Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Six Questions to Ask Before Deciding Whether to Comply With Mask Mandates

All the reasons why mask mandates shouldn’t be reimposed

By Dr. Gary Sidley • The Daily Sceptic • October 20, 2021

On the July 19th 2021, England removed almost all its legal mandates that required healthy people to wear face coverings in community settings. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, however, opted to retain their mask mandates, as did London on its public transport system. Ominously, the Government’s Covid strategy for this winter includes the prospect of a ‘Plan B’ that could see the return of compulsory face masks in indoor settings in England. After a few months of bare-faced normality, how will the general public react to future directives to muzzle up?

Smile Free – a campaign group seeking the permanent removal of all mask mandates – urges each person to consider the responses to the following six questions before deciding whether to hide your face again.

Q1. Do masks help reduce viral spread?

Although some studies claim otherwise, the real-world evidence strongly suggests that masking the healthy does not significantly reduce the spread of respiratory viruses for neither the wearer nor others. Key reasons for this lack of efficacy are likely to include the improper use and storage of masks in the real world and the growing recognition that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus responsible for COVID-19) is spread via microscopic aerosol particles that are far too small to be kept at bay by face coverings.

Q2. Will wearing a mask cause me any physical harm?

If worn only for short periods, significant physical harms from wearing a mask are unlikely. However, there is evidence that long term use can lead to a number of negative consequences, including: headaches, skin irritation, fatigue and dehydration, reduced heart and lung efficiency and eye irritation. In addition, face coverings may put elderly people at more risk of injury from falls.

Q3. Do masks cause any social or psychological harms?

The social and psychological consequences of hiding our faces from other people are profound. Humans are social animals. We need to interact with others and communicate to sustain our wellbeing. Face coverings are dehumanising, inhibiting all forms of emotional expression and social interaction. Individuality minimised, identity hidden, the masked population appear broadly the same as they trudge along in their social vacuums. The impact of a masked population on children is even more problematic, denying them access to facial expressions that are so crucial for their emotional development.

Q4. Will wearing a mask help to reassure others who are anxious?

Most definitely not. Acting as a crude, highly visible reminder that danger is all around, face coverings are fueling widespread anxiety. Fear is underpinned by a perception of threat and being masked is a blatant indicator that we are all bio-hazards. Furthermore, continuing to wear masks while we gradually try to return to normality will act to keep fear going, as the wearer may attribute their survival to the mask rather than conclude that it is now safe to return to everyday activities. To recommend face coverings as a source of reassurance is akin to insisting people wear a garlic clove around their necks to reduce their fear of vampires.

Q5. Under the law, do I have a ‘reasonable excuse’ not to wear a mask?

In general terms, if wearing a mask is likely to cause you ‘severe distress’, or put you ‘at risk of harm or injury’, you are legally exempt. Mental health problems (such as anxiety, depression, and paranoia) and physical health problems (such as asthma and other respiratory difficulties) are sufficient and lawful reasons not to wear a face covering. Furthermore, you are not obliged to disclose your specific reason for exemption to anybody other than an official enforcement officer (usually a police officer); any other person who challenges you about not wearing a face covering is likely to be acting unlawfully and thereby risking prosecution. Indeed, a service provider has been fined £7000 under the Discrimination Disability Act for denying access to a woman without a mask.

Q6. Do I risk being fined if I don’t wear a mask?

While it is possible that a fine could be imposed for not complying with a mask mandate, such an event seems rare. Thus, in the four-month period June-to-September 2020, only 89 fines were issued (61 on public transport, 28 in retail settings) across the whole of England and Wales. Furthermore, if you are unfortunate enough to receive a fine and decide to contest it in Court, it is highly likely you will succeed; according to figures produced by the Crown Prosecution Service, all charges under the Coronavirus Act have either been withdrawn in Court or quashed after innocent people were wrongfully indicted.

In conclusion, mandating masks for healthy people in their communities is irrational, counterproductive, unethical and ultimately unenforceable. To help continue the fight against legal requirements to wear face coverings, please consider joining our Smile Free campaign.

 Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired clinical psychologist with over 30 years’ experience working for the NHS. 

October 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Deleted Government Report Celebrates How Public Loves to “Conform”

By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | October 22, 2021

A deleted government report exploring how to make the public alter its behavior to accept the new ‘green economy’ reveals how COVID-19 restrictions have created a population with a “deep set reverence” for authority and a “powerful tendency to conform.”

The report was inadvertently published by the British government before being hastily pulled down, but numerous journalists were able to retrieve its contents.

The document explored how to weaponize behavioral psychology to ‘nudge’ the public into supporting measures and adopting behavior without them explicitly knowing they’re being manipulated.

The investigation found that the same techniques the government used to force people into accepting lockdown could be used to make them change their lifestyles in the name of preventing climate change.

Under the heading “principles for successful behaviour,” the paper noted;

“Government statements, actions and laws powerfully shape perceptions of normative and acceptable behaviour. For instance, even with public criticism being high, many still perceived government approval as the yardstick for safe behaviour during COVID-19 ‘we’re allowed to do this now [so must be safe]…’. This reveals, for many, a deep set reverence for legitimate government authority, regardless of one’s personal political views.”

While PR stunts such as having officials vaccinated live on television worked to convince people of the narrative, elite hypocrisy (public officials violating lockdown rules) was found to cause significant damage to public trust.

“Perceived hypocrisy can do a lot to undermine efforts to build public engagement and support. This was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic when prominent authority figures broke guidelines, leading to measurable reductions in public compliance as well as shifting attitudes.”

“Green politics has similar deep-seated reputational issues with elite hypocrisy,” notes Breitbart. “A common feature of climate change summits has been high-profile attendees arriving by private or government jet, a disconnect between word and deed that seems unlikely to vanish in the near term.”

The paper concluded that people can be rather easily “nudged” into changing their behavior in response to government announcements and “have a powerful tendency to conform.”

The investigation also found that even if enforced changes to lifestyle are not wanted by the public, most tend to fall in line with the new status quo rather quickly anyway.

The report was prepared by the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), a quasi-government body that was part of the effort to use “totalitarian” and “unethical” methods of instilling fear into the population as a means of scaring them into complying with lockdown rules.

A related group, the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours team, warned at the start of the first lockdown that a “substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened [by Covid-19].”

“The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging,” the group added, leading to numerous lurid propaganda campaigns that exaggerated the threat of COVID to bully the public into total submission.

In summary, the public is largely unthinking, compliant and docile and can be made to go along with just about anything so long as they’re bombarded with the right propaganda.

Wonderful.

October 22, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

EU energy crisis hitting poorest citizens hardest

By Jerome Hughes | Press TV | October 21, 2021

Brussels – European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, warns the EU’s energy crisis is hitting the poorest hardest and businesses are at risk of closing. EU officials say the 27-nation bloc could benefit from Iran’s vast energy reserves if US sanctions against the Islamic Republic are removed.

The weather is becoming more inclement in the EU and while temperatures are dropping, energy costs are soaring. The crisis has just been discussed in the European Parliament.

The main factors driving prices upwards are consumer demand after COVID-19 lockdown restrictions were eased and gas stockpiles were depleted last winter as it was particularly cold. Then we used a lot of electricity during a warmer than usual summer. Half of the gas used in the EU is imported from Russia. We raised the issue of alternative suppliers with the European Commission.

Question: “Is it the case that the EU would like to be getting more energy from Iran?”

The commission says US sanctions are impeding Iranian energy sales but that won’t be a problem if the JCPOA Iran nuclear deal can be brought back on track.

The EU could import liquefied natural gas from various places, such as the United States, but experts say it would not make sense.

Von der Leyen confirmed to the European Parliament on Wednesday that Russia has fully honored its energy contracts with the EU. She says Moscow has so far not increased supply. Energy consultants say the bloc will still need Russia’s gas for at least another 20 years.

While this dependency exists they suggest it would be prudent of the bloc to improve relations with Moscow.

October 22, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , , | Leave a comment

“David’s Law”: How the Amess attack will be used to control the internet

The recent killing is already being used as ammunition to attack independent social media and the very idea of anonymity on the web

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | October 21, 2021

On October 15th Sir David Amess MP was attending a constituency “surgery” at Belfairs church in Leigh-on-Sea. During the meeting, a young man emerged from the crowd and stabbed the MP several times.

Ambulances and police were called. They attempted to revive him at the scene, but he was declared dead.

The suspect, meanwhile, made no attempt to flee. It has since been reported he is the son of a Somali politician, was known to the UK’s “Prevent” counter-terrorism programme, and was reportedly “radicalised online”.

The killing is being treated as a “terrorist incident”.

These are the alleged facts of the case as they have been released to the public.

Are they true? Maybe. Maybe not. It’s too early to say, and we’ll likely never know for sure. The truth is – for everyone outside the Amess family and friends – it really isn’t the most pressing issue. Whatever the reality of the “attack”, what we, the 99%, need to be most concerned about is the agenda coming in its wake

Real attack or not, false flag or not, the fallout is the same: Censorship, state control and “David’s Law”.

THE ONLINE HARMS BILL

The first reaction to the Amess attack has been renewed coverage of, and loud calls for, the “online harms” bill to be put to a vote. All this despite there being no publicly released evidence linking the Amess attack to any “online harms” at all.

The “Online Harms Prevention Bill” is not in any way a response to Amess’ death and has actually been in development for a while. A white paper reporting the need for the bill was first published in April 2019, then updated in December 2020.

This was followed by a draft bill in May 2021 and then a report on “Regulating Online Harms”, published in August.

The Bill has existed for over eighteen months, and any attempts to link it to David Amess are purely manipulative tactics designed to force it through parliament on a wave of emotion.

It might be dismissed by some as ‘callous’ to talk about the alleged murder of a seemingly innocent person in terms of cynical agenda – but it’s the very opposite. It’s an expression of concern and social responsibility. The establishment uses these events as gambits, so we have to get used to reading them as such if we want to protect the rights and freedoms that will be freshly attacked.

We’re already seeing a deluge of coverage in the press talking up the dangers of our “toxic political discourse” and the threat that “divisive polarised speech” poses because it can “radicalise” people and “create the climate where violence becomes inevitable”.

The Mirror warns of an increase in “bedroom radicals” thanks to lockdowns. The Guardian echoes this, claiming “online hate” is “nastier than ever” and “action is required”.

The Telegraph headlines: “Social media companies ‘must do more’ to protect MPs from online hate”

Politicians are likewise prepping the ground for the bill to pass.

Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary Dominic Raab went on Sky News to talk about “online hate” being “out of control”.

Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the supposed “opposition”, used the first PMQs since the attack to rail against the lack of regulation of the internet and call for something to be done. Boris has already committed to bringing the “Online Harms” vote forward “before Christmas” when it was previously expected to wait until at least spring of 2022.

So, what’s in this bill?

Nothing much that hasn’t been said before. The White Paper and report proselytise about the need to protect children, women, ethnic minorities and “the vulnerable” from “hate”. The bill itself suggests a new “statutory duty of care” for the internet, and a new “regulatory body” with a “suite of powers” to ensure companies fulfil this “duty of care”.

There are chapters dedicated to actual crimes, such as child pornography and threats of violence, but also much murkier “harms” described as “legal but harmful”. These include, but are not limited to, “disinformation” and “bullying”. As always, the language of legislature is deliberately obscure, shrouded in the muddied meaning of bureaucratic double-talk.

One concrete, and concerning, clause would grant OfCom the power to demand private user information from internet providers and social media companies (although we do know they do this already).

But the most dangerous part of the bill may not even be written yet…

“DAVID’S LAW”

Within days of the news breaking Tory MPs were calling on Boris Johnson to enact “David’s Law”.

“David’s Law” would be either new legislation or a “strengthening” of the current proposed legislation, to totally remove online anonymity.

Tory MP Mark Francois, said in a speech to the Commons:

So let’s put, if I may be so presumptuous, David’s Law onto the statute book, the essence of which would be that while people in public life must remain open to legitimate criticism, they can no longer be vilified or their families subject to the most horrendous abuse, especially from people who hide behind a cloak of anonymity with the connivance of the social media companies for profit.”

Priti Patel is already “considering” taking away the “right to anonymity online”.

Other politicians, including Dominiic Raab and Lindsey Hoyle, the speaker of the house, have expressed total agreement.

Politico headlines the UK is “wrestling with anonymity”.

But what exactly would “ending anonymity” entail? That’s not clear. The white paper discusses how “anonymous accounts” can be used to “hide illegal activity”, and that companies should do more to prevent this, but there is nothing in there about outright banning them.

Any such formal ban would involve amending the bill, or writing a new one. Hence we have talk in parliament of “strengthening” the proposed legislation, but does that mean a ban? Perhaps, perhaps not.

A more likely (and more British) approach, as we are already seeing with vaccine passports, would be to make it an informal ban by pressuring the companies themselves to act outside of legislative compulsion. Parliament will author new “guidance” or “recommendations” on the opening of social media accounts, without ever enforcing them as law.

But partner this with steep fines for illegal activity, “hate speech” or “misinformation”, along with the proposal to make platforms criminally liable for “harmful content”, and companies become their own strict censors in the name of protecting their profit margin.

This is not a fringe theory at all, David Davis MP of all people, described exactly this process in warning that the online harms bill could become a “censor’s charter”.

It’s not hard to see how that system could be used to totally remove the idea of online anonymity without ever making it actually illegal, but rather making it too financially risky. Thus skirting any accusations of state censorship or authoritarianism.

We already know major internet players work hand-in-glove with governments all over the world, so they can be relied upon to enforce any new “duty of care” regulations. But the smaller competitors, who use privacy as a major selling point, can expect to be put in the media crosshairs.

Enter Telegram.

THE WAR ON TELEGRAM

Telegram, for those who aren’t familiar, is an encrypted private messaging service created by Russian Pavel Durov. It became the go-to encrypted service after Facebook bought Whatsapp, and its “channel” feature is a very useful way to communicate with thousands upon thousands of people at once. During the “pandemic” it has become a hub for those organizing protests and broadcasting information banned from mainstream platforms.

All of that has clearly put it on the state’s hit list, because somehow, in all the outpouring of emotion following Amess’ stabbing, it is Telegram that comes in for specific criticism.

To be clear: Telegram is not yet known to have played any part whatsoever in the attack on David Amess. None. It’s not even known whether or not the alleged killer had a telegram account.

Despite this, yesterday in Parliament, Sir Keir Starmer attacked Telegram as the “app of choice for extremists”.

Interestingly, he was citing a report from the NGO Hope Not Hate which was released on October 13th, just two days before Amess was stabbed.

In fact, Telegram has been the subject of ongoing media smears for years, and these have only intensified in the last few days.

Back in 2016, Gizmodo was telling people they should “delete telegram right now”, ironically because it wasn’t really encrypted enough. This story was repeated byVice in November 2020 and then Wired in January of this year.

Also in January, following the “riot” on Capitol Hill, Telegram was accused of being a safe haven for the “far-right”.

Vox headlined:

Why right-wing extremists’ favorite new platform is so dangerous

The Washington Post went with:

Far-right groups move online conversations from social media to chat apps — and out of view of law enforcement

In April Forbes reported that Telegram was “dangerous”. In May it was a platform “where cyber criminals share stolen data”. And then in June the New York Times called it a “misinformation hotspot”.

A September article in Politico accuses Telegram of allowing “misinformation” intended to influence the recent German election.

Also in September, the Financial Times called Telegram a new “dark web for cyber criminals”.

And an October article in Wired accuses the platform of being a “cesspool of antisemtic content”.

It goes on and on and on.

Perhaps most tellingly, Telegram is regularly blamed for Covid-related “misinformation”, along with selling fake Vaccine passes and allowing “threats to NHS workers”.

ARE YOU SEEING THE PATTERN?

Well… are you?

Although all this is framed as a response to the death of David Amess, none of it has yet been shown to have any relevance to the Amess case at all, and all of it predates the murder happening.

The online harms bill is almost three years old, the attacks on Telegram have been going on for over a year, and you can find a steady stream of media attacks on online anonymity going back over a decade.

As so often, the “reaction” to this “problem” is selling us a “solution” they’ve had planned for years.

Since at least 2016 MPs have been talking about “reclaiming the net”, while outlets like The Guardian have been talking about creating “the web we want”, and producing tortured statistical reports to paint the web as a dangerous place.

(Interesting note: those butchered “statistics” are referenced in the Online Harms white paper, a little incite into the self-sustaining nature of propaganda).

The lesson we should all learn: “Policy” is never a response, policy is an aim, a predetermined conclusion.

It is decided and written, and then the “reality” that justifies that policy is constructed, either through opportunistic use of real tragedies, cultivated public opinion, false-flag attacks or pure invention.

You can follow OffGuardian’s Telegram channel here. For now.

October 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, False Flag Terrorism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | | Leave a comment

Anti-Lockdown Protester Facing Multiple Prosecutions Needs Money to Pay For Legal Defence

By Toby Young  • The Daily Sceptic • October 20, 2021

Debbie Hicks, the anti-lockdown protestor who was arrested after filming an apparently empty ward in Gloucestershire Royal Hospital at the end of last year, is facing four separate prosecutions in Magistrates’ Court – mainly for participating in anti-lockdown protests – and she needs to raise more funds to pay for her legal defence. The first case is due to be heard on November 16th and all four will be heard this winter. She has set up a CrowdJusice fundraiser that you can contribute to here.

Debbie’s solicitor plans to move on to the High Court if she loses in the Magistrates’ Court, or if the Magistrates’ Court says it doesn’t have the jurisdiction to consider her cases. That could be expensive, but the cause at stake could not be more important. Here is an extract from a note her solicitor sent to me:

These really are important cases in respect of Freedom of speech and Freedom to protest as:

  • Success at the High Court will set a precedent that protest is not, and never has been, completely illegal during the pandemic – even under lockdown.
  • Debbie suspects that the prosecution’s ultimate aim is to obtain a criminal behaviour order against her thereby chillingly curbing her ability to protest in the future.
  • There are still a large number of other citizens across the country who are being ‘unlawfully’ prosecuted or have been convicted – a successful outcome at the High Court will lead to a landslide of other cases crumbling and open avenues of appeal to others already convicted.
  • While the Crown Prosecution Service may try and quietly drop the odd case here and there after defence representations and arguments are filed, this will only occur when a prosecution lawyer reviews the case reasonably and objectively and properly analyses the law which is confusing and opaque – and, as Debbie has found, this is not easy to achieve. Success at the High Court will mean the CPS will have to blanket review all such cases and, with a legal precedent set, this will force the CPS to discontinue all remaining prosecutions.
  • Many ordinary citizens without a previous blemish on their record will currently have criminal records because they’ve been convicted of these types of offences. Success in the High Court could lead to an avalanche of appeals and convictions being overturned.
  • Success at the High Court will add clarity to the law that protesters have a reasonable excuse to gather and are not therefore committing an offence and cannot be directed to disperse or leave by the police.
  • While the prohibition of protests has now been dropped, legislation can always be amended again in the future. Who knows if further lockdowns are on the horizon. We only have to look to Australia as an example of a government completely abusing its powers against its own citizens. Success at the High Court in Debbie’s case will make it harder for our Government to suspend the right to protest again.

Once again, if you’d like to make a contribution to Debbie’s fundraiser, you can find it here.

October 21, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , | Leave a comment

Christopher Steele, author of the infamous ‘Trump pee-tape’ dossier, stands by his ludicrous claims in a fawning ABC interview

By Michael McCaffrey | RT | October 18, 2021

Former MI6 man Christipher Steele is the subject of an obscenely vapid ABC documentary, with a contemptible interview by George Stephanopoulos that’s so deferential it’s like watching a first date that should be an interrogation.

Just as MI6 super spy James Bond is back in theatres with No Time to Die, former MI6 agent Christopher Steele is back in the spotlight with the story that refuses to die, in an ABC ‘documentary’ titled Out of the Shadows: The Man Behind the Steele Dossier, now streaming on Hulu.

Steele came to fame as the shadowy force behind the Steele Dossier, the document which was the spark that lit the Trump-Russia collusion fire that was doused in gasoline by obsessive partisan media coverage and numerous, spurious government investigations for the last five years. The dossier claimed that then-candidate Trump was “colluding with Moscow” and that those devious Russians had “kompromat” on Trump in the golden form of a “pee tape.”

Steele’s “coming out of the shadows” consists of him sitting down with George Stephanopoulos and having a cuddle session on fancy sofas in a posh apartment.

Stephanopoulos is the perfect choice for the softball interview since he and Steele have a lot in common – they’ve both worked for the Clintons. Stephanopoulos as adviser to President Bill Clinton and Steele as de facto dirt-finder for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

ABC tried to stretch the excruciatingly thin gruel of this supposed ‘interview’ into an hour-long documentary by adding talking heads from their own newsroom. They failed, as the end result is a one-hour show that is hilariously shallow and vapid, even by ABC News standards.

Out of the Shadows spends considerably more time rehashing the “history” of Russia, Vladimir Putin and Trump than it does actually talking to Steele. Russia is deemed “a rogue state virus spreading westward with its villainy,” Putin a “KGB killer,” and Trump a “threat to American democracy.” In other words, it’s standard establishment media talking points.

Steele’s background is somewhat explored, but being the ever-diligent super spy that he is, Steele never explicitly states that he worked for MI6. I guess he doesn’t want to blow his cover.

What Steele actually says in this interview is of strikingly minimal impact. Thanks to Stephanopoulos’ anti-journalistic, anti-adversarial, deferential approach, no new ground is broken.

It’s well-known that Steele didn’t just compile the dossier, he actively pushed it to media outlets, in effect working to try and scupper Trump’s election campaign. The fact that he was ostensibly working for Democrats at the time certainly makes it appear as if he was a part of a wider disinformation/interference operation, but of course that’s a topic Stephanopoulos whistles past in this patty-cake chat.

Steele admits to no wrongdoing or error, despite the U.S. intelligence agencies “eviscerating” his findings after thorough investigation, and the FBI labelling him “untrustworthy.”

The issue of the “sources” Steele uses doesn’t get the attention it deserves either, as it’s reported that he only used one “key collector,” but Steele is quick to make clear it was “one collector” but not “one source.” That seems like a distinction without a difference.

As the documentary reports, that one collector was not a person in Moscow, but actually someone in Washington DC whose name is not revealed. The Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz reported this person claimed that the information being given to Steele was “word of mouth and hearsay.” In other words, Steele was acting less as an intelligence expert seeking truth with his dossier than he was being a gossip columnist spreading rumor and innuendo.

Steele’s declaration, “I stand by the work we did, the sources we had, and the professionalism we applied to it,” is as devoid of substance as the rest of the interview.

The most damning aspect comes toward the end, and even that is soft pedaled, when Stephanopoulos asks Steele about both the dossier’s allegation that Trump counsel Michael Cohen went to Prague to meet with Russian intelligence and about the pee tape.

Cohen denies a Prague meeting ever took place, and since he has now flipped against Trump, one would assume he’s telling the truth. But Steele’s resolve remains, as he conjures up a wild scenario where Cohen is still lying because he wants to avoid being charged with treason.

Stephanopoulos, of course, lets this utter lunacy pass almost without notice. He could’ve asked Steele how exactly Cohen got to Prague, since his passport shows no travel to the Czech Republic. Or pressed Steele to provide details or at least a passable explanation for how that meeting could possibly have taken place? But he didn’t, he just smiled and continued playing footsie with Steele.

The ‘pee tape’ is the most salacious accusation in the dossier, and despite it never surfacing and no evidence it exists, Steele still stands by the claim…sort of. He says that the tape “probably does” exist but that he wouldn’t “put 100% certainty on it.”

When Stephanopoulos asks why the tape hasn’t come out, Steele replies that “it hasn’t needed to be released…because I think the Russians felt they’d got pretty good value out of Donald Trump when he was president.”

Look, I loathe Trump, always have and always will, but this sounds like the ravings of someone deeply infected with a ferocious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, which is maybe why he is still taken seriously by the equally afflicted establishment media.

The more you know about Steele, the more readily apparent it becomes that he’s an absolute charlatan and bullshit artist masquerading as a serious intelligence expert. He’s no James Bond, he’s not even George Smiley. He’s more like a cross between Mr. Bean and Inspector Clouseau, who should, like this vacant and vacuous interview/documentary, be relentlessly ridiculed and righteously disrespected.

October 20, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Film Review | , , , | Leave a comment

Propaganda, Character Assassination & the Campaign Against Prof David Miller

By Dr Piers Robinson | OffGuardian | October 19, 2021

On October 1st 2021, the University of Bristol decided to buckle in the face of a near 3 year-long pro-Israel lobby campaign and fire Professor David Miller.

I have worked with David for many years now, co-published work on the theory of propaganda, researched and written about the UK FCO propaganda operation (ongoing) that has sought to overthrow the Syrian government, and developed the fledgling Organisation for Propaganda Studies.

David was, is, and will continue to be, a major intellectual force with respect to our understanding of propaganda, and his integrity, particularly in relation to the Israel-Palestine issue, is now cemented in history. He became a voice for the Palestinians, highlighting the ways in which propaganda has worked in order to simultaneously suppress public understanding of the nefarious actions of the Israeli government against them and erase awareness of their plight.

Inevitably and predictably he became an essential target for the pro-Israel lobby and the implementation of a remarkably sustained and aggressive campaign designed to falsely smear him as ‘anti-Semitic’ and have him fired.

I also have a relationship with the University of Bristol. I studied for my MSc in International Relations back in 1996-97 (funded by the Economic and Social Research Council [ESRC]) and continued in 1997 to undertake a PhD (also ESRC funded) under the supervision of Professor Eric Herring. I left at the end of the 2nd year of the PhD to take up my first full-time academic post at the University of Liverpool, School of Politics and Communication Studies. My PhD was awarded in 2000 from the University of Bristol.

Smear campaigns and character assassination are a core feature of contemporary propaganda and our ‘democratic’ landscape. There is even an academic Handbook on the tactic, titled The Routledge Handbook of Character Assassination and Reputation Management, whilst US investigative journalist Sharyl Atkinson has provided a powerful account detailing how legitimate political views are stifled through nefarious attempts to destroy reputations.

I have witnessed this tactic first hand through my experience researching propaganda and the war on Syria.

For the ‘thought crime’ of questioning and researching UK government-linked ‘influence operations’ in that war, in particular the controversy over the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) and the alleged chemical weapon attack in Douma 2018, myself and other colleagues (including David), have been subjected to aggressive and continuous smearing some of which is documented here.

Even when OPCW whistleblower scientists emerged and corroborated what we had been saying, those attacking us have simply continued with accusations of our being ‘conspiracy theorists’, ‘war crime deniers’ and agents of ‘disinformation’. That smear campaign also now incorporates OPCW whistleblowers with attempts to blacken their reputations.

What we see today is not completely new and David’s experience is not an isolated one.

In an earlier era, scientists such as Professor Steven Jones were smeared and pushed from their positions when raising perfectly objective, evidence-based and rational questions regarding 9/11. Chemist and laboratory director Kevin Ryan was fired for blowing the whistle on his own company which had obfuscated evidence related to the building collapses that occurred on 9/11.

To this day, and as Dr David Hughes has recently detailed in an academic journal, mainstream academia continues to self-censor and avoid substantial analysis of 9/11.

Today, with Covid-19, we now appear to be seeing an unprecedented level of attacks on academics who have raised what are, again, perfectly objective, evidence-based and rational questions regarding the efficacy of lockdowns and the drive toward coerced/mandated injections.

High profile and leading academics such as Sunetra Gupta (University of Oxford) and even Professor Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA technology used in the current Covid-19 injection, have had to battle concerted drives to discredit them, with, for example, Gupta being accused of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’.

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, an early critic of lockdown, has been accused of anti-Semitism in what appears to be a wildly ill-founded and crude attempt to discredit his expertise.

The assault on professional autonomy appears to be accelerating rapidly with Professor Robert Malone declaring in October 2021 that:

[p]hysicians who speak out are being actively hunted via medical boards and the press. They are trying to delegitimize and pick us off one by one…This is happening globally.”

Something is indeed ‘rotten in the state of Denmark’.

In David’s case we have seen how powerful actors, in this case the pro-Israel lobby and the Israeli government, have worked to organize and influence in order to build sufficient pressure on the University of Bristol so that they would take the extreme step of firing him.

The campaign has been huge and drawn upon both mainstream media and celebrity influencers, as well as student bodies, in order to relentlessly misrepresent his work as anti-Semitic when, in truth, David’s views and work are based on a clear commitment against racism and discrimination.

It is worth noting that an independent report from a QC, commissioned by the University of Bristol, concluded that Professor Miller’s comments did not constitute unlawful speech and had also explicitly determined his remarks were not anti-Semitic. And, in all of this controversy, the progressive destruction of the Palestinian people and the illegal actions of the state of Israel government continue unabated.

Of course, it is this wider issue that those attacking David most want us all to forget. By allowing itself to play along with a nefarious campaign to smear and cancel David, the University of Bristol has become an important element in what are widely acknowledged to be crimes and atrocities. In doing so the University has clearly placed itself on the wrong side of history.

Smear campaigns and character assassination, then, are nothing new; but they are now intensified to the point that academics such as David are being fired, and high-profile scientists even from the medical sciences are targeted. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression cannot flourish in this environment and nor can academia, especially when rational debate is being supplanted with propaganda and politicized science.

Our ability to evaluate, debate, and speak truth to power are being fundamentally undermined and, along with that, so is any pretence that we live in a functioning democracy. That the University of Bristol has become an active participant in these nefarious processes should be a source of shame for all those who work there. For sure, the memories of my time there are forever tarnished and I will never again think fondly of my postgraduate days at Bristol nor speak in positive terms about the institution.

David’s experience is part of a wider process across democracies whereby power has sought to wrestle control of both professional classes and publics. We will now see, in the coming years, who will prevail.

Trust in institutions, whether government, mainstream media or academia, is likely to decline and rapidly so. And we are now living in an era when there are unprecedented opportunities for the development of new institutions in which freedom of expression and speaking truth to power are cherished, promoted and protected.

The vibrant independent media scene and increasingly discredited mainstream media are good examples of these dynamics although, as Glen Greenwald explains here, there is a concerted drive by political power and corporate media to regain control; I doubt they will ever succeed.

The pro-Israel lobby and the University of Bristol might think that they have secured a major victory in their campaign to silence critical debate on Israel, but they will not have the last word and, certainly, they will not have succeeded in silencing Professor Miller nor putting a stop to his essential work.

Despite the personal loss, and unlike the University of Bristol, Professor Miller will emerge stronger and more influential than ever.

A petition in support of Professor Miller can be signed here.

Dr Piers Robinson is co-Director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, convenor of the Working Group on Syria, Media and Propaganda and associated researcher with the Working Group on Propaganda and the 9/11 ‘Global War on Terror.

October 19, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Health Secretary to Force Fluoridated Water on Entire Country

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | October 19, 2021

In 2019, 97% of countries in Western Europe were not adding fluoride to their water.1 While a handful use fluoridated salt, the majority do not. Yet, despite the lack of fluoridated water or salt in their diets, the rates of tooth decay have declined significantly in all the countries.2

In September 2021, Great Britain’s health secretary Sajid Javid announced he would be adding fluoride to all public water supplies,3 forcing citizens to consume the neurotoxin. The statement came in conjunction with approval by the United Kingdom’s chief medical officers from England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.4

Paradoxically, his announcement comes one year after a consumers’ group in the U.S. filed a federal lawsuit challenging water fluoridation that supplies 200 million U.S. citizens. The suit was brought against the Environmental Protection Agency and would require water utilities to stop fluoridation.5

Fluoride is a naturally-occurring mineral in water and soil that scientists in the 1940s found might help prevent tooth decay.6 Water fluoridation began in the U.S. in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1945 and other Michigan communities and then states adopted the practice in the years that followed.

Ninety-six percent of the fluoride7 used in U.S. water systems comes from apatite ore, the source of phosphate fertilizers. While the mineral’s composition also includes “high concentrations” of hydroxide, fluoride and chloride, the CDC calls the addition of this neurotoxic chemical “one of public health’s greatest success stories.”8 Yet, this “great success story” originates with highly toxic by-products in the production of fertilizer.9

The production process involves mixing the apatite with sulfuric acid derived from molten sulfur, which the American Water Works Association describes as “a waste product from cleaning petroleum feedstock.”10

Once the toxic vapors are converted to a dangerous liquid waste, it is transported from fertilizer factories to water reservoirs where it is added to drinking water.11 However, unlike pharmaceutical grade fluoride in toothpaste, this is “an untreated industrial waste product, one that contains trace elements of arsenic and lead.”12

Unfortunately, not many are aware of the effects fluoride has as a cradle-to-grave neurotoxin or the origin of the waste product added to the water supply. Although there has been some pushback against the proposal in the U.K.,13 Javid “is understood to be keen to press ahead with adding the mineral to the water supply and will gain powers to do so across England under laws going through parliament.”14

Despite Evidence of Danger, UK to Force Fluoridation

In a concerted effort to convince the public to accept the proposal, the U.K.’s chief medical officers came out together endorsing water fluoridation across the U.K. countries.15 In an effort to make it look like adding fluoride to the water is a benefit to U.K. citizens’ health, they added the proposal to legislation called “The Health and Care bill,”16 which is set to go before the MPs, which will then give Javid the authority needed to order fluoridation.17

In response to this, three British scientists sent a public letter to Great Britain’s prime minister, Boris Johnson. In the press release published from the U.K Freedom from Fluoride Alliance they write,18 “This is not a good time for the British government to mislead the public on the dangers posed by the practice of water fluoridation.”

The scientists believe that the statements from the chief medical officers from the four U.K. countries extol the weak benefits of fluoridation, but ignore stronger evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin. According to the scientists,19

“The dental lobby has controlled this debate for far too long. You can repair a damaged tooth but early damage to the brain (especially during fetal development and infancy) cannot be repaired or reversed.

This is so serious for the future of our country that the matter should not be resolved by the kind of ‘sleight of hand’ used by those who wrote the script for the CMOs’ statement.”

In their statement20 there are two short paragraphs that deal with the risk of fluoridation, which the scientists refer to as “sleight of hand.” Within the paragraphs, the CMOs do not mention the numerous studies demonstrating neurotoxicity and do not mention the lawsuit against the U.S. EPA. These points were made in their open letter to the prime minister in which they said they:21

“… sincerely hope that your health advisers will acknowledge the strong scientific evidence of fluoride’s neurotoxicity (and other ill health effects) and put the health of our people above promoting what appears to be a well-intended but clearly outdated practice of water fluoridation.

This would not be the first time that a well-entrenched medical or dental practice has had to give way to advances in scientific understanding of unexpected side effects.”

However, as reported in The Times,22 “Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, has dismissed safety concerns over the compounds, saying there is no evidence that it causes cancer and that claims about health risks are ‘exaggerated and unevidenced’.”

Strong Evidence Fluoride Is Neurotoxic

One of the first studies demonstrating fluoride has an adverse effect on children’s IQ was originally published in 1989 in the Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases. Since then, the Fluoride Action Network23 has recorded dozens of studies that have analyzed the relationship between IQ and fluoride.

Of these, 70 human studies and 60 animal studies have demonstrated an association between exposure and a reduction in learning or memory capacity. The human studies had children and adult participants that provide compelling evidence of damage. The Fluoride Action Network also published an analysis of the challenges associated with the studies that did not find an association.24

Some of the strongest studies demonstrating an association were published in 2019 and 2020. The claims made by proponents of fluoridation that there is only “one or two studies” finding harm, or that they are only from areas with naturally high fluoride levels, are no longer relevant. The scientific evidence can now be considered overwhelming and undeniable. The studies include:

Green 2019 — published in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s journal on Pediatrics.25 It reported substantial IQ loss in Canadian children from prenatal exposure to fluoride from water fluoridation.26

Riddell 2019 — published in Environment International.27 It found a shocking 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to nonfluoridated ones.28

Till 2020 — published in Environment International.29 It reported that children who were bottle-fed in Canadian fluoridated communities lost up to 8.8 IQ points compared to those in nonfluoridated communities.30

Uyghurturk 2020 — published in Environmental Health,31 It found that pregnant women in fluoridated communities in California had significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than those in nonfluoridated communities. The levels found in their urine were the same as those found to lower children’s IQ in past studies.32,33

Malin 2019 — published in Environmental Health.34 It linked a doubling of symptoms indicative of sleep apnea in adolescents in the U.S. to levels of fluoride in the drinking water. The link between fluoride and sleep disturbances may be through fluoride’s effect on the pineal gland.35

Malin 2019 — published in Environment International.36 It reported that exposure to fluoridated water led to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents in the U.S. and suggested those with poorer kidney or liver function may absorb more fluoride bodies. The National Institutes of Health funded this study.37

The level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline. A recent review by Danish scientist, Harvard professor and neurotoxicity expert Dr. Philippe Grandjean also concluded that:38

“… there is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure, whether due to community water fluoridation, natural fluoride release from soil minerals, or tea consumption, especially when the exposure occurs during early development.

Given that developmental neurotoxicity is considered to cause permanent adverse effects, the next generation’s brain health presents a crucial issue in the risk-benefit assessment for fluoride exposure.”

Fluoride Is an Endocrine Disrupter That Affects the Brain

Evidence shows that fluoride as an endocrine disrupter affects both sleep and the brain. It contributes to the rising rate of children and adults with attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD). One study39 published in 2015 demonstrated that children with higher rates of medically diagnosed ADHD resided in states where there was a greater proportion of people consuming fluoridated water.

In 2006, the National Resource Council of the National Academies labeled fluoride an endocrine disruptor.40 According to the National Institutes of Health in 2014,41 “Research shows that endocrine disruptors may pose the greatest risk during prenatal and early postnatal development when organ and neural systems are forming.” The NIH has since removed that statement from their website.42

Exposure to fluoride is also linked to thyroid disease,43 which in turn contributes to heart disease, obesity, depression and other health problems. Fluoride has an adverse effect on sleep patterns. One study44 found chronic low-level exposure altered sleep patterns in adolescents aged 16 to 19.

They found fluoride levels of .52 mg per liter was associated with a 1.97 times higher likelihood of sleep apnea at least once per week. This level is lower than the current recommendation of 0.7 mg/L.45

The researchers theorized46 that the accumulation of fluoride in the pineal gland may affect sleep patterns. Additionally, the researchers wrote that in adults, fluoride concentrations in the pineal gland correlate with calcification, which in turn is associated with a decrease in melatonin production, lower sleep time and lower REM sleep percentage.

Health and Human Services Lowers Level of Fluoride in 2015

In 2010, a study47 published in the Journal of the American Dental Association concluded that there was an association between fluorosis and children’s teeth and intake from infant formula and other dietary sources. They wrote:

“Results suggest that prevalence of mild dental fluorosis could be reduced by avoiding ingestion of large quantities of fluoride from reconstituted powdered concentrate infant formula and fluoridated dentifrice.”

The CDC also followed suit in 2010, warning that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula with fluoridated water could increase the chance of a child developing enamel fluorosis.48 These recommendations have since been deleted.49

However, your teeth are the window to your bones, and when you see damage to your teeth you must ask the question: What kind of damage to your bones is occurring?

In April 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services admitted the fluoride levels they had been promoting damaged children’s teeth.50 Major dental fluorosis was apparent in 41% of teenagers,51 which includes white spots, yellow coloring or pitted enamel.

Despite levels of fluoride that were high enough to cause fluorosis, the CDC52 also reported that 42% of children and adolescents ages 6 to 19 years and 90% of adults had cavities in their permanent teeth. Although some health experts continue to promote fluoride as protection against cavities, it’s apparently not doing the job.

Instead of completely removing fluoride from the water to protect bone health in 2015, the HHS announced they would simply reduce the level of fluoride in the water to minimize “the risk of cosmetic fluorosis in the general population.”53 To stress the idea that fluorosis is solely a cosmetic issue negates the potential risk to bone health.

By 2020, the American Dental Association was fully on board with fluoridating water in the U.S. In a letter54 to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, they noted their members agreed that the 2018 edition of Fluoridation Facts, the ADA’s resource on community water fluoridation, answered questions on the relationship between consumption and lowered intelligence or behavioral disorders.

Choosing to blatantly ignore all the studies showing fluoride is a dangerous neurotoxin, they stated, “The evidence from individual studies and systematic reviews does not support claims of a causal relationship.”55 Additionally, they urged that the National Toxicology Program Monograph on Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health should move its classification of fluoride from a “presumed” neurotoxin to an “unknown” neurotoxin.

Their justification for this was to claim:56 “There is not a wide body of literature examining fluoride as a potential neurotoxin.” In other words, 70 human and 60 animal studies were not enough to “support claims of a causal relationship” and is not a “wide body of literature examining fluoride as a potential neurotoxin.”

Help End the Practice of Water Fluoridation

What might be assumed from statements made by politicians and experts, is there is a greater concern over tooth decay than there is over loss of intelligence, brain health in adults and children and damage done through endocrine disruption.

For citizens in the U.K., a petition has been initiated in Parliament recommending that instead of adding fluoride to compel the entire nation to ingest a neurotoxin, “it would be better if people brush their teeth with toothpaste daily and monitor intake of sugar.”57

U.K. citizens can sign the petition at this link. If it reaches 100,000 signatures, Parliament must consider it for debate. For those who live in an area with fluoridated water, you can protect your health by filtering the water supply.

Because fluoride is a very small molecule, it’s difficult to filter once added, but reverse osmosis filtration can be effective.58 Clean pure water is a prerequisite for optimal health; thus, the only real solution is to stop the practice of artificial water fluoridation.

Sources and References

October 19, 2021 Posted by | War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Lockdown: Where Did ‘The Science’ Come From?

By Noah Carl  • The Daily Sceptic • October 19, 2021

In a previous post, I looked at where ‘The Science’ of community masking came from. Here I’ll do the same thing for lockdowns.

As many lockdown sceptics (including myself) have noted, lockdowns represent a radical departure from conventional forms of pandemic management. There is no evidence that, before 2020, they were considered an effective way to deal with influenza pandemics.

In a 2006 paper, four leading scientists (including Donald Henderson, who led the effort to eradicate smallpox) examined measures for controlling pandemic influenza. Regarding “large-scale quarantine”, they wrote, “The negative consequences… are so extreme” that this measure “should be eliminated from serious consideration”.

Likewise, a WHO report published mere months before the COVID-19 pandemic classified “quarantine of exposed individuals” as “not recommended under any circumstances”. The report noted that “there is no obvious rationale for this measure”.

And we all know what the U.K.’s own ‘Pandemic Preparedness Strategy’ said, namely: “It will not be possible to halt the spread of a new pandemic influenza virus, and it would be a waste of public health resources and capacity to attempt to do so.”

As an additional exercise, I searched the pandemic preparedness plans of all the English-speaking Western countries (U.K., Ireland, U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand) for mentions of ‘lockdown’, ‘lock-down’ ‘lock down’ or ‘curfew’.

Only ‘curfew’ was mentioned, and only once – in Ireland’s plan. The relevant sentence was: “Mandatory quarantine and curfews are not considered necessary.” None of the lockdown strings were mentioned in any of the countries’ plans.

So where did ‘The Science’ of controlling Covid using lockdowns come from? As everyone knows, China implemented the first lockdown (of Hubei province) in January of 2020. Yet it wasn’t until March that lockdowns became part of ‘The Science’.

As this chart taken from the paper by David Rozado shows, major Western media outlets did not start mentioning ‘lockdown’ frequently until March:

And this chart confirms that worldwide Google search interest for ‘lockdown’ was essentially nil until 8th March 2020:

So what happened in early March? Well, Italy was the first Western country to lock down – on 9th March last year. And as Michael Senger argues, its decision appears to have been prompted by the WHO’s report of 24th February, which gave a glowing evaluation of China’s lockdown. (Senger’s piece is well worth reading.)

Other Western countries then followed suit. The next most important event, following Italy’s decision to lock down, was the publication of a report by Neil Ferguson’s team on 16th March.

This report has been described as the “catalyst for policy reversal”. Up until then, the U.K. had been more or less following its pandemic preparedness plan. As late as March 5th, Chris Whitty told the Health and Social Care Committee that “what we’re very keen to do is minimise social and economic disruption”.

Although other, similar reports had already been published, the analysis by Neil Ferguson’s team was seen as particularly authoritative. According to the New York Times, the report “also influenced the White House to strengthen its measures”.

On March 17th, Neil Ferguson and his colleagues held a press conference after returning from Downing Street. They confirmed that Britain would be adopting a new strategy. “The aim is not to slow the rate of growth of cases but actually pull the epidemic into reverse,” Ferguson said.

As to why the U.K. was changing tack, Ferguson noted, “We have had bad news from Italy and from early experience in UK hospitals”. However, subsequent revelations suggest that “bad news” was less important than the shifting of the Overton window.

In an interview with the Times published in December last year, Ferguson noted that “people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed quite dramatically between January and March”. Referring to China’s lockdown, he elaborated, “We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… And then Italy did it. And we realised we could”.

After China’s initial response in Hubei, it took two months for lockdowns to go from ‘unprecedented’ to ‘unavoidable’. They received two major doses of intellectual credibility: first from the WHO, and then from Neil Ferguson’s team. Italy set the all-important precedent for Western countries.

As to whether one should trust ‘The Science’ on lockdowns, a reasonable answer would be, ‘Do you mean the pre or the post-Covid science?’

October 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

UK lawmakers use MP murder to call for social media ID verification system

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | October 18, 2021

Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker of UK Parliament’s House of Commons, has supported initiatives to remove anonymity from internet users, linking threatening messages received by politicians online with their general safety, particularly in light of last week’s fatal stabbing of an MP.

Hoyle’s comments came in the wake of the murder of Conservative member of parliament David Amess, that is treated as potentially a terrorist incident, while the suspect’s motives are thought to be linked with Islamist extremism.

The suspect, a British citizen of Somali origins, was several years ago referred to the voluntary Prevent scheme that is devised as a way to combat risk of terrorist radicalization. It’s unknown at this time if the suspect had previously targeted his victim on social media, and why the connection is being made.

But several high ranked officials, including Hoyle and Home Secretary Priti Patel, are using the deadly incident to explore ways to provide better protection to MPs, and one of the things they’re coming up with is stripping online users of their anonymity.

UK media say that Hoyle revealed he received a message from an “offshore account” that a bomb would be put under his car. He criticized tech companies as not doing enough and hinted that he was in favor of new legislation that would make it possible to track people on the internet if they are believed to be sending threats.

Patel, on the other hand, wants social media accounts to be linked to real world identities, and mentioned the controversial upcoming Online Harms Bill, that those behind it say will reduce racism and threats on the internet, while critics fear it may jeopardize free expression in the process.

Under the bill, tech companies could be ordered to pay up to £18 million or 10 percent of annual global turnover in fines, while their executives would be held criminally liable in some cases.

Patel said that it was difficult to remove posts from social media that are found to be offensive or threatening, and suggested unmasking users was a way to tackle the problem.

“Major platforms have to take faster action when councilors and MPs report the kind of behavior that would be illegal in the real world,” said Conservative MP David Warman, adding, “that starts with accepting that anonymity provides cover for language that would never be used to anybody’s face.”

October 18, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

The UK’s National “Crisis”: Age-Adjusted Mortality Is at 2008 Levels

By Mark Avis – Mises Wire – 10/13/2021

All over the world, populations have been locked up, have become fearful, and none of it can be justified. Looking at the UK, the overall death rate for 2020 is not unprecedented, and some of the increase in the death rate is likely the result of an incomprehensibly bad covid policy.

Sometimes, a dam breaks, and reality intrudes on media and political narratives. Just such a break is the publication of the mortality rate for England and Wales by the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS). The report can be found here. The content that is of greatest interest is the total mortality and mortality rates over time. Below is figure 1 from the report. A red line has been added to give a sense of where mortality was in 2020 compared with the past. The figure shows mortality rates with no adjustments.

avis

What is readily apparent is that there is, indeed, a jump in the mortality rate. However, if comparing the mortality rate with that of 1992, for example, we can see that it is not that high. In addition, the ONS provides a far more useful chart that shows age-standardized mortality rates. The report includes this discussion of the age-standardized statistics: “Age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) are a better measure of mortality than the number of deaths, as they account for the population size and age structure.” This is figure 3 from the report:

avis

The exact figures for 2020 are 1,236.7 males and 894.2 females.

For comparison, the mortality rates for 2009 are the closest: 1,229.7 males and 886.6 females.

As can be seen from the ONS statistics above, the mortality rate is very slightly higher than in 2009 and is lower than in 2008.

No reference or academic study is needed to point out that there was no health crisis in the UK in either 2008 nor 2009. Indeed, these were considered perfectly normal years. This is very worrying data if considered in relation to the pandemic response. There have been many criticisms of the most extreme measures such as lockdowns, but even these critiques have been predicated on the belief that the pandemic was going to result in massive increases in mortality. According to the ONS data, no such massive increase took place. Instead, there was an uptick leading to 2008–09 mortality rates.

Unfortunately, this is not the whole story. At the start of the UK’s response to the pandemic, the government ordered the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) to make room in hospitals by removing anyone from a hospital that could be removed. The policy was called COVID-19 Hospital Discharge Service Requirements (C19HDSR) and the policy document can be found here. The subtitle of the report is ‘Why Not Home, Why Not Today?’ and this captures the spirit of the policy. It details the conditions under which patients should be discharged and the roles of the various actors in the policy.

The first point of note in the C19HDSR is that it does not refer to testing requirements for covid before discharge. Annex A provides the conditions under which patients should not be discharged and being covid positive is not included in the criteria. The policy document states that care homes should be filled with discharged patients. There is even an additional document for patients to read when going into aged care (see here). There is no reference to requirements for testing before release into aged care homes.

Although the NHS bureaucracy denied that significant numbers of covid-positive patients were being discharged under C19HDSR without covid testing, this was later shown to be untrue in a later study by Healthwatch and the British Red Cross (see here). The study researchers surveyed and interviewed 590 patients discharged under C19HDSR, and included whether the patients were tested for covid before discharge and whether they received their results before discharge. The two figures below show the figures from their research (from pp. 28–29):

avis

avis

Although the figures are from a sample of only 590 patients, they indicate that, at the very least, large numbers of patients were being forcibly discharged from hospitals without anyone knowing their covid status. The UK hospital ward system would be an ideal environment for the transmission of covid, with large numbers of people living close together in communal wards. At present, there is no further data on how many patients were discharged into aged care homes who were covid positive. However, given the data from Healthwatch and the British Red Cross, it would be reasonable to say that there must have been very many. In consideration that aged care homes are filled with the most covid-vulnerable populations, and involve considerable degrees of communal living, the policy likely very significantly contributed to the overall mortality rate in 2020.

When considering the ONS age-adjusted mortality statistics in conjunction with the policy of C19HDSR, it should be apparent that there is a big problem with the way that  covid has been characterized, at the very least in the UK. It is not possible to say how much of the uptick in mortality was government policy related, but this adds a further significant question mark about the narrative surrounding the lethality of covid.

As stated, this is just the case of the UK in 2020. Nevertheless, this is a modern Western country that is supposed to have been hard-hit by covid in 2020. There is no reason to believe that it is some special outlier.

The implications of this data are very difficult. Even for individuals that may be very cynical about government, the data suggests that governments have acted in the most extraordinary ways based on what can only be called a hysteria. This hysteria has, across much of the Western world, seen unprecedented losses of basic rights, convulsions in healthcare systems with potentially terrible long-term results, disruption of education, and misery, loneliness, and mental health problems. As for the negative economic consequences, they will be with everyone for years to come. The effects are macro and micro, for example, the massive extension of government borrowing, printing money, and the decimation of small businesses.

If the data from the UK is broadly representative, the only way to sum up what has taken place, and is still taking place, is that the world is experiencing the first-ever global hysteria. After all, 2008 was a perfectly normal year.

Mark Avis is an academic in a New Zealand university and writes on the culture wars, politics, geopolitics, and economics at his website markavis.org.

October 18, 2021 Posted by | Deception, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »