By Paul Weston | TCW Defending Freedom | June 21, 2022
AFTER two years of Covid-19 insanity, the West has several new crises to deal with. Rampant inflation, coming food shortages and fuel shortages, monkeypox, a mystifying confusion about XX and XY chromosomes and a strange war in Ukraine which appears to be a proxy war between nuclear armed America and nuclear armed Russia.
I say a strange war because no one seems remotely interested in stopping it, no matter that it could lead to Armageddon. I think this is because Putin can be blamed for some of the deliberately engineered crises we are currently experiencing, so don’t expect it to end soon. Our armchair warrior political class seems more than happy to supply weapons to prolong the inevitable and are valiantly prepared to fight to the last surviving Ukrainian.
I feel as though we no longer exist as human beings in the eyes of our overlords. We are now just cattle being herded toward a dystopian future by a small number of immensely powerful individuals and global organisations who make no secret of the future they wish to build for us. This global coup d’état is driven by lies and corruption at every level of our national and international institutions. Nothing we have been told over the last couple of years is true.
For example, over the last thirty years in England and Wales an average 1.2 per cent of the population died every year, the vast majority of them old and ill. In 2020, the year of the alleged Covid-19 killer pandemic, just 1 per cent of the population died, and again the vast majority were old and ill. Yet despite experiencing a lower-than-average death rate, a Covid-19 emergency was declared which saw the biggest power grab by the state over the lives of its citizens since the dictatorships of Lenin, Hitler and Mao.
The most chilling aspect of this totalitarian takeover is that Western countries acted in unified lockstep as they tore up every tried and trusted historical public health protocol related to airborne viruses and replaced them with a tyranny that had no basis in medical or scientific reality.
People who recognised what was happening publicly protested and were met with state enforced paramilitary brutality never previously seen in the West. In Australia rubber bullets were used against peaceful protesters. In Canada, Justin Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act to beat, jail and pauperise peaceful protesters who preferred to live their lives according to the Nuremberg Code rather than Trudeau’s Mengele Code. In New Zealand huge posters of a beaming Jacinda Ardern were ruthlessly displayed on advertising hoardings across the country.
The biggest issues I can see in all this criminal insanity are two-fold. Firstly, our ruling class now know they can do whatever they want to us if they terrorise us sufficiently, as in carry out acts of genuine terrorism against their own citizens to achieve a political ambition. Secondly, we now know exactly what they want to do to us because they meet up in Davos every year and shamelessly talk about it in very loud voices.
Their power is immense, and for the first time in history they have the ability to build a revolutionary new society without having to carry out violent street revolutions. All they need is electronic data and digital IDs linked to a government-controlled central bank digital currency, which all Western governments are currently implementing. Covid-19, mass vaccinations and digital Covid passes – please don’t think they have been consigned to history – were a necessary pre-condition of course if a Digi-Tyranny could ever become a reality.
Western governments are also working on legislation to both silence dissent on social media and stifle physical public protest. New Ministries of Truth are being formed which will disappear and memory-hole any written and spoken words our ruling class considers to be misinformation or disinformation. This is Orwell’s 1984 and it is happening before our very eyes.
Who are the people/organisations enacting this totalitarian Western coup d’état? Well, it is primarily the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the EU, Big Tech social media, the pharmaceutical industry, the entire Western political class and three gargantuan financial institutions called BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, along with a handful of monumentally wealthy billionaires including Soros and Gates.
The concerted power and wealth held by the above has completely corrupted politics, science, journalism, the judiciary, academia and medicine. There are still some brave souls from those professions who risk their careers by speaking out, but you will never see them via the mainstream media or the biggest social media platforms. Those we are allowed to see are bought and paid for propagandists who tell us nothing other than the revolutionary line.
I am fifty-eight years old now. I was born a long time after World War Two and my entire life – up until 2020 at least – was one of unimaginable ease and freedom compared to most humans who have ever lived. But the freedom I enjoyed is over now. Our future could be very grim indeed. Another pandemic will soon be coming our way and I suspect this one will be necessarily much more lethal than the last.
Also coming our way are ever rising interest rates to counter the deliberately engineered inflation. If these interest rates hit double figures, every average earning mortgage holder will lose their house. The manufacture of petrol and diesel cars will soon be phased out and extortionate taxes will be introduced to keep older ones on the road. Air travel for the masses is not part of the New World Order’s Green Agenda, nor is heating our homes with oil or gas.
They have told us what they want. A smaller population. A lower carbon footprint. A digital ID surveillance/social credit state capable of bending us to their dictatorial will. No more meat, just bugs; lots and lots of delicious bugs. The apparatchiks of the Green New World Order will still have their private jets, their beachside mansions, their haunches of venison and their champagne whilst we will own nothing, which I rather suspect will fail to induce delirious happiness whatever Herr Schwab might purportedly believe.
Can they achieve their publicly oft-stated agenda? Yes, they simply have to continue doing what they are already doing, although it will need to be substantially ramped up, hence my belief another pandemic is on the cards. In America they have the problem of gun ownership in the hands of ordinary citizens, so I think we will see huge efforts – by means more foul than fair – to urgently rectify this problematic issue for the New World Order.
Is it all doom and gloom? Not really. They have shown their hand and despite their seemingly limitless power and wealth there are only a few thousand of them whilst there are billions of us. I see our future as one of only two credible possibilities: freedom for us and jail for them, or slavery for us and even bigger yachts, private jets and sizzling steaks for them. It is up to us in other words. The very first thing the average person needs do is wake up. Before it is too late.
BY WILL JONES | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | JUNE 20, 2022
Full Fact – a ‘fact-checking’ website funded by Google, Facebook and George Soros – has been lobbying MPs to include “health misinformation” in the Online Safety Bill. This would force websites to remove “legal but harmful” “misinformation” relating to health, including off-narrative information about COVID-19, lockdowns, masks and vaccines, or face crippling fines.
Last week Full Fact – which received 70% of its 2019 declared funding from Big Tech companies – sent an email to its subscribers urging them to write to their MP and ask him or her vote to address the “gap” left by the Government’s rejection of the Labour and SNP amendment that would have added “health misinformation” to the bill. Full Fact’s Policy and Parliamentary Relations Manager Alison Trew wrote:
Two years on from the outbreak of a global pandemic, it should be obvious that false or misleading claims about our health should be included in the types of online content addressed by the Bill.
A few weeks ago Full Fact’s Chief Executive, Will Moy, warned MPs that as it stands, the Online Safety Bill fails to meet the Government’s aim to make the U.K. the safest place in the world to be online.
Our fact checkers have seen first hand how COVID-19 misinformation has undermined public health, conspiracy theories have led to offline attacks, and disinformation – including on the war in Ukraine – has spread unchecked.
Digital minister Chris Philp told MPs this week that the Government agreed with the intention behind the amendment to tackle harmful health misinformation. And yet, disappointingly, the Government voted against the proposed changes.
This leaves a huge, and dangerous, gap in the Online Safety Bill. But there is still time for Parliament to close it.
Here’s the email in full.
Full Fact, which self-importantly describes itself as “the U.K.’s independent fact checking charity”, is well known to be a politically biased organisation with a history of partisan interventions in political debates. Government Minister Dominic Raab once said of it: “Who said Final [sic] Fact is the final arbiter of what the public get to see as the truth? There’s no God-given right, set in law. It doesn’t sound to me like they like the competition.”
However, various organisations including Google and Facebook use Full Fact to inform them as to what is “misinformation” that must be censored on their platforms. Worse, Raab’s Government is currently causing it to be “set in law” that websites must act on the “misinformation” that sites like Full Fact bring to their attention. The U.K.’s broadcasting regulator Ofcom said last year that its “list of claims that could be considered false or misleading is provided to us by Full Fact”.
Full Fact claims to be an “independent and impartial charity with a cross-party board”. But an investigation by David Scullion for the Critic found this was not true.
The organisation claims to have a board of trustees with “members from the three main UK-wide political parties”. There is a Labour Peer (Baroness Janet Royall), a Lib-Dem peer, (Lord John Sharkey) but their former Conservative Party member, Lord Richard Inglewood, no longer sits as a Tory. When I asked Full Fact who their Conservative member was they pointed out that one of their trustees donates to the Conservative Party and that they have “representatives of different political parties” on their board. This is different wording which allows for the fact that they don’t, or aren’t sure whether they have a Conservative Party member amongst them. I pointed out that a donor was different to a member, but I did not receive a reply and the text on their website was not corrected.
Scullion notes that the departing editor was an ex-Mirror and Buzzfeed reporter, and concludes: “Full Fact is a charity with a small output of research compared to its size, funded primarily by big-tech and staffed to a large extent by former public sector workers or ex-reporters from left-wing media.”
Full Fact misleadingly claims no one has to listen to it: “We don’t ask people to take our word for any conclusion we make. We provide links to all sources so that readers can check what we’ve said for themselves.”
But when major internet sites and broadcasting regulators are leaning on it to tell them what to censor, and when it has a “Head of Advocacy” and a “Policy and Parliamentary Relations Manager” who lobby Government to change the law, it clearly isn’t the case that no one has to take its word for it. Where it speaks, censorship can quickly follow.
Full Fact often gets things wrong. In February 2020 it joined in the now discredited effort to pour cold water on the lab leak theory, stating “There’s no evidence that the 2019 coronavirus originated in a Chinese Government laboratory”, despite many scientists at the time suspecting, based on the evidence, that was the case. Last year the site claimed the Daily Sceptic was being misleading in reporting Government data showing infection rates higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. It wrote:
This data had already caused widespread confusion, because it seemed to show for the month in question (August 9th to September 5th) that people in their 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s were more likely to test positive for Covid if they had been vaccinated than if they hadn’t. In particular, a chart displaying the data seemed to give this impression.
Despite pointing out to the site that the Government data and chart didn’t “seem” to show this but plainly did show this, and this was not a result of “confusion” or an “impression” on anyone’s part and the misinformation was entirely Full Fact’s in attempting to cast doubt on this, no correction was forthcoming.
Websites and other media checking one another’s facts is of course a worthwhile activity. That’s one reason free speech is so important, as it allows people to correct one another by drawing attention to new or overlooked evidence. But using biased fact-checking sites as a basis of censorship, as many websites and Government regulators are now in a habit of doing, is a fast-track to an authoritarian society where only officially approved speech and Government-endorsed ‘facts’ are allowed. It’s no surprise that Full Fact wants the Online Safety Bill strengthened to force websites to conform with the pronouncements of sites like itself. But that’s no reason for a Government which claims to care about freedom of speech to go along with it.
Samizdat – 19.06.2022
Russia and the UK haven’t engaged one another directly in battle since the Crimean War of 1853-1856. It was that conflict which became the subject of Lord Alfred Tennyson’s famous poem ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’, the disastrous cavalry charge against Russian troops during the 1854 Battle of Balaklava which nearly wiped out British forces.
Britain must prepare to return to continental Europe to fight and win a conflict against Russia, General Sir Patrick Sanders, the new Chief of the General Staff of the British Army, has said.
“There is now a burning imperative to forge an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle. We are the generation that must prepare the Army to fight in Europe once again,” Sanders wrote in a letter to the troops after taking over from his predecessor, Gen. Sir Mark Carleton-Smith earlier this week.
Sanders emphasized that he was the first British chief of general staff “since 1941 to take command of the Army in the shadow of a land war in Europe involving a continental power,” carefully wording his comment to avoid mentioning NATO involvement in the 1990s Yugoslav Wars, including the 78-day-long bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.
The general suggested that the crisis in Ukraine highlighted the Army’s “core purpose” of protecting Britain “by being ready to fight and win wars on land.”
Sir Patrick’s sentiments have been echoed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who wrote in an article for The Sunday Times that the UK and its allies must “steel” themselves for a “long” slog in Ukraine, and that the West needs “to enlist time on Ukraine’s side.”
Separately, in an interview with Bild, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg similarly urged allies to “be prepared” for the Ukraine crisis “to last for years,” and stressed that the bloc “must not weaken in our support of Ukraine, even if the costs are high – not only in terms of military support but also because of rising energy and food prices” at home.
Sanders’ enlistment as Chief of the General Staff comes at a difficult time for Britain’s military, with the government announcing plans last year to whittle the regular Army down from 82,000 troops to 72,500 personnel by 2025 – its smallest size since 1714. The prime minister’s office assured that large land forces aren’t necessary in conditions of modern warfare, where smaller units supported by technology and electronic warfare tools are expected to do the job. It remains to be tested whether such logic is applicable to hypothetical conflicts with a large power like Russia, or limited to the kinds of operations the UK has engaged in in recent years, including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the aerial bombardment of Libya in 2011.
Britain and Russia haven’t fought directly in a war since the 1850s, and were allies in both the First and Second World Wars, as well as the conflict against Napoleon in the early 19th century.
Russian officials have accused the West of sending billions of dollars’ worth of military hardware to Ukraine to prolong the crisis as long as possible, and “fight Russia to the last Ukrainian” through the proxy conflict. The Russian military has warned that it will destroy Western arms deliveries and foreign mercenaries.
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | June 17, 2022
UK Ministers have blocked an amendment proposed by a Labour MP that would have required news outlets to register with a dystopian independent regulator. The amendment was tabled by MP Kim Leadbeater under the Online Safety Bill, a proposed legislation that is already bad enough, focused on cracking down on “hate speech” and other “harmful” content on the internet.
Leadbeater’s amendment proposed that “all print and online media seeking to benefit from the exemption should be independently regulated.” Critics noted it was similar to the Leveson inquiry of 2014, which recommended the formation of a state-approved regulator for the press.
Leadbeater insists that the current draft bill could be abused, the Times reported.
“The internet is full of groups describing themselves as news publishers, but which distribute profoundly damaging and dangerous material designed to promote extremist ideologies and foment hatred,” she said. “Is it really the intention of the government that any organization meeting their loose criteria as currently drafted in the bill should be afforded those sacrosanct rights and freedoms of the press that we all seek to defend?”
She added: “This bill must protect freedom of expression, and in particular, the freedom of the press – a freedom that I know we are all committed to upholding and defending.
“However, in evaluating the balance between freedom of the press and freedom to enjoy the digital world without encountering harm, the bill as drafted has far too many loopholes and risks granting legal protection to those wishing to spread harmful content and disinformation in the name of ‘journalism.’
Junior Culture Minister Chris Philp said the government dismissed the proposed amendment because regulating the press constitutes a violation of press freedom.
“If the amendment was adopted in the way it has been written, then it would effectively be requiring news publishers . . . to register with one of these regulators,” Philp said.
“I want to put it on record very clearly that, for reasons of freedom of the press, this government does not support any kind of mandatory or statutory press regulation of any form. We think to do so would unreasonably restrict the freedom of the press.”
Pfizer wants Babies to be Exposed to SIX Vaccine Shots!
By Igor Chudov | June 10, 2022
I will explain that
An interesting article came out:
This article found that at one year of age, babies born to mothers who had COVID (not vaccine), had a roughly twice-higher rate of neurodevelopmental disorders:
those born to the 222 mothers with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test during pregnancy were more likely to receive a neurodevelopmental diagnosis in the first 12 months after delivery, even after accounting for preterm delivery.
Considering that COVID is a bad disease for a sizable minority of people, there is no surprise. Covid is bad and gives people all sorts of problems. Then I started thinking: a lot of adverse effects of Covid vaccines mimic the adverse effects of Covid. The younger is the vaccine recipient, the worse some effects of vaccination (such as myocarditis) are.
A great number of expectant mothers received up to three Covid vaccine shots during pregnancy. Did anyone bother testing one-year-old children of vaccinated and boosted (during pregnancy) women for neurodevelopmental disorders, before approving this vaccine for all pregnant women?
The question is, obviously, rhetorical, since “mRNA Babies” of triple-vaxed-during-pregnancy mothers are only beginning to get born right now and are at most a few months old. Not one such baby reached a year of age. So nobody tested them for developmental disorders at one year of age, before approving the three vaccine shots for expectant mothers.
The usual argument of vaccinators that “since Covid does it too, you should take the vaccine” does not hold water. To a woman who decided to take the vaccine, the probability of getting a vaccine is 100%. The probability of her getting Covid is much less. In the above study, out of 7,772 births, only 222 (2.8%) were exposed to Covid during pregnancy. So while vaccination is 100% guaranteed for those who elect to vaccinate, the chance of Covid is over 30 times less likely. And the “vaccine” does not prevent Covid anyway and does not even reduce the viral load.
There is literally zero data on one-year-old children of triple-vaccinated mothers because the oldest ones are 3-4 months old as of today.
However, there are disturbing developments regarding newborns. Vaccination does seem to have an effect on births and pregnancies.
The best data I found regarding recently born newborns happens to come from Scotland. They have an interesting “wider impacts” page that I am quoting below.
Infant deaths are way above average and exceeded “Alert Limits” twice.
Even pregnancy terminations went up at the end of 2021, possibly but not certainly explained by prenatal vax problems:
Low Apgar score births (for those readers who do not have kids, Apgar score is how healthy is the baby at birth, the best being a score of 10) triggered a green alarm signal:
Mind you, an Apgar score is also a developmental evaluation of sorts — at 5 minutes after birth. What will happen to the developmental milestones of those lucky babies of vaccinated mothers, who survived the pregnancies, did not die postnatally, and lived to one year of age? I literally have no idea and nobody else in the world does — the time has not passed yet.
The data we have is NOT encouraging.
CDC Solution: Remove and Lower Milestones
The CDC possibly caught a whiff of this, because in February of 2022 they literally removed half the developmental milestones, bumped some others to higher ages, and lowered standards for yet more of them. (Hat tip @CLesterwood)
About one-third of milestones like fine motor skills have been bumped up to older ages. Because of the setback, children may worsen their developmental delay, making it harder to provide early intervention, explains Jessica Hatfield, MS, OTR/L, a pediatric occupational therapist for TheraTree Pediatric Therapy.
Removing crawling as a milestone??? Are you kidding us? For those of my readers who are parents, do you think that crawling is unimportant as a milestone?
Vaccinated Infants Exposed to SIX Doses of Covid Vaxx in a Year!
Imagine a vaccine enthusiast mother, who gets three doses during her pregnancy. Say, two doses during month 4 and one during the last week of pregnancy. The unborn baby is, obviously, exposed to all that.
Then the baby is born.
If the June 14-15 FDA meeting goes as planned, FDA will approve a three-dose Pfizer vaccine for infants and toddlers. So shortly after being exposed to THREE doses of mRNA vaccines prenatally, the recently born 6 months old baby will get THREE MORE Pfizer mRNA shots.
That’s a total of, drumroll, six spike protein, and nanoparticle exposures. For a tiny newborn, all during one first year of her life.
And what if the mom has several Covids while being pregnant and vaccinated?
They will ask the mom to vaccinate the baby regardless of those covid infections. This literally amounts to six doses within a year or close to, without even counting actual covids that the vaxed moms have. Pfizer will make $132 from these six shots. Not sure if the baby will eventually need much more expensive treatments.
Do you think that it is a little bit too much? Do you think Pfizer or the FDA care?
Press TV – June 15, 2022
The world’s nine nuclear-armed countries – led by the US – spent $82.4 billion upgrading their atomic arsenal in 2021, eight percent more than the previous year, an anti-nuke campaign group has unveiled.
The largest spender by far was the United States, which accounted for more than half the total expenditures on nuclear weapons – followed respectively by China, Russia, Britain, France, India, the Israeli regime, Pakistan and North Korea – the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) stated in its annual report, titled “Squandered: 2021 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending.”
“Nuclear-armed states spent an obscene amount of money on illegal weapons of mass destruction in 2021, while the majority of the world’s countries support a global nuclear weapons ban,” the group said in the report, noting that the massive spending nevertheless failed to prevent a war in Europe.
“This spending failed to deter a war in Europe and squandered valuable resources that could be better used to address current security challenges, or cope with the outcome of a still raging global pandemic,” ICAN said. “This corrupt cycle of wasteful spending must be put to an end.”
The group said atomic arms producers had further spent millions of dollars on political lobbying efforts, saying that every $1 spent on lobbying had led to an average of $256 in new contracts involving nuclear weaponry.
“The exchange of money and influence, from countries to companies to lobbyists and think tanks, sustains and maintains a global arsenal of catastrophically destructive weapons,” it said.
The US spent $44.2 billion on atomic weaponry in 2021, followed by China’s $11.7 billion, Russia’s $8.6 billion, the UK’s $6.8 billion, and France’s $5.9 billion, according to the report. India led the more recent nuclear arms developers in expenditures on the mass-destructive weaponry, spending $2.3 billion, followed by the Israeli regime’s $1.2 billion, Pakistan’s $1.1 billion and North Korea’s $642 million.
The report came a week after US-led NATO alliance declared that it did not offer a guarantee to Russia that it would not deploy nuclear weapons on the territories of its two prospective new members, Finland and Sweden.
ICAN’s report further confirmed a statement released by the prominent Stockholm International Peace Research (SIPRI) a day earlier in which it had warned that all the nine nuclear-armed states were increasing or upgrading their arsenals, and that the risk of deployment of such weapons appeared higher now than at any time since the height of the Cold War.
While there is no official confirmation on the amount North Korea spends on nuclear weapons or its arsenal, SIPRI estimates that it possesses as many as 20 warheads.
The Israeli regime, along with India, Pakistan, and South Sudan have never joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), an international treaty purportedly established to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
As of August 2016, 191 states have become parties to the NPT, though North Korea, which acceded in 1985, announced its withdrawal from the treaty in 2003, following detonation of nuclear devices in violation of core obligations.
Critics of the treaty insist, however, that the NPT cannot stop the proliferation of nuclear arms or the motivation to acquire them, arguing that the biggest possessors and developers of atomic weapons are leading members of the global accord. Officials of the treaty have been selective in enforcing nuclear disarmament, imposing sanctions on observant member nations, such as Iran, while ignoring certain atomic arms possessor and developers such as India, Pakistan, and the Israeli regime, which is widely believe to possess at least 300 nuclear warheads.
Labour and the SNP are planning on a new amendment
By Mark Johnson | UnHerd | June 14, 2022
Civil libertarians often talk about a phenomenon known as the “ratcheting effect”. This is the idea that when it comes to the erosion of our liberties, the trajectory tends to head in one direction; in favour of state power at the expense of our rights and freedoms.
It is the reason why we draw red lines that should not be crossed. If you breach the principle of non-interference in people’s rights with a relatively minor incursion, what is to stop that minor incursion from escalating to something more significant in the future?
Yet with the Online Safety Bill, a censor’s charter, which has been so long in the making, the ratcheting effect is happening in real time. Last week, SNP and Labour politicians on the Committee currently scrutinising the Bill laid an amendment to include “health-related misinformation and disinformation’ as a recognised form of lawful but ‘harmful’” speech. This threatens to open a Pandora’s box of censorship.
The terms ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ have grown to become part of the political lexicon in recent years. The concepts of being incorrect or misleading have been left behind for alternative terms, with loaded connotations. Yet they are malleable terms, often deployed in ways to discredit or silence another individual’s argument in the course of public debate.
Stoked by these fears, we have seen Big Tech increasingly taking on the role of online speech police in recent years. During the coronavirus era, this reached new extremes. At the beginning of the pandemic, Facebook took the step of removing content which promoted face masks as a tool to combat the spread of Covid-19.
Yet within a short space of time, the medical consensus on masks changed. But rather than acknowledge that it was wrong, Facebook flipped its position and censored in the other direction. A high-profile example saw Facebook label, discredit and suppress an article in The Spectator, written by the Oxford academic Carl Heneghan, disputing the efficacy of masks. What grounds or competency Silicon Valley’s fact-checkers had to overrule reasoned arguments by a Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine remains to be seen.
This approach is a direct threat to the epistemic process, so central to the free and open development of knowledge and ideas in liberal democracies. The fact that not even academics can escape this kind of truth arbitration speaks volumes.
Proponents of the Online Safety Bill perform mental gymnastics in trying to defend the legislation by arguing that hard and soft censorship is already happening online. They fail to provide how an approach which sees the state support these systems and even designate some categories of free speech as ‘harmful’, will do anything but compound this issue.
All of this highlights a problem that the Government are yet to acknowledge; this Bill could end up strangling our rights and freedoms online. The misinformation amendment is unlikely to carry much traction for now, but it is a sign of things to come. We should all be concerned.
BY WHITNEY WEBB |
UNLIMITED HANGOUT| JUNE 13, 2022
A Freedom of Information request filed by UH in connection with Whitney Webb’s upcoming book was blocked by UK Metropolitan police on “national security” grounds. The request sought information on the two sitting US Senators who met with Jeffrey Epstein at a Wexner-owned residence in the UK, a meeting where Met Police officers had provided security.
In connection with Whitney Webb’s upcoming book on the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, One Nation Under Blackmail, Unlimited Hangout filed a Freedom of Information request asking UK law enforcement and the Ministry of Defence the identity of two sitting US senators who were present at Foxcote House in North Warwickshire, UK on September 1, 2002. UH contributor Johnny Vedmore had previously obtained information from eyewitnesses of that meeting that, not only were two US Senators present at that location that day, but that Metropolitan Police officers had supplied security for the meeting. The FOI request was filed to Metropolitan Police, the UK Ministry of Defence and North Warwickshire Police and only a response from the Metropolitan Police was received.
The motive for UH’s FOI request is as follows. It is known that Jeffrey Epstein, as attested to by Epstein’s flight logs, was present in this part of the UK during this same period (from August 31, 2002 to September 2, 2002) and eyewitnesses saw him attend this specific meeting at this location with two attractive and glamorously dressed women on each arm. One of these women was Nicole Junkermann, a former model and apparent intelligence asset as revealed in Vedmore’s previous investigative work. The other woman was described by eyewitnesses as a tall brunette. Per those eyewitness accounts, Epstein personally escorted the two women into the room where the two senators were waiting.
Notably the house where this meeting took place, Foxcote House, has been owned by the family of Leslie Wexner, specifically his wife Abigail Wexner, since 1999. Wexner’s role in financing much of Jeffrey Epstein’s activities, legal and illegal, is a major focus of Webb’s upcoming book and Wexner has encountered considerable difficulty in explaining away his relationship with Epstein, despite the largely servile posture of mainstream media in this regard.
Given the circumstances, it seems highly likely that this meeting was a high-profile instance of Jeffrey Epstein engaging in the sexual blackmail of sitting American politicians. However, due to the well-known scandal around Jeffrey Epstein, his name was not used in our FOI request in order to avoid potentially “spiking” the response.
Despite the omission of Epstein’s name, Metropolitan Police responded to the request stating that they can “neither confirm nor deny whether it holds” the requested information. Their response goes on to state that confirming or denying “whether any United States of America (USA) senators were afforded protection could undermine the safeguarding of national security.” It also notes that it blocked providing the requested information on four other grounds aside from “national security” (five in total), including “international relations”, “law enforcement”, “health and safety”, and “personal information.” It also states that providing the requested information could place “those who are afforded protection, protection officers and members of the public at risk.”
UH has since re-filed a new, related FOI request asking why Metropolitan Police officers were providing protection to a meeting where Jeffrey Epstein was present, since his criminal activities are undeniable.
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | June 11, 2022
Yesterday Sky News and the Huffington Post and several other outlets all flared up near-identical headlines warning that …
Covid Infections Increase For First Time In Two Months
The HuffPo goes on to explain in more detail…
The jump is thought to have been caused by increases in cases compatible with the original Omicron variant BA.1 and the newer variants BA.4 and BA.5, according to the Office for National Statistics.
All the articles cite the Office of National Statistics (ONS) talking about Omicron and seem to consider this an explanation.
None of them mentions the fact the UK’s Health Security Agency (UKHSA) literally changed the definition of a Covid “case” back in February, making it almost inevitable cases would go up.
It’s all detailed in this post from the UKHSA site, helpfully titled “Changing the COVID-19 Case Definition”.
The article explains that the UKHSA will be moving on from the traditional meaning of “cases”, and instead counting what they call “case episodes”.
Meaning that, up until now, one person repeatedly testing positive for “Covid” throughout the pandemic was considered one “case”:
Until now, COVID-19 cases have been reported at the individual level: every positive test taken and reported by one person has been considered part of a single case record, initiated by their first positive test.
But from now on different positive tests of the same person will be considered separate “cases” as long as they are 90 days apart:
Positive test results that are 90 days apart (regardless of negative tests in between) will be considered as a separate episode of infection, and therefore the person is counted as a case more than once.
The supposed justification for this decision is “waning immunity” and the Omicron variant causing spikes in “reinfections”:
Although reinfections were initially very rare, we have seen the number rising slowly over the last two years, as immunity from prior infection wanes and new variants emerge. During the Omicron variant wave, the number and proportion of people being reinfected with SARS-CoV-2 has increased.
However, the inevitable consequence of this decision will be to make the case numbers go up. The press not including this in their story about the rising case numbers is – at best – astonishing incompetence.
In fact, making case numbers go up is literally the only impact it will have.
The UKHSA goes out of its way to point this out, highlighting that the change will have no effect at all on how they monitor infections, since they already treat new positive tests as new cases for the purpose of contract tracing, and have been doing so all along:
contact tracing has undertaken a very safe practice of following all positive cases, regardless of whether they were possible reinfections or cases of prolonged infection.
So, in short, whether or not the change is scientifically justified, it is a purely aesthetic one that will have no impact on anything, except to make case numbers look bigger.
And, of course, it’s not scientifically justified.
They have already stretched the meaning of “cases” well past its breaking point by defining anyone who tests positive as a “Covid case” whether or not they have any symptoms.
Now every single person who, over the past two years, tested positive on the useless PCR tests and was declared a “case”, can test positive again on the same useless PCR and be declared a new case.
Of course, messing with language to inflate statistics has been the modus operandi since the beginning of the “pandemic”. “Fully vaccinated”, “herd immunity”, “cause of death”, “vaccine”, “case” all have been subject to “updated” definition.
Clearly, this further torturing of statistics is about maintaining the flagging “pandemic” narrative.
Allowing people to become more than one “case” means the ever-increasing numbers of people rejecting the vaccines, masks and hysteria can be countered by the steadily dwindling number of NPCs who still religiously take Covid at face value.
It’s a desperation move. One that, hopefully, people will see right through.
Professor Marilyn James, Professor of Health Economics, Professor David Paton, Professor of Industrial Economics | Health Advisory & Recovery Team | June 10, 2022
“It is possible that lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in modern history” – Professor Douglas Allen[1]
In March 2021, we wrote two sections in ‘Covid-19 the evidence’, namely ‘Economic impacts – the true cost of lockdown’ and ‘Lockdowns – do they work?’. Over a year later, we have revisited not only the financial costs of lockdowns but also the societal costs, the impact on healthcare and the lack of evidence for overall benefit.
Assessing the economic costs of lockdowns and other Covid-19 restrictions is not easy, partly because the pandemic itself would have impacted economic activity independent of Government restrictions. However, we do now have considerable evidence that both voluntary behaviour change and government restrictions have significant economic effects.[2],[3] Further, voluntary changes tend to have most impact on the activity of groups most vulnerable to Covid, whilst Government restrictions have a disproportionate effect on those least vulnerable. This means that not only do most mandatory restrictions have a significant economic impact, but any benefits in terms of reductions in hospitalisations or deaths are minimal.[4]
Many of the immediate economic consequences of lockdowns were masked by the eye-watering amount of money spent by governments on furlough and business support schemes. Given the limited evidence that stay-at home measures and business closures have any significant impact on infection rates[5], the question needs to be asked whether the billions spent paying business to shut down and people not to work could have been used better by building up capacity in the health system. The stay at home message of “protect the NHS” may have been no more than elaborate code for don’t highlight years of dwindling funding that failed to keep pace with growing population and demand in health care, with the NHS entering the pandemic with spending per GDP at the lowest level since 2009.[6]
Although furlough and business support schemes have had success in limiting the impact on unemployment, the longer-term economic consequences of lockdowns are now becoming clear. The lack of spending opportunities during lockdown contributes to a build-up of personal and corporate savings. As restrictions have eased, people begin to spend these savings and, combined with the supply chain issues that have built up in the meantime, sustained inflation is the inevitable result. Even worse, having spent about £70 billion[7] paying healthy people not to work via the furlough scheme and some £150 billion in total on support measures[8], the ability of the government to respond to this lockdown-induced cost-of-living crisis via either tax cuts or increased benefits, is limited due to the hit to public finances caused by lockdown-induced government spending.
It is perhaps no surprise that a series of research papers looking at data from Australia[9], the UK[10], Canada[11] and the US[12], have concluded that the costs of lockdowns exceed any plausible estimate of the benefits many times over.
The pandemic saw one disease prioritised over all others. It is now painfully clear that the “all others” are set to suffer with longer and larger health consequences than those of the covid-19 crisis itself. The report issued by the BMA is terrifying in every sense.[13] At the start of the pandemic 4.24m were waiting for elective treatment this now stands at 6.18m. Ridsdale makes the point “stay home” may well have contributed to excess deaths as people died at home without access to care and government policy prioritised covid above all other health concerns[14]. This figure of 6.18m masks and continues to mask the lack of referrals that occurred. There is no reason to suppose demand has dropped for elective care, yet, since the pandemic there have been 4.51 m fewer elective referrals. The latest figures show some 300,000 are waiting over a year for treatment. Again, this figure is masked by GPs under referring, reporting their ability to make referrals is severely constrained, yet the patients are still sitting at primary care level needing care. If the elective surgical figure continues to remain well below pre pandemic levels, NHS waiting lists will only continue to rise. Add to this routinely soaring long waits of over 12 hours at emergency department level and the gap between target time for cancer surgery and actual time to getting surgery increasing, the health picture created by covid prioritisation in the UK is frightening.
Lockdowns created isolation from our social and working worlds. The latest report from MIND states “Isolation and loneliness have made people’s mental health worse – with young people particularly badly affected.”[15] Similar can be said for older people especially those in care homes. The unintended consequences of removing activity, family and social interaction from the elderly may be more serious than the direct disease consequences of covid, with isolation being listed as cause of death in a number of care homes in the USA.[16]
Given what we now know, it is hard to disagree with the conclusion of Professor Doug Allen’s analysis of lockdown costs and benefits in Canada that “lockdown will go down as one of the greatest peacetime policy failures in modern history.” 1
References
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Malcolm Kendrick | RT | November 25, 2020
New research suggests that four billion people globally will be overweight in 2050. This trend can be traced back to the ‘low-fat, high-carb’ guidelines first issued in the 70s, and should prompt a major U-turn on dietary advice.
A recent report from the Potsdam Institute predicts that by 2050 there will be four billion overweight people in the world, with one-and-a-half billion of them obese. This is not entirely surprising. The world has been getting fatter for years, and things do not seem to be slowing down.
Why is this happening? … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 