Aletho News


Why are kids with gender dysphoria being treated like lab rats?

By Damian Wilson | RT | December 1, 2021

A damning investigation in Sweden has found that doctors are ignoring the physical harm and irreversible damage caused by giving puberty blockers to primary school children diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Wherever you stand on trans issues, no one could fail to be shocked by the revelations coming out of Sweden about the life-changing injuries and harmful side effects inflicted on children by cavalier doctors at the Karolinska University Hospital, all in the name of the great gender debate.

The youngsters treated at the Stockholm hospital had all been diagnosed with gender dysphoria – the unshakeable feeling that their physical characteristics were mismatched with how they felt about their gender – and were subsequently injected with regular doses of oestrogen, testosterone or other hormones to effect a physical transition to their new identity.

Gender dysphoria, it must be pointed out, is not a physical affliction in any way. It is all in the head.

Now, some of those children treated at the hospital are showing signs of osteoporosis, reduced bone density, liver damage, massive weight gain – one child piled on 25kg in just one year – and severe mental health issues. Some of those transitioning to male have changed their minds and want to identify as female again, but are stuck with the irreversible characteristic of a deep voice, thanks to testosterone injections, according to an investigation by the country’s national broadcaster SVT.

This is Dr. Frankenstein territory. How can the supposedly super-progressive liberals of Sweden allow this to happen? What’s even more outrageous is that in the case of one 11-year-old in the programme, the treatment continued for three months after doctors were alerted to skeletal deformation.

These are just kids who have been treated like lab rats. Tweenies and even younger who are crying out for help with their mental health, not hormone injections. It’s mind-boggling to think that a child still in primary school can be making life-altering decisions that will put them on a one-way transitioning journey, yet they have not even experienced puberty. Their brains are not fully formed, they can’t legally drink, smoke, vote or drive a car, yet they are being credited with a self-awareness far beyond their years.

One study in the Journal of American Academy of Adolescent and Child Psychiatry revealed that around 80% of children grew out of gender dysphoria, although research for the UK’s Tavistock Gender Identity Clinic found that those who began medical intervention were less likely to change their minds.

That still doesn’t make a majority, however. So surely it makes sense that if the probability is that a child will change their mind about transitioning, then mental health support should be prioritised as the prime intervention, before harmful drugs are administered?

Where in the Hippocratic Oath – ‘primum non nocere’ (first, do no harm) – is the exception for this scandalous abuse? How can medical professionals treat children like this, so that distraught parents are left blaming themselves, with one Swedish mother heartbreakingly admitting, “Of course you feel anger towards those you trusted. But also towards myself; I am the one who will protect my child, but I have not done that in any way”?

The SVT probe found that despite most medical professionals recommending that puberty blockers should not be prescribed for longer than two years, over the last five years, one in five children in what Swedish doctors call ‘trans care’ has been given the hormones for three years. Talk about not reading the label.

One of the medical professionals involved, chief physician and pediatric endocrinologist Ricard Nergardh, admitted that administering puberty blockers was “chemical castration.” But, remarkably, it still didn’t stop him or his colleagues from doling them out.

Sure, it’s all new. Gender dysphoria as a diagnosis has really only been on the radar since around 2013. But it’s a boom time for the medical profession, with many who should know better reluctant to suggest to their younger patients that maybe this is ‘just a stage’ they’re going through, in case they attract unwanted attention from the increasingly vocal trans lobby.

However, it’s not just in Sweden that the pressure is on an increasingly compliant medical profession to imperil the mental and physical wellbeing of our children, while playing along with a wrongheaded critical theory on gender.

Questions will be raised in Sweden, no doubt, but they also need to be raised in the UK, the US, Canada and Australia, where gender transition has become the cause du jour. Before any more children are irreversibly damaged.

December 1, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

New law allows for warrantless spying on Australians – where next?

By Kit Klarenberg | RT | November 30, 2021

The Australian Signals Directorate, Canberra’s equivalent of Britain’s GCHQ or the US National Security Agency, will be granted sweeping new powers to spy on Australians for the first time since its November 1947 founding.

The move allows the agency to collect signals intelligence on individuals within the country without a warrant, although allegedly only in situations where there is an “imminent risk to life.” Domestic terror suspects are cited as a key target in the Directorate’s crosshairs, and it will also collect intelligence in conjunction with the Australian Defence Force for military operations, with ministerial authorization.

Rules governing the reform and protecting citizens’ privacy will be published on the agency’s website, and subject to review and scrutiny by the Australian parliament’s security and intelligence committee. While framed as sincerely concerned with keeping Australians safe, experts have expressed grave reservations about the development. Among them is John Blaxland, Professor of International Security and Intelligence Studies at the Australian National University, himself a military intelligence veteran, who warned the powers were ripe for abuse.

“I’m a former insider… I have a much greater appreciation of the need for checks and balances, because power tends to corrupt,” he cautioned. “My concern is the legislation we put forward is being drafted by insiders, it’s drafted with their own concerns in mind.”

Drafted by insiders, the legislation certainly was – it’s inspired by the findings of an extensive review by Dennis Richardson, former chief of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the country’s FBI, conducted in close consultation with Australia’s assorted intelligence services, in a manner akin to foxes being quizzed on how best to guard a henhouse.

Published in December 2020, his appraisal’s discussion of “authorisations” noted that these agencies can already conduct warrantless intelligence-gathering if they believe it to be “necessary, proportionate, reasonable and justified” in certain circumstances, and “would like the ability” to not only use various investigative techniques without official permission, but also with “protection from criminal liability” when doing so.

Leaked documents exposed by journalist Annika Smethurst in April 2018 showed that high-level plans for untrammeled domestic spying by the Australian Signals Directorate date back even further. They revealed how the respective heads of Australia’s Defence and Home Affairs ministries had discussed allowing the agency to access citizens’ emails, bank records and text messages without approval, or trace. A government source told Smethurst they were “horrified” by the proposals, given “there is no actual national security gap this is aiming to fill.”

Australian Federal Police raided both the alleged leaker of the files and Smethurst the next year. In a perverse irony, the charges against her were dropped in May 2020, as Australian High Court judges unanimously ruled that the warrant secured from a magistrate in relation to the raid was invalid, because it not only “misstated the terms of the offence” but was also ambiguous if not outright absurd.

“[The warrant] lacked the clarity required to fulfil its basic purposes of adequately informing Smethurst why the search was being conducted and providing the executing officer and those assisting in the execution of the warrant with reasonable guidance to decide which things came within the scope of the warrant,” the High Court damningly concluded.

In other words, it was impossible to know from the warrant’s wording what the investigation actually concerned, what evidence or information was sought, and what, if any, crime she may or may not have committed. That this baseless and broad investigative authorization was formally granted at all renders the Directorate’s newfound power to conduct warrantless surveillance all the more disquieting. If such procedural perversion can occur even with putative oversight, what abuses will be engaged-in without any meaningful supervision?

Misuse of these capabilities is almost inevitable. In 1973, the US Supreme Court ruled warrants were mandatory for domestic intelligence gathering. Two years later, a Senate investigation found that the NSA and other US intelligence agencies had nonetheless been engaged in unauthorized spying on American citizens, including anti-war protesters, civil rights activists, and political dissidents, monitoring all their private communications from telephone conversations to telegrams. This led to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which made it a dedicated criminal offense to eavesdrop on American citizens without judicial oversight.

Yet,it was revealed in late 2005 that the NSA had all along continued illegally intercepting the phone calls and digital communications of US citizens, with the witting help of major telecoms giants, which passed copies of all emails, web browsing and other internet traffic to and from its customers at home and abroad to the agency, and its British counterpart GCHQ. Files disclosed in 2013 by whistleblower Edward Snowden confirmed this criminal dragnet was truly global in scale, and very much ongoing.

Key components of this international spying network, known as ‘Five Eyes,’ are situated in Australia, at the Pine Gap and Kojarena satellite surveillance bases. According to investigative legend Duncan Campbell, around 80% of the messages intercepted by the latter – which employs US and British staff in key posts – are sent automatically to GCHQ and the NSA. While every Five Eyes member can theoretically veto requests for such material, “when you’re a junior ally” like Canberra, “you never refuse,” Campbell records.

One can’t help but wonder if the Directorate’s new domestic purview is an experiment, gauging levels of backlash and controversy among the Australian public, before similar measures – provably or potentially already in operation – are openly codified across all Five Eyes member states. Ongoing legal battles against mass data collection in various jurisdictions clearly necessitate the practice being legalized and legitimized. If Canberra’s American and/or British friends politely requested they run such a pilot scheme, would or even could they decline?

Reinforcing this interpretation, mere days after the Directorate’s remit was expanded, the Australian government pledged to introduce new laws forcing social media giants to “unmask” anonymous users who post offensive comments, with hefty fines doled out to those companies which are unwilling or unable to do so. The reasons for Canberra’s haste are unclear, although it’s surely no coincidence that London and Washington have battled for many years to end online anonymity for good – it’s only due to intense domestic opposition that these efforts have so far failed.

 Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.

November 30, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The English data on vaccines and mortality, revisited

By Alex Berenson | November 28, 2021

Last Saturday morning I posted a short post with a very simple chart – two lines in all.

One line tracked the number of weekly deaths per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 10-59 in England. The other tracked the number of deaths per 100,000 unvaccinated people in England. The chart showed that vaccinated people in this age group were dying overall at a higher rate than unvaccinated people.

I’m never exactly sure which posts will “land” – gain traction and go viral. This chart landed. Hard. Someone wrote me that it broke the Internet. It didn’t break the Internet, only Kim Kardashian’s ass can break the Internet, but it has rocketed around ever since. It has been seen over 800,000 times on this page alone and many millions more in screenshots and Twitter posts elsewhere.

Clearly, the reason the chart has gained so much attention is that it quickly and simply provides a way for people who are concerned about the vaccines to provide apparent visual proof that they are increasing all-cause mortality – overall death rates.

The chart has also engendered a fierce backlash from the usual fact-checkers and vaccine fanatics who say it is – wait for it – “misinformation.” (To be clear, I didn’t actually create the chart, but I checked the underlying British government report to make sure it accurately represents the report’s figures. It does, as everyone agrees.)

The “fact-checkers” have two primary complaints about the chart.

The first is that the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are not exactly the same. A smaller percentage of teenagers than fifty-somethings are vaccinated, so the unvaccinated group overall skews somewhat younger than the older group. Since death rates rise with age, that difference may be enough to explain the gap between the two groups.

The second is that overall death rates in people over 60 (who are not covered in the chart) are much higher than those in the 10-59 range and appear to be lower in the vaccinated over the unvaccinated.

Another way to look at the objections: the first is that the chart doesn’t say what it seems to say, because of a hidden flaw in the data. The second is that it would be basically meaningless even if it did, because other more robust datasets contradict it.

Part of being on Team Reality is acknowledging reality, and acknowledging when your critics have a factually correct objection. So I want to acknowledge that, like the chart itself, these objections BOTH are valid and factually accurate, viewed individually.

What the fact-checkers and vaccine fanatics appear incapable of understanding is that the two objections effectively cancel each other out – and do nothing to address concerns over the long-term failure of Covid vaccines or their impact on all-cause mortality.

These folks think they are sophisticated thinkers who have blown up apparent evidence that the vaccines are dangerous. In fact, just as they have for the last several months, they are telling themselves what they want to hear instead of listening to what the data are saying – and, increasingly, shouting.

They have identified and latched on to ONE complication of using population-level data to judge vaccine effectiveness – the fact that differing rates of uptake by age may make the Covid vaccines seem less effective than they are.

But they – deliberately or out of ignorance – are ignoring another one, one that makes the vaccines seem MORE effective than they are.

The second problem is not a secret to epidemiologists.

It has been quietly discussed for flu vaccines for more than a decade, and I have written about it repeatedly in the last year. The problem is this: the popular belief that sick people are more likely to be vaccinated than healthy people is entirely wrong.

People who receive vaccines are healthier overall than those who do not. They care more about avoiding sickness, and they have the time and energy and money to find their way to a vaccination site. They are not healthier because they get vaccines; they get vaccines because they are healthier.

Older people who receive flu vaccines die – of both the flu and all causes – at much lower rates than unvaccinated people after they receive flu shots. But they also die at much lower rates BEFORE they receive the vaccines. The seminal study demonstrating this relationship is now more than 15 years old; it was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology in April 2006.

“The reductions in risk before influenza season indicate preferential receipt of vaccine by relatively healthy seniors,” the authors wrote.

This paradox helps explain why a huge study of flu vaccines in the United Kingdom showed that increasing vaccination levels in older people did not reduce the number of hospitalizations or deaths from the flu.

The researchers took advantage of the fact that Britain prioritizes people 65 and older for vaccinations and that people are much more likely to get a shot when they are 65 or 66 than 64 or 63. Vaccination levels rose sharply as people turned 65, but the health of the people who received the shots did not improve.


The same pattern is visible in the United States, where a massive increase in the number of flu vaccines in the last generation has made no apparent difference in the number of flu deaths. In fact, in 2005, researchers noted that although vaccinations had risen from 20 percent of elderly people in 1980 to 65 percent in 2001, “unexpectedly, estimates of influenza-related mortality in this age group also increased [emphasis added] during this period.”


In other words, influenza vaccines only seem to work. Any observational estimate that compares death rates in people who have gotten shots to those who have not will be inherently untrustworthy, no matter how hard researchers try to correct for the healthy recipient bias.

What is true for flu vaccines appears to be even more true for Covid vaccines.

The relentless vaccination push means that in many countries, more than 90 percent of elderly people are vaccinated. The split is even more stark in countries like England, where 2.44 million people 80 and over have been fully vaccinated, compared to 69,000 who are unvaccinated (and 24,000 who have received the first dose but not the second).

Look at those numbers again.

2,440,000 people in England 80 and over vaccinated. Almost 97 percent of the total number of elderly people.

69,000 80 and over unvaccinated. Less than 3 percent.

These two groups cannot remotely be compared.

How do they differ? I can’t find any hard data, but we know that at least a fraction of the elderly unvaccinated are too ill to be vaccinated. Some are in hospice care. Norway recommended against giving people in hospice the Covid vaccine in January following deaths in terminally ill patients.

A paper published online in March in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management noted that “communication from hospice organizations has primarily emphasized the vaccination of hospice staff without the same priority mention for patients” and called for hospices to do more to offer vaccines to patients.

The paper’s title was even starker:

A Shot at Inclusion: Reconsidering Categorical Exclusion of Hospice Patients from COVID Vaccine Allocation.

How many Covid deaths in unvaccinated elderly people are actually “with Covid” deaths in people dying in hospice? Again, we don’t know. But what we know is that even a small number of those deaths will hopelessly bias the relative risk ratio for unvaccinated to vaccinated Covid deaths, because the overall number of unvaccinated people is so small.

As of September, about 30 to 35 unvaccinated English people 80 and over died of or with Covid each week, compared to about 250 fully vaccinated people a week.

So trying to measure vaccine effectiveness by looking at the relative risks of the vaccinated and unvaccinated elderly is impossible. But that is exactly what the health authorities and their servants in the media do when they put out figures that seem to show the risk of death from Covid is much lower in elderly people who have been vaccinated.

They are lying with truthful data, and they (some of them, anyway, though probably not the reporters who are writing the stories) are smart enough to know exactly what they’re doing.

Meanwhile, they are ignoring a much more important indicator – trends in both Covid and all-cause mortality are very much going the wrong way in the vaccinated elderly population.

In the last four weeks for which British data are available, roughly coinciding with September, about 1,000 vaccinated English people 80 and over died from Covid and 16,000 from all causes.

Compare those numbers to four weeks in May, when fewer than 70 vaccinated English people 80 and over died from Covid and 13,000 from all causes.

Put another way, overall deaths rose more than 20 percent in the vaccinated elderly from May to September, and Covid deaths 15-fold. And this was not because many more people were vaccinated. The number of vaccinated elderly people rose only about 4 percent from May to September.

Compare that to the mortality trends in unvaccinated English people 80 and over.

About 800 died of all causes in four weeks in May (at the time, there were about 77,000 unvaccinated elderly people, compared to 69,000 in September). Fewer than 20 of those died of Covid.

In September, about 140 unvaccinated elderly people died of Covid – a eight-fold increase compared to the 15-fold increase in the vaccinated.

(All data from the British government:

See tables 3 and 4 in downloaded file.)

But that difference isn’t the striking part.

The striking part is that only 700 unvaccinated elderly English people died OF ALL CAUSES in those four weeks in September – FEWER than back in May. (The trend roughly tracked the overall drop in the elderly unvaccinated population. It appears that about 1 percent of those folks die a month, at least in warmer months.)

This trend is stunning for two reasons.

First, the fact that 100 more unvaccinated elderly people (supposedly) died of Covid in September yet 100 fewer of them died overall strongly suggests that many of those reported deaths are actually with and not from Covid.

Second, per capita all-cause mortality – not just Covid mortality, all-cause mortality – rose close to 20 percent in the very large group of the vaccinated elderly. Some of those extra deaths came from Covid. But most did not.

And though death rates are still somewhat higher in the unvaccinated – as they should be, given the fact that vaccine recipients are healthier – but that fact is far less relevant than the notable rise in the vaccinated.

What’s behind the rise in those deaths in the vaccinated elderly? We don’t know. But we’d better find out. Especially since we are now stuffing boosters into their arms.

All of this is somewhat complicated, I’ll admit. The data has lots of confounders and continues to evolve. And trying to explain relative changes in all-cause mortality in the context of healthy vaccine recipient bias using papers about flu vaccine – well, it’s not a soundbite.

Which comes back to the chart from last week.

The chart IS a soundbite.

It is a simple and factually accurate way to say:

Something is wrong. The promises that the health authorities have made over the last 12 months about the vaccines are not coming true. Despite near-complete levels of adult vaccination in Europe, many countries are seeing skyrocketing Covid cases and deaths. And worst of all, all-cause non-Covid mortality is running well above normal in country after country.

Not everyone is going to wade through this article. But everyone can read that chart from last week. It’s not perfect, but it uses real data to raise a crucial issue.

That’s why it landed. And that’s why the vaccine fanatics hate it so much.

November 29, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Whatever You Do, Don’t Think of the Children

By Toby Young • The Daily Sceptic • November 29, 2021

Like most parents across the land, I received a letter from the local council’s Director of Public Health this morning (forwarded by the school in an email) explaining that they have “advised [sic] schools that parents/carers/other visitors are not invited” to nativity plays this year. Not the end of the world in the grand scheme of things, of course – just another depressing example in the long litany of examples of children’s priorities being cast under a bus due to adult panic during the course of this pandemic.

Much more concerning, because of what it said about the mindset of the Director of Public Health in question, was this alarmingly blithe justification for continued restrictions in schools, buried in the body of the letter:

Much as we would all like it to be, the pandemic is not over. Whilst it is clear that the vaccination programme is effective in preventing serious disease and deaths, the vaccine is never going to stop all transmission, and resultant harm, on its own. [Emphasis added]

You couldn’t get a starker admission than this that we long ago moved beyond “flattening the curve” or staving off a dire public health emergency in a once-in-a-lifetime, never-to- be-repeated year. No: we are now in a different place altogether – one in which we must stop transmission “and resultant harm” for its own sake, forever. For how else are we supposed to interpret this statement? On what grounds will parents ever be allowed back into schools to watch nativity plays (or even properly meet their children’s teachers), if the requirement is for “all transmission and resultant harm” to end? We will never be in that position. So in what circumstance does the Director of Public Health envisage there ever will be a return to normal schooling? Ought this not to be made clear to local parents?

More broadly, this incident raises the question of how it is that something so fundamental – children’s schooling – has ended up beholden to the whim of unelected, largely unaccountable, public officials such as this. The local Director of Public Health in any given local authority cannot be voted out. They are not challenged by probing interviews in prominent media outlets. The means by which they are appointed is entirely opaque. And their policy positions, political backgrounds, and motivations are subject to essentially no public scrutiny. Yet they possess the power, at the sweep of a pen, to disrupt the lives of literally tens of thousands of people within their bailiwicks, with the only possible avenue of challenge being a prohibitively expensive and time-consuming claim for judicial review. This ought to be intolerable in a free society. Yet it is the position in which we find ourselves.

Once again, the Covid pandemic and its response have shone a harsh light on British democracy, and revealed it to be in a dilapidated state indeed.

November 29, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Higher Infection Rates in Vaccinated Not an Artefact of Wrong Population Data, New Analysis Shows

By Will Jones  • The Daily Sceptic • November 26, 2021

Back in October, when the critics rounded on the UKHSA for publishing vaccine data that didn’t fit the narrative, front and centre of their complaints was the claim that they were using poor estimates of the size of the unvaccinated population, and thus underestimating the infection rate in the unvaccinated. Cambridge’s Professor David Speigelhalter didn’t hold back, writing on Twitter that it was “completely unacceptable” for the agency to “put out absurd statistics showing case-rates higher in vaxxed than non-vaxxed” when it is “just an artefact of using hopelessly biased NIMS population estimates”.

To the UKHSA’s credit, while it conceded other points, it never gave in on this one, sticking to its view that the National Immunisation Management System (NIMS) was the “gold standard” for these estimates. It pointed out that ONS population estimates have problems of their own, not least that for some age groups the ONS supposes there to be fewer people in the population than the Government counts as being vaccinated.

How can we know which estimates are more accurate? A group of experts has applied analytical techniques in order to estimate the size of the unvaccinated population independently of ONS and NIMS figures. Using three different methods, experts from HART found that estimates from all three methods were in broad agreement with the NIMS estimates, whereas the ONS estimate was a much lower outlier.

The first method involves recognising that people not within the NHS database system still catch Covid and still get tested. Assuming these people have the same infection rates per 100,000 people as the unvaccinated, you can calculate how many people there are outside of the database system and add these to the NIMS totals.

The second method involves looking at the rate of growth of people with an NHS number, which has been remarkably steady at around 2.9% per year. If you assume that people who are not yet registered in the NHS will sometimes become sick enough to seek healthcare, and thus a record will be created for them, applying this growth rate to the 2011 ONS population estimates give another figure for the total population.

The third method involves assuming that, in low-Covid weeks, deaths within an age bracket should occur at a similar rate in vaccinated and unvaccinated, allowing the size of the total population to be inferred from the percentage of deaths in the unvaccinated.

The results in terms of reported infection rates according to the five different estimates are depicted in the chart above. They show that the ONS is a clear outlier, its estimates sitting far too low, and NIMS is likely to be much more accurate. The ONS puts the unvaccinated population at around 4.59 million whereas NIMS puts it at 9.92 million, a difference of 5.33 million. That’s a lot of people not to be included in estimates, and suggests, among other things, that the ONS has not adequately estimated the magnitude of illegal immigration into the country.

As well as vindicating the UKHSA in its decision to stick with NIMS over ONS, HART’s analysis also indicates that, contrary to the assertions of Prof Spiegelhalter, the UKHSA data showing infection rates higher in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated is not a mere artefact of using the wrong population estimates. There may be other biases in it, but this is not one of them.

Here is the weekly update on unadjusted vaccine effectiveness based on the raw data in the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance report. The unadjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates against infection have remained low in all adult age brackets this week, particularly in those aged 40-70, though there is little sign of further decline; in the older age groups (over 40), the recent vaccine effectiveness revival continues, possibly as a result of the third doses. There is also a sign of a rise in vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation in the over-70s.

November 28, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Why Washington’s ‘Russian Invasion’ Scare is Cover for Kiev’s New Offensive Against Donbass

Reservists of the 130th battalion of the Ukrainian Territorial Defence Forces attend military exercises on outskirts of Kyiv, Ukraine April 10, 2021. - Sputnik International, 1920, 27.11.2021

By Ekaterina Blinova | Sputnik | November 27, 2021

Washington is bracing for an “imminent invasion” of Ukraine by Russia: former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul has released a series of tweets claiming that Ukrainian civilians will fight to the bitter end against Russian “occupiers”. For his part, Hollywood star Sean Penn arrived in Ukraine to film a documentary about “Russian aggression”, being photographed in combat gear and a helmet as he visited Ukrainian troops in the Donetsk region last week.

While peddling the “Ukraine invasion” story, the Western media nevertheless admit that they have no idea of Russia’s genuine intentions. Thus, Bloomberg claimed on 21 November that a 100,000-strong Russian contingent is preparing “a rapid, large-scale push into Ukraine from multiple locations”, adding below that “America and others are not saying a war is certain, or even that they know for sure Putin is serious about one”. Similarly, acknowledges that it’s unclear whether the troop concentration in Russia’s western regions really “heralds an imminent attack” against Ukraine. Moscow has consistently rejected the US allegations, with Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov denouncing them as “artificial hysteria”.

Why ‘Russian Invasion’ Hysteria Doesn’t Hold Water

“This is hardly the first such ‘Russian invasion’ scare in the Western media”, says Mark Sleboda, a US military veteran and international affairs and security analyst. “The last such one was back in March/April of this year, but similar scare-mongering has occurred on a regular basis for the last 6 years”.

The military veteran emphasises that there is no threat of an “imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine”. He explains that Ukraine is a country of some 40 million people with armed forces in excess of 250,000 strong, which means that “any substantial Russian military intervention in Ukraine would require an amassed force of some 300,000-500,000 troops just to start”. However, Western media reports are talking about a Russian buildup of forces “somewhere near Ukrainian borders (or at least closer to Ukrainian borders than to China’s borders) of some 90,000 Russian troops”.

“Careful observers will note that this is approximately the same number of Russian troops that have been in the vicinity of the Ukrainian border since the US-backed Maidan Putsch overthrew the democratically elected government in Kiev in 2014 and began a civil conflict to subjugate east Ukraine to that seizure of power”, the security analyst says.

Moreover, in the wake of the US media fuss, the Kiev regime’s military, state border service, and Sergei Nikiforov, the spokesman for President Zelenskiy, have denied any Russian military buildup on the country’s borders in the last month, Sleboda notes.

Meanwhile, EU participants of the Normandy Four, France and Germany, have not only failed to pressure the Ukrainian leadership to begin discussions with the breakaway Donbass republics under the Minsk Accords, but have repeated unsubstantiated claims of a potential Russian “invasion” of Ukraine and warned Moscow of “serious consequences”.

Sleboda notes that at the same time, the US and its NATO allies have recently stepped up the delivery of lethal arms to Kiev. The US and the UK are currently assisting Kiev in the construction of new military bases on the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, pledging to send more military “advisers” and special forces to the East European state. For its part, the Pentagon has revived discussions of Ukraine’s admission to NATO.

It’s hardly surprising that Moscow regards the actions by the US and its European NATO allies as an effort to destabilise the region, torpedo the Minsk Agreements, and turn Ukraine into a de facto NATO protectorate and forward military post against Russia, according to the US military veteran.

NATO Buildup in Ukraine May Lead to Undesired Results

NATO’s recent joint military games in close proximity to Russia’s borders as well as earlier instances of the alliance violating the county’s territorial waters in the Black Sea, are only adding to Moscow’s concerns.

Apart from this, 10 US strategic bombers rehearsed the option of using nuclear weapons against Russia almost simultaneously from the Western and Eastern directions during the Global Thunder drills, according to Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu. The defence minister highlighted on 23 November that the US planes had come within 20 km (12.4 miles) of the Russian border. In the course of the drills, US strategic aviation conducted 30 flights over the month, which is 2.5 times more than the same period last year, Shoigu said.

According to Sleboda, “the obvious intent of this malign and frankly insane ‘Dr Strangelove-esque’ sabre-rattling is to cow Russia into submission to US global military primacy and hegemony and to force the Kremlin to back down and give in to US demands in such geopolitical hotspots as Ukraine and Syria”.

Moreover, they are apparently trying to make the Russian government reconsider the strong and growing strategic partnership that Russia has with China, the security analyst notes. However, the continual abysmal state of “Russian expert” analysis in Washington “will of course only lead to the exact opposite reaction by the Russian state – ever more resolute defiance and alliance with China“, he suggests.

Thus, during a Tuesday video conversation, Russian Defence Minister Shoigu and his Chinese counterpart Wei Fenghe emphasised that the US’ provocative behaviour poses a military threat to both Moscow and Beijing and agreed to intensify joint strategic exercises and patrols.

Kiev’s Potential Offensive Against Donbass

The security analyst notes that this particularly includes “the Kiev regime troop buildup on the contact line”; “increased shelling of civilian areas and infrastructure in Donbass”; “the seizure of a settlement in the demilitarised zone between the two warring Ukrainian forces”; “and an air attack on Donetsk by the Kiev regime with a Turkish-built TB-2 Bayraktar combat drone.”

The circulation of the fake news about the “Russian invasion” of Ukraine in the US media is part of Washington’s plan to push Kiev to reinvigorate the military conflict in Donbass, according to Sergei Naryshkin, director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). Speaking to the Rossiya One broadcaster on 27 November, the Russian intelligence chief said that the US is intentionally feeding its allies with false information about Russia’s preparations for military action in Ukraine.

While the US is trying to fan the military standoff in Donbass, Sleboda doubts that the US-backed Kiev regime “truly believes that it can subjugate the Donbass in east Ukraine”:

“The goal of any Kiev regime military provocation in Donbass would be to spur lagging Western political, military, and economic support and to try once again to get the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline – which would deprive Kiev of billions of dollars of subsidisation by Russia every year in gas transit fees – killed by the new German government. Call it a tantrum and desperate cry for Western attention by a spoiled Kiev client state”, the security analyst suggests.

However, “considering the exploding political, energy, economic, and pandemic crises in the country, with Zelenskiy’s approval rating plummeting to 24%”, the Donbass offensive scenario is a “very realistic risk and possibility that could be launched by Kiev, despite the potential consequences”, Sleboda concludes.

November 27, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , , , , | 1 Comment

ONS slapped down by UK statistics watchdog for misleading claim that unvaccinated have “32 times” risk of Covid death

By Will Jones • The Daily Sceptic • November 26, 2021

Ed Humpherson, Director of U.K. Statistics Authority the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR), has written to Emma Rourke, Director of Health Analysis at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to criticise the agency for a report it put out in October claiming that: “Between January 2nd and September 24th 2021, the age-adjusted risk of deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) was 32 times greater in unvaccinated people than in fully vaccinated individuals.”

As James Wells, a statistician who served as head of the ONS UK trade team until 2019, pointed out when he wrote to the OSR to complain about the report earlier this month, this statistic uses data from January 2nd to September 24th 2021, which includes the bulk of the winter deaths at a time when almost no one was vaccinated. This skews the implied vaccine effectiveness, as a fair comparison would only include periods when a significant proportion of the country was vaccinated.

In Mr Humpherson’s letter to Ms Rourke he wrote:

The headline in the publication is the age adjusted risk of deaths involving COVID-19 for vaccinated and unvaccinated groups for the period January 2nd to September 24th. This was also the key message in the main tweet associated with the publication. Focusing on the headline figure has been unhelpful and has undermined the more helpful analysis provided later in the report. The headline figure is based on a time period driven by data availability. While the age-standardised mortality rates for deaths involving COVID-19 are consistently lower for people who have received two vaccinations, the size of the difference varies enormously depending on the time frame chosen. The data cover a period when very few people had two doses of vaccination, to a period when the majority of the adult population had two doses (data taken from on 24 November 2021 show second dose uptake for age 12 and over in England was 0.8% on January 10th 2021 and 77.4% by September 24th 2021). It also covers a period when case rates varied significantly as well as the levels of natural immunity in the population…

Given the analysis carried out, more should have been done to highlight the uncertainty associated with the headline figure… I would urge you to take the focus off the headline figure in any future publications.

The truth is that statistics are being spun like this all the time by Government and others during the pandemic to bolster the preferred narrative. It’s just on this occasion the effort was so egregious and prominent that it couldn’t be ignored.

November 26, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Vaccinated “No Less Infectious” Than Unvaccinated, CDC Study Finds

By Will Jones • The Daily Sceptic • November 24, 2021

A pre-print study out this week from the U.S. Government’s Covid Response Team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found vaccinated people to be “no less infectious” than unvaccinated people.

The study tested inmates in a federal prison with high vaccination rates daily during a SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant outbreak.

The study was very thorough. Inmates who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were, where willing, PCR-tested for 10 consecutive days and reported symptoms via a questionnaire. The researchers performed whole genome sequencing and viral culture analysis on a high proportion of the 978 specimens collected, allowing them to assess the duration of PCR positivity and viral culture positivity.

There were 95 participants in total, of whom 78 (82%) were double vaccinated and 17 (18%) were not double vaccinated (two having received one dose and 15 having received none). No significant differences were found between double vaccinated and not double vaccinated either in duration of PCR positivity (13 days each) or in duration of culture positivity (five days each).

The authors conclude that “clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons”.

This is in line with the findings of Public Health England and others.

While this sounds like more good news for countering vaccine passports, vaccine mandates and all other vaccine-based coercion and discrimination, it may be less good news for ending general restrictions and interventions. The authors state: “These findings are critically important, especially in congregate settings where viral transmission can lead to large outbreaks.” Which suggests they think the lack of efficacy against transmission is a reason to intervene more generally to prevent “large outbreaks” in “congregate settings”. It could be a long winter.

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

Why another lockdown would be met with mass non-compliance

By Andrew Devine | TCW Defending Freedom | November 25, 2021

LIKE many people, I went along with the first lockdown. I wasn’t very keen, and I was somewhat critical of it, but I believed the lie that it would be a temporary one-off measure. From the time of the second lockdown, I have been vehemently opposed to the policy. While I have never denied that Covid can be a nasty life-threatening illness for some people, I am critical of the way that governments have manipulated data to exaggerate the extent of the threat. 

When Covid 19 vaccines were first rolled out in the UK and around the world in late 2020, we were promised by Western governments and their teams of scientific ‘experts’ who wield enormous, unaccountable power, the media and Big Pharma that the vaccines were a game-changer and that mass vaccination would lead us back to some kind of normality. I was initially very resistant to take the vaccine because it is a new drug with no long-term data regarding side effects and risks. I also have two autoimmune conditions, and while they are easily treated, I am genetically predisposed to a third one that can be quite serious.

However, in the end, and with much hesitation due to the already known side effects and autoimmune risks, I took the Pfizer vaccine. I did so for several reasons. Firstly, I am around my elderly parents a lot, and I thought I would be protecting them as I believed the ‘experts’ that the vaccines would significantly reduce transmission.

This has turned out to be false.

Secondly, I was convinced by the data that seems to show that getting vaccinated almost entirely eradicates the chances of someone my age ending up in hospital with a severe case of Covid. Due to fitness and age, my risk of serious illness was already low, but as a neurotic who is sometimes prone to viewing the glass half empty, I admit to having moments when I worried that I might be one of those outliers for my age group cut down prematurely by Covid and so this was an added factor, but not the main one, in my capitulation. The final reason was because I currently reside in the Republic of Ireland where the government have been very keen to enforce some of the harshest lockdowns globally with draconian rules on both inward and outward travel as well as compulsory vaccine certificates for access to various sectors. Therefore, one of my main reasons for getting jabbed, while I still defended vehemently the rights of others not to do so, was that I thought I would be doing my bit to put an end to these hideous lockdowns and other excessive restrictions once and for all. Looking at what has happened in Austria and Holland and the refusal of both the UK and Irish governments to rule out more lockdowns, it is now clear how very wrong I was. Another way of putting it is that I’ve realised how easily I have been duped.

In recent weeks, I have become even more sceptical of everything that the UK and Irish governments and their appointed health experts tell me with regard to Covid-19. For a start, if they were wrong about the effectiveness of the vaccines with regards to transmission, why would I trust them with regards to how rarely serious side effects occur? There would be far more political and career capital at stake to motivate suppression of this data. I’m not accusing governments, scientific ‘experts’ or Big Pharma of doing so, merely noting that there is a much bigger price for them to pay if they didn’t.

With regards to coercive measures and the removal of rights from the unvaccinated, governments don’t even have recourse to the dubious argument that it’s for the greater good as we now know that the vaccinated can also transmit the virus. I keep making the argument to vaccine zealots that people can exercise their right to abstain from taking any medications due to the risks of side effects, but that many governments now believe this right should be removed solely with regard to Covid vaccines. There is no compelling moral argument for why Covid vaccines fall into an exceptional category that warrants the state using coercion whether it be direct (vaccine mandates) or indirect (segregation and removal of rights) to force its citizens to reluctantly take a medicine they would otherwise refuse.

The enthusiasm for vaccines and excessive restrictions are now articles of faith for their proponents. It has become an ideological stance that no amount of reasoned scrutiny can alter. Rational analysis of the extent of the threat from Covid and strategies to deal with it have been abandoned for the simplistic dogma of ‘vaccines good’ and ‘lockdowns and restrictions good’. The truth is much more nuanced than the doom-mongering analysis which permeates the mainstream media. Lockdown enthusiasts and vaccine zealots, like all ideologues, have opponents whom they despise and whom they seek to demonise. This is why only ‘far Right conspiracy theorists’ and ‘anti-vaxxers’ would have an issue with mandatory vaccines which can have serious side effects being given to children to protect them from a virus that rarely makes children very ill.

How have we reached a stage in Western liberal democracies when those of us questioning and disagreeing with extreme public health policies that strip individual citizens of their inalienable rights under false pretences are the ones deemed to be the extremists? Asking questions and being critical of government policy is now viewed by the obedient media class and the political elites and partisan scientific ‘experts’ they serve as being synonymous with the far Right. In truth, it is your democratic duty to question all government policies and especially more so those that would remove your fundamental freedoms. For any government to wish to suspend the rights of its citizenry on a temporary basis, it must first seek consent from the people after explaining the exceptional circumstances in which they seek to do so. There has been no public debate and little media scrutiny across the English-speaking world about whether the threat posed by Covid-19 meets the very high threshold that could justify temporary lockdowns and other extreme restrictions imposed on the citizenry.

If the UK or Irish government or any of the devolved administrations try to impose another lockdown, I predict there will be mass non-compliance. It is very likely that much of the population of these islands will conclude that if several lockdowns, mask mandates and ‘game changing’ vaccines have not eradicated transmission, why comply with another lockdown, possible financial ruin and separation from loved ones? What would be the purpose? As someone once said (it wasn’t actually Einstein): ‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.’

November 25, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | 1 Comment

Guardian Claims Covid in Hospitals Has “Largely Become a Disease of the Unvaccinated” – Data Shows Opposite

By Will Jones • The Daily Sceptic • November 23, 2021

An article appeared in the Guardian this week written by an anonymous NHS respiratory consultant claiming that “in hospital, COVID-19 has largely become a disease of the unvaccinated”.

Of course, there are people who have their vaccinations but still get sick. These people may be elderly or frail, or have underlying health problems. Those with illnesses affecting the immune system, particularly patients who have had chemotherapy for blood cancers, are especially vulnerable. Some unlucky healthy people will also end up on our general wards with Covid after being vaccinated, usually needing a modest amount of oxygen for a few days.

But the story is different on our intensive care unit. Here, the patient population consists of a few vulnerable people with severe underlying health problems and a majority of fit, healthy, younger people unvaccinated by choice. … If everyone got vaccinated, hospitals would be under much less pressure; this is beyond debate. Your wait for your clinic appointment/operation/diagnostic test/A&E department would be shorter. Your ambulance would arrive sooner. Reports of the pressure on the NHS are not exaggerated, I promise you. … Most of the resources that we are devoting to Covid in hospital are now being spent on the unvaccinated.

This reads to me like a blatant attempt to stigmatise the unvaccinated as selfish, a burden on society and a threat to the vaccinated. (The clue is in the headline: “ICU is full of the unvaccinated – my patience with them is wearing thin.”) Given the polling (which may not be very reliable of course) showing that 45% of U.K. adults would support an indefinite lockdown of the unvaccinated, this is all starting to look and sound rather ugly.

The most frustrating thing about this anonymously written article is it doesn’t cite any data even though its arguments are based on claims which only data can validate. It consists instead only of a single medic’s subjective impressions, with no sources provided to see if his claims holds water.

Are the hospitalised mostly unvaccinated? Not according to Government data from the UKHSA. Here is the breakdown of hospitalisations by vaccination status in England for the four weeks up to November 14th from the latest Vaccine Surveillance report.

Adding these figures up we find that 3,200 of 9,831 or 33% of Covid hospitalisations are of unvaccinated people, leaving 67% of Covid hospital patients in the vaccinated category, most of them with two doses. Focusing just on adults, we find 2,692 of 9,278 or 29% of Covid hospitalisations are unvaccinated, leaving 71% vaccinated. Seeing as just 68% of the U.K. population is double vaccinated, 67% of Covid hospital patients having received at least one dose hardly seems like a strong result. Indeed, it suggests the unvaccinated are barely over-represented in hospitals at all.

What about Covid deaths – are the unvaccinated over-represented there? Here’s the table from the same report.

Adding them up we find that 675 of 3,676 or 18% of Covid deaths in the month up to November 14th are in unvaccinated people, leaving 82% in the vaccinated, most with two doses. Only in the under-40s do deaths in the unvaccinated outnumber those in the vaccinated.

It’s hard to square this data with the picture painted by the anonymous medic. Far from COVID-19 having “largely become a disease of the unvaccinated”, with most Covid hospital resources “now being spent on the unvaccinated”, a large majority of hospitalisations and deaths are occurring in the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated.

But what about ICU admissions? And is it true that the vaccinated-sick all have underlying health issues whereas the unvaccinated-sick are all healthy?

The problem with addressing these claims is that we don’t have the data to check them out. The data on ICU admissions by vaccination status has not been updated since July as far as I can see (if you are aware of a more recent update do let me know), and I am not aware of any data on co-morbidities (again, if you are aware of any please drop me a line).

The anonymous writer states: “I can’t think of a single case offhand of a person who was previously fit and healthy who has ended up needing intensive care after being fully vaccinated. It may not stop you from catching Covid. But it can save your life when you do.” But again, this is anecdotal and therefore not terribly helpful.

It’s fair to note that much data does appear to show that the vaccines protect people well against severe disease and death, at least for several months, though some recent analysis has questioned whether such efficacy has been overestimated.

But however well the vaccines protect against severe disease, that is no excuse for turning the unvaccinated into pariahs or scapegoats and blaming them for the strains on the health service. Such moralised blaming of a minority for supposedly disadvantaging the majority (‘Can’t get a doctor’s appointment? Surgery been cancelled again? The unvaccinated are to blame!’) has a very ugly history and rarely ends well. It’s particularly odd to see this scapegoating in a supposedly liberal newspaper. It needs to stop now.

November 24, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment

Will You Be Jailed for Protesting Vaccine Mandates?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | November 22, 2021

On the surface, the Online Safety Bill, being pushed by the U.K. government, appears to protect children and adults from online messaging, content and websites through regulations and removal of those deemed to be “harmful.”1 After the draft of the bill was published in May 2021, it became apparent that it is another iteration of the controversial 2019 “Online Harms White Paper.”

The White Paper,2 which proposed legislative and nonlegislative strategies to purportedly protect you from online content that might harm you, was quickly criticized. Aside from the fact that unnamed entities would determine what kind of content, platforms and websites are harmful or inappropriate, serious concerns were raised that, if implemented, the paper’s dogma essentially was a model for stifling freedom of speech.

Britain’s Online Safety Bill evolved from that paper, but it, too is under scrutiny as critics say it not only is too “vague in its wording,” but “poses a threat to freedom of expression and places too much power in the hands of social networks.”3

In fact, it is poised to be yet another government-imposed step to limit personal freedoms and individual rights under the guise of transforming the world into a single body run by elites who believe they can make the world and your life better by limiting what you do, where you go and even what you own — if you own anything at all.

It is a world vision with global implications that, if implemented, would even control how you think. The foundation for these changes began long before the 2020 pandemic. The World Economic Forum and the United Nations have been working together to push the related WEF 2030Vision4 and the UN Agenda for Sustainable Development — an action plan that they say is for the people, the planet and prosperity. According to the United Nations this will involve:5

“All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership … to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet.”

Again, on the surface, it appears that Big Brother is looking out for all the little people. But in essence, to achieve the goals set out by the WEF and the UN they must have ultimate control over your ability to make individual decisions for your life. Otherwise, in their estimation, America and every other free nation in this world will continue living in the same “chaos” that they have been in for as long as they have been free.

To achieve these goals, it is necessary that you purchase and eat only the types of food they deem sustainable. You may only work and get paid if you choose the right health plan, make the right medical decisions and use the correct currency.

In fact, the WEF said it best in their strangely ominous dictum that you will “own nothing and be happy.” While inexplicable in 2016 when it was first published in Forbes Magazine,6 the unstated implication that the world’s resources will be owned and controlled by the technocratic elite is coming closer and closer to reality.

It’s coming so close, in fact, that fact checkers at Reuters rushed to publish a rebuttal in February 2021 after a three-minute video clip with a mere 862 likes and 1,100 shares made the rounds on Facebook.7 With these small numbers, that video could hardly have been called viral. Yet, Reuters raced in to argue that the WEF has no stated goal that people will own nothing by 2030, despite Forbes’ 2016 prediction.

Should the Online Safety Bill in the U.K. pass with all its possible regulations and repercussions, this is exactly the type of video that, had it been a law in 2021, could have landed the video’s creator in jail for two years. This, despite the fact that the WEF published a video on Facebook two days after the Forbes article in which they said, “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy. This is how our world could change by 2030.”8

Trolling May Get You Two Years in Prison

The media appear to come down on both sides of the fence as they report what’s happening with the Online Safety Bill. Rather unsurprisingly, the mainstream media, such as The Times,9 report the proposed law favorably while headlines from independent media read:

  • British Government May Jail Those Accused of Causing ‘Online Psychological Harm’10
  • Brits Who Post “False Information” About Vaccines Could Be Jailed For Two Years11

Before the internet, a troll was a dwarf or giant in Scandinavian folklore who inhabited the caves or hills.12 Today, it is slang for a person or actions that intentionally try “to instigate conflict, hostility, or arguments in an online social community.”13

The bill’s critics are focusing on a part of the bill that calls for a jail sentence of two years for anyone who causes psychological harm as a result of online trolling. But proponents of the bill stress how threats of punishment for trolling will stop these harms. In its support of this idea, The Times explains that the bill is:14

“… the flagship legislation to combat abuse and hatred on the internet. The proposed law change will shift the focus on to the “harmful effect” of a message rather than if it contains “indecent” or “grossly offensive” content, which is the present basis for assessing its criminality.”

In other words, the bill will change communication laws in the U.K. and create new offenses under which people can be jailed. The messages targeted will contain “threats of serious harm.” You might imagine those threats would be of abuse or death, but The Times reported that government sources used “the example of antivaxxers spreading false information that they know to be untrue.”15

The government spokesperson justified the bill as a good thing to do, even though former cabinet minister David Davis urged them to rethink the proposal and Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, called it “too broad.” The spokesperson said:16

“We are making our laws fit for the digital age. Our comprehensive Online Safety Bill will make tech companies responsible for people’s safety and we are carefully considering the Law Commission’s recommendations on strengthening criminal offences.”

But, as Principia Scientific International 17 points out, since the beginning of the pandemic, authorities have called multiple pieces of information posted on social media “false” that later turned out to be true. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci’s ongoing changes to his definition of herd immunity could fall under knowingly spreading false communication. But would it?

The most obvious example is when the vaccine was first released, and claims were made that it was not fully effective at stopping the spread of the disease. That would have fallen under the bill’s definition of disinformation. Yet, months later this was proven to be fact. So, if the bill passes in the U.K., what happens to someone who is in jail for making a “false” statement, which months later turns out to be true? Will they get an early release or recompense for false imprisonment?

New Law Sets Stage for Greater Public Control

On the surface it looks like the law is meant to protect people against threats of death or physical violence. But, in fact, this is a law that protects governmental agencies from outspoken citizens who would like to retain their right to free speech that is enjoyed by those who do not live under communist rule.

Should the law pass, what would stop the government from extending the definition of “false” statements? This could now cover any statement governmental agencies find “offensive” or that creates a “threat of serious harm.” For example, if you make statements against the high price of gasoline, food or heating oil, the government could say you are inciting anger.

The new law will also include something called “pile-ons.” This is a situation in which several individuals will join in sending harassing messages. However, which messages are defined as pile-ons or harassment will be determined by those in power, who are yet to be named. Therefore, as the reporter from Principia Scientific International wrote:18

“And if you think that will stop those of a certain political leaning who routinely form “pile-ons” against conservatives for expressing dissenting opinions, think again.”

According to Principia Scientific International,19 the bill is being promoted with “relentless propaganda.” Despite online abuse toward Black football players in the U.K. originating from Middle Eastern countries, the media is using the situation to justify the bill.

According to an analysis20 by Chris Pikes, CEO and co-founder of Image Analyzer, the bill will also pertain to any website where other people can upload content, videos or comment on each other’s posts. Image Analyzer21 is a software program designed to analyze visual threats using artificial intelligence.

If the bill passes, every digital platform operator will be responsible for removing illegal content. But since there is no clear definition of “harm” in the bill, how enforcement of the bill is determined and what content it will affect may be based on decisions made well after the bill has been approved.

The vague language threatens freedom of speech and the mandate to remove content may require companies to prescreen anything posted. Taking this a step further, all website companies would be responsible for removing content posted by U.K. citizens that may be covered by the Online Safety Bill. This means website owners in the U.S., France, Sweden and any other country would also have to comply with the British law.

This could create a system where journalists enjoy the freedom to report information and speak on social media, while citizens face censorship. The vague language in the bill also opens questions of advertising content. In this draft of the Online Safety Bill, there is the power to levy fines of up to £18 million22 (approximate $24.17 million in the exchange rate November 2021) or 10% of the company’s global profits, whichever is higher.

Tyrannical Regulations Justified by Ongoing ‘Emergency’

Using this definition of social media — anywhere that content can be posted by readers — it includes blog owners, family websites and author blogs where individuals have always enjoyed the freedom of sharing their opinions that were not indecent or grossly offensive. This is freedom of speech — except in socialist or communist regimes where the state dictates what you think, feel and how you act.

If the U.K passes this bill that may affect every website where comments are allowed, how many months could it be before a similar legislative action is drafted in other currently free countries, including the U.S.?

When you step back from what’s been happening over the past 18 months to two years, you have to ask the question of what is driving these legislative actions and political inaction to protect citizens. The process began under the guise of a medical emergency in which it was predicted that people would be dropping dead in the street.

But people have not been dropping dead in the streets. And, while the infection is a very real infection, it currently does not meet the threshold of “emergency.”

Successful treatment protocols have been developed23,24 but are not used or promoted as government agencies are pushing for as many people as possible to accept the genetic therapy shot being called a vaccine.25 Just a reminder: For the shot to meet the definition of a vaccine, the CDC had to change the definition of it.26

When it comes to death counts, according to data from the CDC,27 COVID-19 deaths accounted for 11.3% of all deaths in 2020 and 13.5% of all deaths in 2021. According to recounts and analysis of data in Alameda and Santa Clara counties in California, these numbers may be 20% to 25% too high.28

If the number of deaths were conservatively reduced by 15%, then the deaths from COVID-19 would drop to 9.6% in 2020 and 11.4% in 2021. This is far lower than the 19.4% of all deaths from heart disease in 2020.29

Your Personal Liberty Is Worth Fighting For

You might fortunately be in a position where life as you know it has not changed drastically. However, it’s important to recognize what personal freedoms we lose will be exponentially harder to get back. You only have to look at the history of other socialist and communist countries or hear the stories of people’s oppression to understand the direction that society is taking.

Our personal freedom is critically important and may be most important for our mental and physical health. The freedom to interact with other human beings is crucial. We may tolerate a lack of interaction for a short period of time, but as that time grows it takes a toll on health, emotional stability and longevity.

In mid-2020, the CDC30 wrote that adults were reporting considerably elevated mental health conditions, elevated suicide ideation and increased substance use — all because of lockdowns, job losses and the subsequent trauma that the pandemic fear campaign put on our lives. In 2021, news sources reported that the CDC estimated there were more than 93,000 drug overdose deaths in 2020.31 This was a 30% rise over 2019 and was an all-time high for the U.S.32

This is not something we should be prolonging by instituting new restrictions on our freedoms of expression, speech and thought. It is vital to stand your ground and fight peacefully for freedom now, before it’s too late. There are people who know what it’s like to lose their freedoms and be incarcerated systems that appear to purposefully forget them,33 and others who are held in jails without convictions or sentencing.34,35

And if you think such things can’t happen to you, think again. With every new piece of legislation that rips away at your personal freedom, we are one step closer to the “state” controlling what we think, eat, say and feel. By 2030, we could “own nothing and [NOT] be happy.”

Sources and References

November 23, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment