities could not believe their luck at how easy it was to get the vast majority of every man and woman in the land to obey an instruction that was emitted via the telescreen, and boy have they made the most of it ever since.

On the 3rd April 2020, Professor Jonathan Van Tam, deputy chief medical officer for England, told the British public via the ‘telescreen’ that he had spoke with a colleague in Hong Kong who had carried out an evidence review for the World Health Organisation and stated they “were of the same mind that there is no evidence that the general wearing of face masks by the public affects the spread of a disease in our society, what matters right now is social distancing. In terms of the hard evidence, we do not recommend face masks for general wearing by the public.”

Yet fast forward four months and the Government enforced the wearing of face coverings in all indoor public settings. However we did not instantly see a swarm of face nappy clad folk outdoors for over a week, and why was that? Because the man, in a suit, on the TV said this would not come into force for another week. That week came and went and on the day of enforcement there was not a smile to be seen. But what does that say about the majority of the British public and their acquiescence to authority. Not wearing a face covering because they genuinely thought it would work in the “fight against the virus”, but wearing it because a man, in a suit, on the TV said they would be subject to a £200 fine if they refused to do so. We know this to be true because they would have worn the face covering from the moment it was announced they were required otherwise.

Fast forward another few months and we were told by Professor Jonathan Van Tam, again via the ‘telescreen’ that he did not think there would “come a moment when we can have a big party and throw our masks and hand sanitiser and say ‘that’s it, it’s behind us’ like the end of the war? No I don’t.” Insisting that the wearing of face masks “may persist for many years and that may be a good thing”.

The contractions on the wearing of face masks alone should have been enough for the British public to wake up and question why they were partaking in the destruction of the world as they knew it, unknowingly bringing in a “new normal” and a chance for the globalists to fast forward their “great reset” agenda. But disappointingly it has yet to be the case.

Instead we are now stuck in a cycle of stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives, repeat. Whenever a man, in a suit, on the TV appears on the British public’s ‘telescreen’s’ they stand to attention and hang on every word that echoes from the speaker. We don’t hold much hope that this will change anytime soon, instead we are stuck firmly on the road to the ‘Great Reset’ and we’re hurtling towards it at a few hundred miles per hour.

They do everything their TV tells them to do…but do you?

January 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | , , | Leave a comment

Unelected Biden/Harris Regime to Wage War on Civil Liberties

By Stephen Lendman | January 26, 2021

On Friday, White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki said the following:

The Biden/Harris regime “will confront (violent extremism) with the necessary resources and resolve (sic).”

“We are committed to developing policies and strategies (to) confront this threat (sic).”

Biden’s DNI will conduct a “comprehensive threat assessment, coordinated with the FBI and DHS on domestic violent extremism (sic).”

“As a part of this, the NSC will undertake a policy review effort to determine how the government can share information better about this threat, support efforts to prevent radicalization, disrupt violent extremist networks and more (sic).”

“(R)elevant parts of the federal government (will be involved) to enhance and accelerate efforts to address DVE (domestic violent extremism) (sic).”

“This focus (will address) evolving threats, radicalization, the role of social media, opportunities to improve information sharing, operational responses and more (sic).”

“The January 6th assault on the Capitol and the tragic deaths and destruction that occurred underscored what we have long known.”

“The rise of domestic violent extremism is a serious and growing national security threat (sic).”

“Congress should immediately pass legislation to make domestic terrorism a federal crime (sic).”

At a time when the only domestic and foreign threats are invented, not real, the stage is set for making the repressive Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act the law of the land.

Much more of the same likely coming is reminiscent of what happened post-9/11 — the mother of all US sponsored false flags to that time.

In its immediate aftermath, Bush/Cheney launched a war OF terror on invented enemies at a time when no real ones existed.

Abroad it was against nonthreatening Afghanistan, Yemen and Iraq.

At home, it was against Muslims and other invented enemies of the state because no real ones existed then or now.

It was against fundamental constitutional law by trampling on the Bill of Rights.

The 2001 Patriot Act created the crime of domestic terrorism for the first time.

It unlawfully targeted anti-war global justice demonstrations, environmental and animal rights activists, civil disobedience for justice denied, and dissent for the same reason.

Does the Biden/Harris regime intend more of the same to eliminate what remains of greatly eroded freedoms?

Supported by media press agents, nonviolent pro-Trump Capitol Hill protesters are considered “domestic terrorists (sic).”

Rent-a-mob anti-Trump extremists bussed in for what happened on January 6 are considered freedom fighters by elements in Washington wanting remaining ones eliminated altogether — including speech, media and academic freedoms, along with the right of public assembly to petition US authorities for redress of legitimate grievances.

Big Media are on board for what may end a free and open society in the US — cheerleading for what demands denunciation.

The NYT called for addressing “domestic terrorism” that will target its victims, not state and Big Media supported perpetrators against Trump and others opposed to how US dark forces operate.

Biden/Harris regime DNI-designee Avril Haines should be confronted and challenged for supporting targeted assassinations, torture, and other lawless actions.

Victoria Nuland for under secretary of state for political affairs is an unindicted war criminal.

So are others nominated by Biden for high level posts, figures likely to be involved in perpetrating domestic and/or foreign state terrorism against US enemies.

The neocon/CIA linked Washington Post expressed support for combating domestic and foreign terrorism — that’s committed by the US and its imperial partners, not innocent victims falsely blamed for what they had nothing to do with.

Biden/Harris are beginning their tenure with a bang against, not for, what just societies hold dear.

Perhaps before their tenure ends, today’s America may no longer exist.

What replaces it may be full-blown tyranny — on the phony pretext of combatting threats to national security that exist only in the nation’s capital by hardline extremists running things.

January 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , | Leave a comment

When Fascism Comes, It Will Be Wearing a Mask

By Ron Paul | January 25, 2021

Almost immediately after his inauguration, President Joe Biden began creating new government dictates via executive orders. Many of these executive orders concern coronavirus, fulfilling Biden’s promise to make ramping up a coronavirus-inspired attack on liberty a focus of his first 100 days.

One of Biden’s executive orders imposes mask and social distancing mandates on anyone in a federal building or on federal land. The mandates also apply to federal employees when they are “on-duty” anywhere. Members of the military are included in the definition of federal employees. Will citizens of Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries where US troops are or will be “spreading democracy” be happy to learn the troops shooting up their towns are wearing masks and practicing social distancing?

Another one of Biden’s executive orders forces passengers on airplanes, trains, and other public transportation to wear masks.

Biden’s mask mandates contradict his pledge to follow the science. Studies have not established that masks are effective at preventing the spread of coronavirus. Regularly wearing a mask, though, can cause health problems.

Biden’s mask mandates are also an unconstitutional power grab. Some say these mandates are an exercise of the federal government’s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. However, the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to regulate interstate commerce. The president does not have the authority to issue executive orders regulating interstate commerce absent authorization by a valid law passed by Congress. The Founders gave Congress sole law-making authority, and they would be horrified by the modern practice of presidents creating law with a “stroke of a pen.”

Just as important, the Commerce Clause was not intended to give the federal government vast regulatory power. Far from giving the US government powers such as the power to require people to wear masks, the Commerce Clause was simply intended to ensure Congress could protect free trade among the states.

Biden also signed an executive order supporting using the Defense Production Act to increase the supply of vaccines, testing supplies, and other items deemed essential to respond to coronavirus. The Defense Production Act is a Cold War relic that gives the president what can fairly be called dictatorial authority to order private businesses to alter their production plans, and violate existing contracts with private customers, in order to produce goods for the government.

Mask and social distancing mandates, government control of private industry, and some of Biden’s other executive actions, such as one creating a new “Public Health Jobs Corps” with responsibilities including performing “contact tracing” on American citizens, are the type of actions one would expect from a fascist government, not a constitutional republic.

Joe Biden, who is heralded by many of his supporters as saving democracy from fascist Trump, could not even wait one day before beginning to implement fascistic measures that are completely unnecessary to protect public health. Biden will no doubt use other manufactured crises, including “climate change” and “domestic terrorism,” to expand government power and further restrict our liberty. Under Biden, fascism will not just carry an American flag. It will also wear a mask.

Copyright © 2021 by RonPaul Institute

January 25, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

All Hail the Reopening!

By Jeffrey A. Tucker | AIER | January 25, 2021

What a glorious thing the reopening is! After nearly a year of darkening times, the light has begun to dawn, at least in the US.

Given how incredibly political this pandemic has been from the beginning, many people smell a rat. Is it really the case that the reopening of the American economy, particularly in blue states, is so perfectly timed? Do the science and politics really line up so well?

These are questions for another day. And for the record, my own opinion is that the loosening of restrictions is timed well with the relaxing of public disease fear, from whatever source, political or through exhaustion or through a shift in the media narrative. In any case, it doesn’t matter for now. What matters right now is that the astonishing destructiveness of lockdowns might be coming to an end.

For those of us inveighing against lockdowns for a full year, it’s truly been a remarkable week. Restrictions are being loosened or are going away. We are finally getting some truth about the carnage. And we are even starting to see some elected officials being honest with us.

Let’s start in the most locked down state on the mainland: Massachusetts. Governor Charles Baker, whose pandemic management has wrecked so many businesses in his state, has decided it’s time to open up restaurants and businesses.

More remarkably, Massachusetts’s chief epidemiologist admits that the lockdowns didn’t achieve their goal. Shira Dorn of Tufts said: “Businesses and restaurants have not been shown to be a significant source of spread of infection, and it’s not clear that the additional measures that were instituted in November and December actually helped.”

So sorry we ruined your holidays and lives.

The egregious limits on gatherings will persist for a few more weeks, but the tone of the argument here has shifted. It is the most significant change in state policy in a very long time. Perhaps people can begin soon to get their human rights back?

The same is happening in other states.

Washington, D.C. will resume indoor dining.

Maryland’s governor has decided that the state needs to reopen schools now and no later than March 1.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan says Michigan restaurants can reopen for indoor dining on February 1. Her health adviser decided to resign. Let us hope it is the beginning of many.

Chicago’s mayor is now demanding an immediate opening of restaurants and bars. Chicago is also threatening teachers unions that they must return to work.

New York Governor Cuomo has dramatically reversed his rhetorical course and demanded a reopening of the city.

Governor Gavin Newsom, incredibly, has lifted all stay-at-home orders across the state and is permitting dining to open up. Many restaurants have defied orders for months now, and good for them. This new announcement shows that their defiance had an influence.

Montana’s new governor has lifted Covid restrictions.

National Public Radio has decided to announce that the virus has peaked.

The WHO is insisting that the PCR cycle threshold must change. If nations adjust, it should make a big difference in the case trend.

And perhaps in the most honest statement uttered by any elected official in twelve months, Joseph Biden said the following: “There’s nothing we can do to change the trajectory of the pandemic in the next several months.” He didn’t need to qualify that statement. He could have stopped after pandemic.

CNN has removed the death tracker from its main page, while the New York Times has reported a 33% decline in new cases in the past two weeks. Plus, the Times, which arguably made the most profound contribution to the public panic over the virus, is finally reporting on the terrible carnage.

In an incredibly heartbreaking article, the Times chronicles the unspeakable deaths of despair from young children denied schooling over the past year. It’s an absolutely shocking article, one that should echo unto the ages, given what happened this last year. It’s worth a read.

As for the astonishingly anti-scientific blather dished out by the media over the last year, even that is starting to change. The Washington Post has published a helpful introduction to immunological basics, as written by JHU Professor Marty Makary:

Having the infection activates both antibodies as well as memory B- and T-cells, which teach your immune system to recognize the same virus in the future to swiftly eradicate it.

Natural immunity after covid-19 infection appears to last for at least the one year in which the virus has been circulating at large. Extrapolating from research on the SARS and MERS coronaviruses, it could be much longer. In one study of 176 people infected with SARS, immunity lasted for an average of two years. Another long-term analysis of health-care workers previously infected with SARS found antibodies up to 12 years later. Protective antibodies for the MERS coronavirus have similarly been documented to last for at least three years. And while the 1918 pandemic was caused by an influenza virus, the immune systems of those infected were able to make antibodies to the virus nearly nine decades later, a 2008 Nature study found.

Even mild infections appear to elicit a persistent and functional immune response. One recent European study found that people who had mild or asymptomatic covid-19 mounted a “robust T-cell immunity” afterward. A separate French study affirmed this, noting that some people who lived with a confirmed covid-infected person developed T-cell immunity even when they did not test positive for covid.

The article goes even further to openly admit what many of us have noticed since March: “Many medical experts have been dismissive of natural immunity due to prior infection, but there is overwhelming data showing that covid-19 reinfections are rare, and when they do occur, the infection is often mild.”

These basic facts fundamentally change the rationale for locking down. We’ve evolved with viruses without locking down. Starting in the late 19th century, once we got smarter about viruses, we realized that protection of the vulnerable and exposure among the non-vulnerable, in the framework of a functioning society, was the best approach to dealing with pandemics. We pursued that policy for a full century until last year. The unprecedented experiment with lockdowns will end up causing more death than if we had maintained a functioning society while treating disease as a medical and not a political problem.

We are also getting some truth telling on track-and-trace, courtesy of Holman Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal :

Top of the list is magic solution X, a national test and trace program. I won’t mince words. A 9-year-old could see the math didn’t work. Covid spreads more easily than the flu. An overwhelming share of cases are asymptomatic or indistinguishable from ailments that millions of Americans suffer every day. In a country as big, mobile and open as the U.S., there was zero chance of catching and isolating enough spreaders to matter.

Many experts said so at the time, but quietly. Anthony Fauci eventually said so, but quietly. All implicitly knew not to get between the media and its imperative that every big misfortune be played as a failure of inadequate government.

Even when the testing data shouted the truth, the press couldn’t hear it. Our testing misses 70% to 90% of Covid cases and yet 91% of the people being tested for Covid tested negative and were suffering from something else. We were never going to make a dent in the epidemic this way. It was a distraction.

Finally, we have actual experiments in openness right here in the US. Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and South Dakota have all been open since the spring of last year, with life continuing on more or less as normal. The results have been no worse and most often better than what we see in lockdown states. It’s almost as if the virus doesn’t care about your political solutions.

One final data point. I watched the AFC Championship football game last night. Gone were the dreary ads of 2020 that all began “In these challenging times.” Instead we were treated to pictures of happy parties, friends socializing, people living life normally and happily. Even the masks are going away. True the stadium was only half full due to preposterous regulations but it felt much more normal.

Are our governments getting wise? Doubtful but many are feeling pressure to start recognizing the rights of human beings again. The new variant (viruses naturally mutate and the NYT is trying to bring calm) might frighten them again. Biden has already imposed new international travel restrictions. We aren’t out of the woods yet.

Will they admit error and apologize? That will take longer if it happens at all. At this point, right now, other things matter more. The priority must be to emancipate us from bad science and destructive policy so we can put our lives back together again.

January 25, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Spanish Court Dismisses Criminal Complaint against BDS Activists

Palestine Chronicle | January 24, 2021

The Provincial Court in Valencia, Spain, has definitively dismissed a criminal complaint against eight Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions activists who had questioned the invitation for Jewish American singer Matisyahu to take part in the Rototom Festival in 2015.

The Court’s decision has been praised by the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC), an NGO based in Amsterdam that defends and empowers the Palestine solidarity movement in Europe through legal means.

“This is another milestone victory for the right to freedom of expression for those who defend Palestinian rights in Spain,” said a spokesperson for the Centre.

The Court acknowledged in its hearing earlier this month that criticism of the Israeli government’s practices against the Palestinians does not constitute an incitement to hatred.

Objecting to a singer’s participation in a festival that is committed to respecting human rights, when the objections are based on his personal support for the practices of the State of Israel, the Court determined, is not a criminal act. It is, rather, reflective of a legitimate form of activism in support of Palestinian rights.

January 25, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , | Leave a comment

WORLD FREEDOM ALLIANCE INTERVIEW PART 3 – PROFESSOR DOLORES CAHILL

Oracle Films | January 20, 2021

⁣Martin Byrne BL sits down with founding members of the World Freedom Alliance to discuss the implications of lockdowns, the Covid-19 vaccine and The Great Reset.

Part 1 – ⁣Heiko Schöning – Medical Doctor from Germany
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2BJhtUbfQFSI/
Part 2 – Mads Palsvig – Former Investment Banker and ⁣Chairman of the Danish Political Party JFK21
https://www.bitchute.com/video/lyhEJSsrvIgc/
Part 3 – Professor Dolores Cahill – Molecular Biologist & Immunologist
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7prWkLrk4D6v/

January 25, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , | Leave a comment

FBI laments that deplatforming of ‘extremists’ makes it harder to spy on Americans

RT | January 22, 2021

Law enforcement is complaining about social media platforms’ full-frontal assault on American political dissidents’ freedom of speech, crying that removing so-called ‘extremists’ from the internet makes it harder to spy on them.

A former FBI profiler recently took to NBC to complain that while Big Tech restricting Americans’ ability to freely communicate was all well and good, it was making it harder for the US intelligence apparatus to properly snoop on every aspect of these people’s lives.

FBI alum Clint Van Zandt complained that a 70-year-old man involved in the raid on the Capitol earlier this month was totally unknown to the bureau, showing up with a truck full of Molotov cocktails, a rifle, and some “improvised grenades” unheralded by any sort of presence on social media.

Leaving aside the laughable image of the US’ deep-pocketed intelligence apparatus being thwarted by a 70-year-old man from Alabama – who, it’s worth pointing out, is not known to have even entered the Capitol building (!) – FBI agents like Van Zandt and their local counterparts in small-town sheriffs’ offices are really worried that if social media keeps purging Trump supporters and other undesirables, these platforms will create an unstoppable army of Lonnie Coffmans.

Lonnie Coffman, the man in question, had no criminal record or ties to any extremist groups, but “was struggling financially and fixated on right-wing views,” Van Zandt explained, adding – in all seriousness – that the senior citizen was the sort of threat that keeps FBI agents “up at night.”

“The purging of people with radical views from popular social platforms, which has escalated in recent weeks, deprives investigators of a crucial tool in tracking people who might move along the continuum of ideation to action,” the former agent said.

In plain English, the profiler lamented that mass deplatforming prevents FBI agents from both spying on the majority of Americans whom it considers to be potential domestic terrorism threats and entrapping wannabe criminals by posing as terrorists, militia members, and other law-breakers.

Indeed, given that nearly all high-profile FBI cases involve the bureau entrapping suspects, and that this work is increasingly done online, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have become crucial tools in what the FBI describes as its fight against domestic extremism. Ordinary Americans might describe the agency’s work, however, as an unjustifiable effort to lure ordinary people into committing crimes in order to make the FBI and the rest of the US’ sprawling intelligence apparatus seem indispensable.

So please, Twitter and Facebook, the next time you highlight a bunch of users whose views fall outside the ever-more-stifling claustrophobia of the mainstream media and prepare to hit ‘delete’, think of the FBI.

Now that – according to such free-speech-loathing figures as former CIA director John Brennan and House intel committee chair Adam Schiff – the War on Terror is coming home, the FBI is going to need all the help it can get to manufacture the terror statistics that could possibly justify criminalizing political dissent in a nation whose Bill of Rights includes an ironclad guarantee to protect the individual right to free speech. The bureau certainly isn’t going to get that if it hasn’t been cultivating a pool of bored young men with no economic future across multiple platforms, stringing them along with promises of things that go boom.

January 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, False Flag Terrorism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Blacks Committed 73% of Mass Shootings In 2020. Many Cases Remain Unsolved. Where Is the FBI?

 By Eric Striker – National Justice – January 21, 2021

As the media, FBI and Anti-Defamation League declare “white supremacy” and “domestic terrorism” the gravest threats to public safety in America, neither played any role in the outbreak of violence in 2020 — one of the deadliest years in American history.

Disingenuous political actors often point to the Charleston Church Shooting in 2015, the Tree of Life Synagogue incident of 2018, or the El Paso Wal Mart killings in 2019 to demonstrate the proclivity of white men to engage in indiscriminate killings. The latest figures on the approximately 603 mass shootings last year paint a radically different picture.

According to demographic ​data compiled by researchers at Mass-Shootings.info, black men committed 73% of mass shootings in 2020, in contrast whites were only 13% of known culprits.

Mass Shootings Go Unpunished

What is more galling is that while the revanchist FBI has been utilizing high tech resources to track down every protester who may have entered the Capitol, the perpetrators of some of the deadliest and most brutal mass shootings of 2020 remain at large.

For example, in June, police in Alabama investigated a house fire and found that it was set to cover up the executions of seven people, including a 17-year-old girl. The FBI violent crimes unit is aiding in the investigation, but there are no suspects.

Last September, seven people at a marijuana farm were shot and killed in Riverside, California. The police and the FBI have no arrests or suspects.

In August, three men opened fire on a crowd of women and children having a block party the middle of Washington DC. 21 people were injured in the attack, with one dying and another hospitalized in critical condition. The gunmen are still at large and the DC police do not have any suspects or leads.

There are countless unsolved mass shooting cases like the aforementioned. America is the only first world nation where people can open fire on random people in a major city’s crowded street and never get caught.

As for individual shootings, the numbers in 2020 are equally stark. 70% of shootings in New York City last year remain unsolved. Murder clearance rates have plummeted across major urban areas in the country even as homicides have skyrocketed.

The FBI’s Prioritizes Punishing Dissent Over Murder

The murder rate in 2020 jumped an average of 37% in 57 cities at the closing of last year, yet the FBI’s announced priorities for 2021 do not reflect the gravity of this national emergency.

According to the Bureau’s budget request for the new year, which is available on the Department of Justice’s website, they will be receiving close to $4 billion for their “counter-terrorism” operations, while their criminal division will be getting $3.4 billion.

A 2013 examination of the FBI’s corrupt “counter-terrorism” strategy found that only 1% of the people they entrap and arrest have any connection to actual terrorists. With the FBI’s new emphasis on right-wing white men, the number is likely much lower. Usually the criminal element introduced into religious or political communities engaging in First Amendment protected activity are inserted by the FBI itself.

The FBI’s revival as an instrument for suppressing views critical of the government is not lost on its agents. In 2018, the FBI Agents Union put out a statement demanding Congress pass a new “domestic terrorism law,” as many of their political targets are not committing any actionable criminal offenses.

Senator Dick Durbin and some Republicans are working on granting them their wish by re-submitting a “domestic terrorism” bill that would allow them to utilize already freely abused Patriot Act powers on law-abiding US citizens.

The outcome is as predicted. America is now a crime-ridden and corrupt third world country that suddenly becomes techno-dystopian when a citizen dares to question the increasingly absurd whims of the status quo.

January 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , | Leave a comment

Lockdown extremism: an obsession for the insane and the fascists

By Jon Rappoport | January 21, 2021

As my readers know, I’ve spent the last year refuting every so-called COVID fact promoted by public health officials—including the false notion that SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to exist.

In this article, I’m simply showing that devotees of the Cult of COVID are contradicting their own assumptions. For purposes of argument only, we’ll assume the virus exists, spreads rapidly, and causes illness.

If so, lockdowns don’t work.

This is shown by reports from almost every nation in the world. The longer the lockdowns, the greater the number of COVID cases.

The virus is unstoppable. It travels to all corners of the globe at lightning speed.

Conclusion? The only way to achieve herd immunity is to have the whole population of the planet live and work out in the open, fight through the pandemic, and eventually win.

That’s the inference to draw, once you accept the mainstream view of the virus and the pandemic.

But of course, opening up the world is not the conclusion of the experts or the political leaders. They take the opposite view: more lockdowns.

They’re acting against their own “science.”

Why?

Obviously, because they want to imprison populations, destroy lives and economies. Or, at the very least, they’re going along with the people who want to.

What about the vaccine as a method of inducing herd immunity? We’re already hearing about a second mutated strain of the COVID virus. If there are two strains, there will certainly be more. Many more. This sets up an analog to the flu vaccine: a new version every year, with the hope of predicting the latest mutation.

How is that working for the flu? Is it producing anything faintly resembling herd immunity? Far from it. Public health agencies report a BILLION cases of the flu each and every year, worldwide. Could the protective effects of the vaccine be any weaker?

Note: Has anyone recommended locking down the planet because of the flu? Of course not. A billion cases a year are just “what we have to live with.”

Why not adopt the same strategy for COVID?

Public officials should be demanding an end to lockdowns.

Dr. Scott Atlas, former White House coronavirus advisor: “We know the lockdowns don’t work, they do not eliminate the virus, we see it all over the world. We have 80% of people in the US wearing masks, we have all these various levels of restrictions on businesses, on in-person schools, and the virus is not eliminated by that.”

Researchers Sunetra Gupta (Oxford University), Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford University), Martin Kildorff (Harvard): “Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.”

Dr. John Ioannidis, professor of Medicine, Epidemiology and Population Health, and of Biomedical Data Science, and Statistics at Stanford University, responding to a question about laying on lockdowns in Greece: “It would be a devastating mistake to do so and it will run the risk of severely damaging and crippling the country.”

The Lancet, July 21, 2020: “… government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality,”

2006 paper in Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, “Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza” by Thomas V. Inglesby, Jennifer B. Nuzzo, Tara O’Toole, and D.A. Henderson. The authors conclude: “There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza.”

This is just a sprinkling of mainstream references from a much larger trove, indicating that lockdowns are harmful and don’t work.

Well, they work when a police state is the goal.

The conventional mainstream scientific view of the virus and its ability to spread inevitably leads to the conclusion: stopping it through lockdowns is like trying to keep water out of a forest.

“Well, if we build a canopy above all the trees, if we wrap each tree in layers of plastic, if we install underground suction pumps every six feet, if we spray chemicals in the sky to disperse cloud formation, if we drain every brook and stream, if we build dams in the mountains to keep the melting snow contained… we’ll still fail.”

Jon Rappoport is the author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX.

January 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Infectious Diseases Expert Says UK Lockdown is Not Working

By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | January 21, 2021

Infectious diseases expert Professor Steven Riley says current data shows that the national lockdown in the United Kingdom is not working.

Riley, who is professor of infectious disease dynamics at Imperial College London, cited a React study which shows “the prevalence of infection increased between 6 and 15 January,” after the national lockdown was announced on January 4.

“It’s long enough that, were the lockdown working effectively, we would certainly have hoped to have seen a decline,” said Riley.

The professor added that current research “certainly doesn’t support the conclusion that lockdown is working.”

As we highlighted last week, a peer reviewed study by Stanford researchers found that mandatory lockdowns do not provide more benefits to stopping the spread of COVID-19 than voluntary measures such as social distancing.

The researchers found “no clear, significant beneficial effect of [more restrictive measures] on case growth in any country.”

While numerous studies show that lockdowns have no impact on reducing the spread of viruses, an avalanche of data shows that they cost lives.

Academics from Duke, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins have warned that there could be around a million excess deaths over the next two decades as a result of lockdowns.

Thousands of doctors and scientists are on record as opposing lockdown measures, warning that they will cause more death than the coronavirus itself.

January 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »