Archives for category: information operations

At: https://trialsitenews.com/the-war-on-misinformation-claims-two-victims-truth-and-the-right-to-treatment/

Archived at: https://archive.li/tXJNW

By Mary Beth Pfeiffer

Two public health battles are being waged right now.

The first, of course, is against the coronavirus.

The second has its sights on a broad and amorphous target called “medical misinformation.” This campaign aims, at least in part, to control what people read, see and know about potential treatments for COVID-19. Firmly in its crosshairs is a cheap, generic drug that just might turn this pandemic around, ivermectin.

In this second battle, YouTube videos are removed. Twitter accounts with thousands of followers are purged. Facebook posts and groups are disappeared. These are the overt acts of censorship of ivermectin and other treatment contenders.

More covert is the mainstream media’s aversion to reporting virtually anything promising about early COVID treatment, including on 42 studies that collectively say ivermectin could reduce COVID deaths by 75 to 83 percent. What little is reported is that ivermectin is experimental and unproven – a drug that’s used to treat scabies and river blindness in people and parasites in horses.

For perhaps those reasons, Cheryl Jarrett, 64, initially rejected her doctor’s suggestion that she take ivermectin when diagnosed with what seemed a mild case of COVID. She changed her mind on day three, when she struggled to breathe after climbing her stairs, and a scan showed COVID infiltrates in 25 percent of her lungs.

“I took it,” she told me. “Within 2 hours I was fine.” She tried the stairs again. No problem.

There are many stories like Jarrett’s. You won’t find them in the press or on Wikipedia, a common source of ivermectin information. Share them on Facebook and you might get barred from posting, as Jarrett’s doctor, Bruce Boros, recently was.

Control of the ivermectin message ostensibly is done under the guise of protecting public health. But the effort is instead doing the opposite, according to interviews with advocates, doctors and analysts.

“There’s a war on misinformation which is hurting good information,” said Dr. Pierre Kory, president of a group of doctors advocating the drug called Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, or FLCCC. “We have all the data showing massive mortality benefits of ivermectin. The less that’s being known about it, the more deaths are resulting.”

Where It Began

The effort to manage COVID treatment information has its roots, in part, in a sad chapter in American science and journalism: The Trump endorsement last spring of hydroxychloroquine. In an instant, early treatment was turned into a right-wing myth of interest only to Fox News. The rest of the press was merciless in repeating assertions that a reliable pharmaceutical workhorse used for several diseases was dangerous for COVID. Multiple studies have since refuted that and shown effectiveness in early illness, something most people do not know.

Dr. Mobeen Syed was among the first last March to explore HCQ’s potential in a YouTube video that went viral and landed him in a love-it/hate-it, right/left firestorm. “I started getting so many threats,” he said, prompting him to take the piece down himself.

After that, however, YouTube itself decided what the 250,000 subscribers to Drbeen Medical Lectures should see, removing videos willy-nilly, it seemed, on Vitamin D, remdesivir and, what others said was frequently censored, ivermectin.

Among other examples of this new censorship trend:

  • On Jan. 31, Facebook removed a page called Ivermectin for MDs Team, with 10,200 members from more than 100 countries. The last straw was a post on the Slovak Ministry of Health’s decision to allow use of ivermectin, which Facebook censors “believe is harmful to physical integrity,” the administrator wrote. Facebook also ruled that news of ivermectin approval by a southern state in Brazil violated its standards. Put another way, the social media giant did not like two independent government decisions and thought it knew better.
  • On Jan. 12, Twitter ruled a tweet by the Brazilian Ministry of Health — 1.2 million followers — was “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information.” Why? It urged people with COVID symptoms to “go to a Health Unit and request early treatment.”
  • More egregious, YouTube recently expunged two videos posted by a U.S. Senate committee on Dr. Kory’s ivermectin testimony. Further, it purged a video in which a scientist discussed his review of ivermectin as part of a project for a World Health Organization-hosted agency called Unitaid. YouTube even removed a video on its censorship of ivermectin.

In a hint at how vast the censorship is, Facebook asserted proudly in a Feb. 8 website post that it had “removed more than 12 million pieces of content on Facebook and Instagram containing misinformation that could lead to imminent physical harm.” Seven of my posts, on an article I wrote with multiple links to the science of ivermectin, were stricken with that label. (I got off on a 14-hour posting ban.)

My efforts were fruitless to get Facebook, Twitter or Google, which owns YouTube, to explain the methodology it uses to censor. In a public post, YouTube says it disallows information that “contradicts local health authorities” and the World Health Organization. Twitter maintains it culls “content that is demonstrably false or misleading and may lead to significant risk of harm.”

But who actually decides on a video or post? Are algorithms by technicians making the decisions or scientists and doctors? Should government guidelines be the ultimate yardstick when these are evolving — and sometimes wrong?

At the outset of COVID, officials actually advised against wearing masks and treating COVID with corticosteroids; both are common practices now that are saving lives.

Moreover, government decisions in a previous plague show how fallible they can be. In 1987, HIV-AIDS activists implored Dr. Anthony Fauci to endorse the use of Bactrim and other sulfa drugs to prevent a virulent AIDS-related pneumonia. The government waited two years for more data, during which, Sean Strub recounts in his memoir, “Body Counts,” 17,000 people died.

What Fauci wanted then and wants today is a bigger, better, well-designed study – even if the result of waiting for it is a higher death toll.

Steve Kirsch, a California entrepreneur, has funded research on an anti-depressant-turned-anti-COVID treatment called fluvoxamine that holds huge promise for eliminating COVID early. As with ivermectin, the drug is meeting resistance.

In a Feb. 26 article in Quora, Kirsch argued that the bar for acceptance of already approved drugs must be lowered, given their known safety and efficacy. “We have evidence-based treatments today that have a high probability to significantly reduce the hospitalization and death…with virtually no incremental risk,” he wrote. “It thus is wrong, and an unnecessary loss of life, to ‘wait for more data.’” He called fluvoxamine and ivermectin the two most promising drugs for early COVID treatment.

Big Brother at Work

On Dec. 27, Twitter suspended an account called @CovidAnalysis, which had been followed by nearly 7,000 people. The account, run by anonymous scientists, routinely tweeted on COVID treatment research, and continues to summarize and analyze its implications on its website. I’m not alone in relying on its informed interpretation, which is at times guarded and critical.

Twitter provided no warning before exorcising the account and hasn’t answered the group’s request for an explanation since. Commented one follower, @c19d3k2, “I really have to wonder how close to #1984 we have edged by now.”

Other accounts have also been purged, including that of a prominent and early hydroxychloroquine supporter, Dr. Zev Zelenko, who had more than 150,000 followers.

Put aside for a minute the implications of efforts to control what Americans and citizens around the world know – about anything. Not too long ago, such control was unthinkable.

Now consider that ivermectin is an FDA-approved drug that is on the WHO list of Essential Medicines. Among more than three dozen trials are 19 peer-reviewed studies and 21 randomized controlled trials. They show ivermectin works at various stages against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It stopped infection cold in healthcare workers in three Argentinian studies and one involving 4,000 people in India. It shut down early illness in studies from Pakistan and Bangladesh. It kept people alive in Egypt and in a study in Broward County, Florida.

Doctors largely don’t know this. Nor does the general public.

I found too many examples of early treatment censorship to list them all here, including the purging of a 4,000-member Facebook group called COVEXIT.com that often discusses hydroychloroquine, and removal of a popular video by Dr. Christy Risinger imploring regulators to consider ivermectin science. Nonetheless, the blackout surely isn’t complete. There is still plenty of ivermectin information on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

But the censor’s knife, the image of the drug as a right-wing construct, and the resistance of the media to report most anything on early treatments have all taken a toll. Ivermectin, it seems, is unacceptable in public discussion of early COVID treatment.

Here’s how this plays out: Three press reports explored the myriad factors driving down COVID in India — on NPR, the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. Yet each conspicuously made no mention of treatment, despite India’s widespread use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, which surely deserved discussion.

I asked a widely published science writer, Esther Landuis, her thoughts on this: “In general it seems that the over politicized hydroxychloroquine debacle has muddied the waters for mainstream science magazines,” she told me. “Many outlets are afraid to be wrong about another repurposed drug; they are waiting for definitive data from a Phase 3 RCT (randomized controlled trial) with thousands of patients.”

The Upshot of Silencing

Ivermectin research shows the drug is most effective in preventing and quelling early infection – uses that would keep people out of hospitals and prevent long-haul symptoms. Yet ivermectin censorship robs patients of treatment with a safe drug that could be used off label and with informed consent. Many drugs are used this way, particularly in ICUs, where patients may be on a dozen medications in hopes that something works.

But ask for ivermectin for a family member, and you’ll likely be told, as one family member of a patient was, “We don’t use that here.” As a consequence, families of hospitalized patients sometimes go to great lengths to get it.

The family of a Texas man, 67, plotted to smuggle ivermectin to him in food then had lawyer intervene to secure the drug. Two New York state families got court orders to allow women, 80 and 65 years old, to be given ivermectin – but only prescribed by their personal physicians. When Dr. Erica Espinosa thought she would lose her husband – also a physician — to COVID-19, she arranged to fly him to a Houston hospital (six air ambulance companies declined) because it uses a protocol that includes ivermectin. Few hospitals do.

In those four cases, all but the Texas man rallied after getting ivermectin, and his treatment delay surely did not help. His death on Feb. 5 devastated his family; he left a wife of 40 years, two sons and daughters-in-law, and six grandchildren.

Dr. Bruce Boros, Cheryl Jarrett’s doctor and the owner of three urgent care centers in the Florida Keys, recently served time in what he and others call “Facebook Jail,” having run afoul of ivermectin censors. That’s small potatoes to Boros, however, who treated one hospitalized patient, Kyle Carter, by having ivermectin delivered to his bedside and directing him by phone on how much to take. (The hospital said it didn’t have the drug and then delayed giving it while Carter struggled to breathe.)

“Within 12 hours,” Carter told me, “I was feeling pretty fantastic. I knew that something had changed.” He still doesn’t know if the hospital was aware he’d taken ivermectin.

Two hundred patients later, Boros says this: “If your doctor doesn’t give this to you, get another doctor.”

If only it were that easy.

***Mary Beth Pfeiffer is an investigative journalist and the author of two books. Her website: www.thefirstepidemic.com.

Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s and not necessarily those of TrialSite News LLC.

Explore Further:

Čitajte na srpskom

Part of the ‘Covid Scientific Counter-Narratives’ series at this blog. The following interview, with Dr David Martin PhD, is consistent with the several other counter-narratives by scientists in the Covid 19 series.

*

Interview @ https://www.westonaprice.org/podcast/its-gene-therapy-not-a-vaccine/

Archived @ https://archive.li/1sYyp

Dr. David Martin, founder and chairman of M-CAM Inc, challenges our presuppositions about the new mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. Quoting the pharmaceutical companies themselves, David suggests that these are not vaccines, but, in actuality, gene therapy. He explains what the vaccines may do to us, what they are promising they can do for us, and how to distinguish the difference.

The below transcript is the Hilda Gore interview with Dr. David Martin.

HG: I have friends who’ve gotten one of the new COVID-19 vaccines and you do too. These are the fastest developed vaccines in all of our medical history and many people are lining up to get them as soon as possible. What are they made of? What would they do to us? Why are they being promoted and by whom? This is episode 292 and our guest is Dr. David Martin. He received his Undergrad degree from Goshen College, Master’s of Science from Ball State University and Doctorate from the University of Virginia. He is an innovator, a professor, and a man with an extensive resume of accomplishments.

With David, we focused on the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. He goes over the major issues surrounding them. He reviews the mRNA technology and explains how it is gene therapy, not a vaccine and our usual understanding of the word. He reviews the problems with the PCR tests and even helps us understand our broader state of emergency. Finally, he explains how fear on a subconscious level can make us resist the truth.

Welcome to the show, David.

DM: Thank you. It’s lovely to be here.

HG: I have a friend that works in the school system. She got a letter suggesting that she’s an essential worker and that she needs to get this one of these new vaccines being developed against this COVID virus. What should she know before she goes for it?

DM: Let’s start with your opening sentence. None of the words in the order that you use exist in reality. Let’s unpack that. First of all, there is no vaccine that is in development or contemplated that is a vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. That doesn’t exist. That hasn’t been developed. It isn’t even, in 2021, in contemplation. It’s one of the unfortunate things about what’s going on in the propaganda war, which is in February, the World Health Organization made it abundantly clear that SARS-CoV-2 or the virus and COVID-19, which is a series of clinical presentations of illness were two distinct things.

HG: You’re making an interesting distinction. I have heard that SARS-CoV-2 is “the virus” and that COVID-19 is the disease. Is that what you’re saying?

DM: COVID 19 is not a disease. It is a series of clinical symptoms. It is a giant umbrella of things associated with what used to be associated with influenza and with other febrile diseases. The problem that we have is that in February, the World Health Organization was clear in stating that there should not be a conflation between the two of these things. One is a virus, in their definition and one is a set of clinical symptoms. The illusion in February was that SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19. The problem with that definition and with the expectation is that the majority of people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2 are not ill at all. The illusion that the virus causes a disease fell apart. That’s the reason why they invented the term asymptomatic carrier.

HG: In other words, I might get a positive result from this PCR test and the reason I’m not asymptomatic, what’s happening is I’m not sick at all. They’ve made a false assumption that SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19.

DM: That’s never been the case, never has been the case and never will be the case. There is a causal statement that is made in the media where, for example, Johns Hopkins or the COVID tracker platform or any of these things has intentionally misled the people. There are not 5,000 new cases in Virginia. There potentially may be several thousand positive PCR tests but most of the people who have a positive test will never have a single symptom. Most of the people who have symptoms do not have positive tests.

HG: I know some individuals who said that thing. They were like, “I was feeling sick and I got a negative test. My sister-in-law, who was feeling great, got a positive test.”

DM: It will always be the case. The causal link that the media, the CDC made and the COVID tracker, which is the collaboration between the Bloomberg Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Zuckerberg Foundation and others, the official numbers that we get traped across the screens every morning of our computers in our televisions, those numbers are willfully lying. They have been willfully lying since the inception of this. There is not a causal link between these things that have never been established. It has never even been close to established. We have a situation where the illusion of the problem is that people say, “I don’t want to get COVID-19.” What they mean is they don’t want to get infected with a virus. The problem is those two things are not related to each other.

A viral infection hasn’t been documented in the majority of what is called cases. There is no basis for that conflation other than the manipulation of the public. That’s the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is that what is being touted as a vaccination, which as you well know when somebody says the word vaccination, the public understanding is that you are being treated with an attenuated or alive virus or a fragment of an attenuated and that the treatment is meant to keep you from getting an infection and it is meant to keep you from transmitting the infection that vaccine in the common definition of a vaccine is meant to do.

The problem is that in the case of Moderna and Pfizer, this is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy. It’s a chemotherapy agent that is gene therapy. It is not a vaccine. What is this doing? It’s sending a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being, the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen. It’s a toxin inside of human beings. This is not only not keeping you from getting sick, it’s making your body produce the thing that makes you sick.

HG: In that sense, it does sound like a vaccine?

DM: No, not at all because a vaccine is supposed to trigger immunity. It’s not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin.

HG: That’s how this differs.

DM: It’s not somewhat different. It’s not the same at all. This is a public manipulation of misrepresentation of clinical treatment. It’s not a vaccination. It’s not a prohibiting infection. It’s not a prohibiting transmission device. It’s a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then allegedly your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine, which is to trigger the immune response, this is to trigger the creation of the toxin.

HG: The way I’ve heard the companies put it is this is to teach your body to fight this virus when it comes around. That’s how they’re presenting it.

DM: Their clinical trial didn’t include any of that as even a possibility within the clinical trial. The clinical trial did not measure the presence or absence of a virus or a virus fragment. The clinical trial did not measure the possibility of transmission suppression, the clinical trial didn’t measure any of those things. This is a case of misrepresentation of technology and it’s done exclusively so that they can get themselves under the umbrella of public health laws that exploit vaccination.

HG: What you’re saying is different from what most of us have heard in the mainstream news and even from the press releases from big companies.

DM: That’s because people aren’t reading the actual clinical trials. If you read the clinical trials, nothing that I’m saying is even remotely different. As a matter of fact, the companies themselves have said what I’m saying. They said, they could not test for the existence or absence of the virus and they could not test for the transmissivity because they said it would be impractical. The companies themselves have admitted to every single thing I’m saying but they are using the public manipulation of the word vaccine to co-opt the public into believing they’re getting a thing, which they are not getting. This is not going to stop you from getting Coronavirus. It’s not going to stop you from getting sick. In fact, on the contrary, it will make you sick far more often than the virus itself.

HG: How can you say that so definitively?

DM: Because the data is nothing but that, for people receiving by the time they got the second shot, 80% of people had one or more clinical presentations of COVID-19, 80% of people who have an infection according to RT-PCR have no symptoms at all.

HG: People are getting it more from the “vaccine?”

DM: Yes. You will get COVID-19 symptoms from getting the gene therapy passed off as a vaccine. You will get COVID symptoms from that 80% of the time. If you’re exposed to SARS-CoV-2 according to RT-PCR, 80% of the time, you will have no symptoms at all.

HG: What is the purpose of getting this vaccine or this gene manipulation as you call it?

DM: It’s a gene therapy technology. That’s Moderna’s own definition. Let’s stick with what they say they are. The benefit is non-existent. A human being is going to be potentially exposed to unclassified, both short-term and long-term risks of altering their RNA and DNA from exposure to this gene therapy. This is important to understand, there is no clinical benefit except that in certain instances of CoV infection and/or COVID-19 exposure, there were a few. By that, I mean less than a few hundred out of nearly 40,000 in the clinical trial. A few hundred people had a few days less severe symptoms with the gene therapy when compared to the other control group. Even in that comparison, if you look at the methodology that’s in the published papers for the clinical trials, they play games with the data because what they’re doing is, they’re separating reactivity, meaning the way in which a person responds to being exposed to the gene therapy, they separate out adverse events from actual COVID symptoms.

The problem is that COVID symptoms include things like fever, body ache, muscle pain, muscle weakness and things like that. They got rid of a lot of what would have been considered to be COVID symptoms by calling them adverse events. If you pull that data out and you say, “Compare the population that got the gene therapy with the population that didn’t get the gene therapy.” The population that got the gene therapy had way more illness, including COVID-19 symptoms, than the population that didn’t get the gene therapy but because they classified an enormous number of things as adverse events, they technically wiggled themselves into what was this ridiculous 90% plus effectiveness. Effectiveness was not effective in blocking illness. It was effective in allegedly shortening the duration of symptoms.

HG: People are afraid that they are ready to believe what they want to believe and holding onto that one bit of information that you shared, that the likelihood with the flu vaccine, “At least it will tamp down my symptoms and limit the duration of my illness.” They held onto that one bit of information that was data manipulation, as you’re saying and they’re holding out hope that this will be their saving grace to help them avoid COVID-19.

DM: Nothing about this will avoid COVID-19 and nothing about this will avoid SARS-CoV-2.

HG: We’ve been talking mostly about the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine that is gene therapy. Is there another one in the works or getting to the market that is not using gene therapy?

DM: The AstraZeneca Oxford trial is using a viral fragment. It is more along the technological lines of what you and I might consider historically, to be a vaccine. The AstraZeneca Oxford trial has been an interesting one to watch because they have a methodology problem that is quite challenging in terms of trying to fool data and understand what’s happening either on the safety or efficacy side. The reason is simple, that in certain instances, the AstraZeneca Oxford trial has not used a saline control group. They’ve used another vaccine as the control. In other words, they’ve stacked the deck. They’re making it look like they are somehow neutral compared to another vaccination in several of their data collection efforts.

As a result of that, we have both a methodology problem, which by the way, has been criticized by a number of clinical scientists. The bigger problem is that they’re still not measuring viral susceptibility and viral transmission. Those are the two legs of the stool that is required for anyone to say that they are vaccinating a population for public health reasons. There is no means by which. This is a simple thing to wrap your head around. If I said, “Everybody needs to take chemotherapy for cancer they might get.”

HG: People would laugh in your face.

DM: That’s exactly what is happening. This is not prophylactic. This is not helping us. We’re being told to take a treatment for a disease we don’t have and most likely will not have. We’re being told that using careful marketing manipulation and propaganda, calling these things vaccines for public health.

HG: Historically vaccines, we’ve taken them for that reason. “I don’t have the measles. I don’t want to get the measles, so I’m going to get this measles shot.” We’ve been primed to accept that approached.

DM: That’s the narrative everybody expects.

HG: Why don’t you expect that though? What’s made you dive deep?

DM: That’s not what’s being measured. That’s not what’s being done and that’s not what this technology is about. mRNA is not a vaccination. It’s a gene therapy that was originally developed for cancer treatment. That’s why I’m using the chemotherapy analogy. This is not a vaccination.

HG: I have colleagues, I’m sure you do too, friends and acquaintances who are going for it. What can we tell these people or share with them that might wake them up?

DM: That’s a complex issue and I have chosen a long time ago to not engage in the energy of this waking sleeping metaphor because the fact of the matter is if people are conditioned to react to fear, this is reflexive and it’s not conscious. If we examine our behavior and what we do is engage in self-harm because we are convinced that somehow or another, there’s a worse future ahead of us, that’s something that I don’t have an ability to say facts are going ever to overcome. I have yet to meet in my life someone who allowed a fact to overwhelm a belief. Once you’ve adopted a belief, facts are not welcome because what they do is, they not only indict your belief but they indict the energy that you hold that says, “I have to believe what I’m told.”

The minute you try to engage with facts, all you do is trigger conflict. What I do is I try to take the complex science and the complex reporting, and I try to make it accessible and easily understood. The goal is that in certain instances, people will go, “I can’t even believe that what he said was true.” The cool thing is you don’t have to believe what I’m saying is true because I don’t value belief. I value the objective reality of facts. It turns out that in this particular case, it is simple and straightforward to say to any person in Moderna’s own SEC filings, they make it abundantly clear that their technology is a gene therapy technology. In their clinical trial, they’ve made it abundantly clear that they could not measure the presence or absence of the virus and they could not measure the presence or the absence of the transmission of the virus. Every single thing that they represented to be doing that preys on the public understanding of what vaccination is, they explicitly said, “They’re not doing that.”

HG: You have been careful to lay out the facts to me and the audience and we’re thankful. I want to ask you on a more personal note, would you even take this PCR test if you had to for travel? I’m getting all kinds of emails and people reaching out to me and I’m not even talking about the vaccine or the gene therapy technology but certain things are being required to participate in life.

DM: I’m actively involved with many of the significant pieces of litigation that are going on to try to unmask the conspiracy that is driving both the PCR, as well as the medical countermeasure interventions. I’m at the vanguard with a few other souls who are fighting for the rights of citizens to make decisions informed by facts, not informed by propaganda. The fact of the matter is the PCR test has never been approved as a diagnostic. It is not diagnostic. There’s nothing about taking a PCR test that does anything other than reinforce a propaganda narrative. It doesn’t tell you anything.

The reason why we’re not doing influenza testing is that we don’t want to admit the fact that the majority of people who are in hospital, who are sick and who are dying are experiencing exactly the same thing that’s happened every year, which is influenza-like, flu-like and pneumonia-like illness. In many cases, when someone has immune compromise or other comorbidities leads to fatalities. It’s a sad reality that that happens but it is part of the human experience that it happens. The fact is that a PCR test is not going to make or not make a confirmed diagnosis of anything because PCR tests cannot confirm a diagnosis.

HG: I’ve interviewed Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Andy Kaufman, and they say the same thing. The person who came up with or developed the PCR test says that it’s not to be used to diagnose anything.

DM: So does the FDA so does everybody else. The only reason we are using PCR tests is that governors and the Department of Health and Human Services are maintaining a state of emergency. The second that that state of emergency is lifted in any state or in the country, the PCR test won’t be allowed to be used. We’re maintaining a state of emergency so that manufacturers can keep selling a thing that would never be approved if it was subject to a clinical trial. It goes for what’s being called vaccines too. The gene therapy that Moderna and Pfizer are doing, both of those would be suspended immediately if the state of emergency got lifted. People don’t understand that if you lift the state of emergency, the whole house of cards falls.

HG: That is something else that you and your team are advocating for?

DM: It’s because the emergency use authorization falls with the state of emergency.

HG: Is this one reason, do you think that they have cast aspersions on hydroxychloroquine or any other protocols that could possibly treat the symptoms of SARS-CoV-2?

DM: There’s no question. If you look historically, for many years, Dr. Anthony Fauci at NIAID has held his annual advisory committee meeting. Every year he laments the fact that they’re trying to build this universal influenza vaccine, which he refers to using as an infant in-print vaccine. They’ve been trying to do this for years and it hasn’t worked. This happens to be an opportunity for Anthony Fauci to get what he has not been able to get through legal means, which is he wants to get to a place where he forces a vaccine on a population. He’s manipulating this situation to force a vaccine on a population. The fact of the matter is he forgot that if he’s going to force a vaccine on a population, it should at least be a vaccine.

HG: What would his motives be for that?

DM: Always has been financial. There are billions of dollars at stake and NIAID is essentially the incubator for the pharmaceutical industry. He’s serving the paymasters that have let him manage $191 billion in his career at NIAID.

HG: There are lots to consider here. You’ve given us a lot of food for thought. We want to have another conversation with you again but let’s say I’m an individual that was reading all these facts and I’ve been persuaded. I do not want to get this gene therapy technology. I don’t want even to get the AstraZeneca vaccine. I don’t want to get any of this but I’m under pressure either because of my job or for travel purposes to do so, what would you advise me to do?

DM: I can’t advise a person at all. That’s not my role but what I can tell you is that this is a decision that any human being is going to ultimately have to make based on whether or not they choose to live or they choose to be enslaved. This is like any point in history where you have to make decisions that are based on what is moral and ethical and right with respect to your own sense of responsibility and accountability. The fact of the matter is like wearing a seat belt, like doing a whole bunch of other things, your choice to engage in an activity is ultimately going to be a decision that you have to live with.

I will not touch a thing and I will not allow my body to be invaded with a thing that is been developed in an unethical and illegal way. I am not going to let anybody have the opportunity to manipulate my genetic code. It’s not going to happen. If that means that it comes at a cost of a particular employer or a particular relationship or whatever else, my life happens to be worth more than that. We’ve been conditioned to fall into this trap, which is, “We might not be able to get on a plane.” So, drive.

HG: I thought about that. I’m going to start taking a boat.

DM: I’m not going to let my future and my well-being be enslaved to a commercial interest that is trying to extort or blackmail me into a thing.

HG: That does sound like living. That does sound like freedom as opposed to slavery. I appreciate that. I think that’s what we’re about to hear at the foundation. We want people to live their best lives to take responsibility for their own health and look to ways to nurture it that may not be the most modern or the most profitable for health companies but will be best for them. Let me wrap up by asking you the question I often pose at the end. If the reader could do one thing to improve or sustain their health, what would you recommend that they do?

DM: Pick a lifestyle modification first and foremost and pick it with someone else. Begin exercising, engage in a more wholesome way of engaging with the food you consume. Anything that involves bringing together the sense of wellbeing, which involves fellowship, nutrition, vitality and empowering you to become a person who not only has a conceptual idea of what health is but has a lived experience of it. The more you have the lived experience of health, the less you can be told you’re unwell when you’re perfectly fine.

HG: Thank you so much for your time, David. This has been a great conversation.

DM: You are most welcome. Take care.

More information at Covid 19

*

^ Bill Gates

neoliberal nationalist‘ is my new name for the American empire faction that can hardly be distinguished from their sometimes neoconservative adversaries. This is on account of the ‘neoliberal nationalists’ insatiable lust for control over every detail of the American people & nation/state, right down to who can express what perceptions, particularly when someone might have made salient points exposing ‘neoliberal nationalist’ lies. Example given, Twitter shutting down any links to the Hunter Biden laptop story by The New York Post. Can’t have a truthful counter-narrative of Ukraine corruption, Joe Biden and Burisma in circulation, now, can we? At least not from the ‘neoliberal nationalist’ point of view.

Following on the previous post, pointing to divisive rhetoric, the ‘neoliberal nationalist’ aligned intelligence apparatus continues piling on with further propaganda seeding division and violence. These following quotes are from a single so-called ‘analysis’ at a ‘professional intelligence’ blog:

“WITH DOWNTOWN WASHINGTON RESEMBLING a large military encampment, a repeat of last week’s shocking assault on the Capitol Complex is highly improbable. But America could witness escalating levels of violence across many states, as supporters of the January 6 insurrection continue to organize themselves into a coherent armed movement…”

“Supporters of the nationalist insurrection that shook the nation on January 6…”

“The militants who will descend on Washington in the coming days are unlikely to engage in all-out hostilities against as many as 20,000 members of the US National Guard…”

“…the insurrectionists will engage the forces of the government asymmetrically -that is, by resorting to strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare…”

“…in these rural red states the insurgents will be more likely to be met with sympathy from some members of law enforcement”

“…these militants are increasingly reaching out to each other, convinced that their leader was unjustly removed from power in a fraudulent election. The possibility that these militants will begin to engage in an armed insurgency in the service of an organized, nationwide insurrection, is very real…” [1]

Recalling there was a single death by gunfire in the initial Capitol “insurrection”, and that weapon was fired by Federal security, notice in a context of armed “insurgents” & “militants” organizing “insurrection” Trump has just been named “their leader” as though he accepts and is fully complicit in extreme armed nationalist “insurgency” in a sense of hands on directing an armed insurrection. Never-mind Trump, although blinded by narcissism leading to poor judgement, is likely not nearly so bigoted and ignorant as proposed in the ‘neoliberal nationalist’ rhetoric.

In fact, rightly or wrongly, given indisputable history and facts suppressed in corporate media, reasonable people could suspect the election had been ‘stolen.'[2]

The excerpted quotes are, at best, simply ignorant & highly irresponsible or, at worst, resemble classic psyops integrated to propaganda.

To the title of this article is why: a lynch mob mentality is a highly defective intelligence that points (a metaphor) to the brain’s (or the collective brain) having been stimulated to archaic & primitive feedback loop or a negative ‘meme’ reinforcing an aggravated panic. This is easily achieved across a wider spectrum with the stimulus of modern media. This defective mentality is not science fiction, little different to Mary Shelley’s monster cannot be construed ‘science fiction’ in context of the many consequent caricatures or portraits of horror it had inspired.

Just now, it is the ‘neoliberal nationalist’ exercising a much more intense manifestation of this mob mentality than Trump ever had. The impeachment ‘lynch mob’ at the Capitol is a microcosm of what is being ‘seeded’ in the greater populace with potential for immense negative consequence needing only a trigger on a wide scale, whether by Trump’s partisans or, in easily flipped circumstance, the anarchist antifa.

In fact (noticing the Department of Defense has been engaged quite closely in unfolding events) it would only take an organization like the Defense Intelligence Agency to determine, and the Pentagon to act on, the plausible possibility Dominion voting machines had fraudulently turned key states and the electoral college into a Biden ‘victory’, for the 20,000 National Guard ‘securing’ the inauguration find themselves enforcing a Trump swearing in as President. That’s how razor thin we could be away from the ‘neoliberal nationalist’ side’s insurrection and the insurgency of antifa. It is here we should all give attention to a recently ‘politically corrected’ historical artifact, that is General Robert E Lee.

If Lee alone (by might of his military genius) sustained the 1860s Southern military endeavor at least 2 years beyond it’s otherwise expected lifespan, it was also Lee, after his surrender at Appomattox, was the man of stature in a Southern collective mentality that prevented the feared decades of ‘post-war’ Southern partisan insurgency by both his words and example. Today’s neoliberal politicians (and their minions) should take the example set by General Lee employing principle of conciliation, rather than behave like a lynch mob going after Trump.

America would appear to have learned nothing from those short antebellum years of political history where conciliation was discarded prior to an armed convulsion commencing in April, 1861.

But, all of the preceding ignores the nation having transformed from ‘rule of law’ to ‘color of law’ since the National Security Act of 1947. In fact, in today’s United States, ‘saving the constitution’ (whether asserted by either side) is little more than political sloganeering; where (for decades) constitutional principles cannot be squared with ‘national security’ laws as made and applied in fact; and consequently,  the ‘oath to uphold’ the Constitution is patently meaningless, no matter who does the swearing.

Where there clearly can be no legitimate President of the United States in a state of division not seen since the election of 1860, this reporter is ready to move on to other subjects, away from American politics, rather than take sides in what amounts to a preliminary stage of civil war.

 

The Capitol Convulsion                 part 1

Ronald’s 2021 State of the Union part 2

Sedition & Insurgents                    part 3

 

A former Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence for Special Forces, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald had lived over thirty years in close association with Blackfeet Indians (those who still speak their language), and is published in international law as a layman: The Right of Self- Determination of Peoples and It’s Application to Indigenous People in The USA or The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole. Ronald has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.

Contact: penucquemspeaks@googlemail.com

“Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with the good” -Mahatma Ghandi

References:

[1] https://archive.li/NUA2N

[2] https://archive.li/bqC6V

^ Bellingcat, er, Bill the Cat

Navalny poses as a higher ranking ‘apparatchik’ within Russia’s security services, scrambling to understand what went wrong with the plot to murder (himself) with the nerve agent novichok. He (Navalny) ostensibly has reached one of the foot-soldiers (a Russian intelligence services officer, at his home phone) tasked with carrying out Navalny’s assassination (I would have said you can’t make this shit up except for someone clearly did.) The hoax is audacious.

The 1st problem with Navalny’s ‘hoax call’ reported by Bellingcat is the dates. The 2nd problem is Bellingcat is the reporter. Or, you can switch the order, these are co-equal problems, followed by a 3rd problem that is the call itself.

1) The poisoning happened on 20 August, the ‘hoax call’ is made on 14 December, and released by Bellingcat on 21 December. Now, wait a minute. The context of the call, a desperate demand for answers of what went wrong (Navalny didn’t die) for a report to higher up authority, is something you would expect within the first 48 hours, not nearly three months later. By the time this call was made, that dust should have settled and been vacuumed up by Russia’s intelligence services, everyone would have been debriefed by this time, including the target of the hoax call.

2) Bellingcat is an organization on the point of ‘the Russians did it’ (or the Russians should be held responsible, even if they didn’t do it) world information warfare stage from Syria chemical warfare crimes to MH17 to the Skripal poisoning to (now) Navalny (and whatever else escapes my memory at the moment.)

Every reasonably competent intelligence officer from either side of the ongoing state of warfare between the NATO & NATO associated intelligence agencies, and Russia, perfectly assumes Bellingcat is a front for British intelligence, if they are honest, which is forbidden in this case, if you work for Western intelligence (as well, the CIA might easily request a favor from MI6 and its proxy Bellingcat, time to time.) Of course, if you are Russian, it is not permitted in the liberal democracies to believe anything you have to say (whether truthful or not.)

3) The recorded call itself requires you to believe Russian intelligence officers assigned to assassinations are 85 IQ troglodytes in eternal state of drunk or hungover. That works, if you are a Robert Littell (CIA disinformation) spy novel fan or, alternatively, a 007 freak where Russian intelligence operatives, when it comes to assassinations, are so muscle-bound around the head, there is no space left for brains (having all been squeezed out by steroids, obviously.) But the propaganda ploy works for precisely the subliminal stereotype created in the Western media audience; at many levels we all are conditioned (or attempted to be conditioned) to believe the stereotypes.

At 14 minutes in, there are real questions. He’s too slow & dumb (the FSB guy) he should have been wide awake by now, this all seems scripted. Do we know it is actually the Russian officer on the other end? Rather, is it a MI6 or CIA actor? In the very early stages (long before the 14th minute), the ‘Russian’ intelligence officer should have demanded to make the call himself, calling back from a secure phone to his interrogator (after confirming with his own chain of command), at the least. I can’t believe the Russians are without strict protocol training in this regard. The so-called ‘Konstantin Kudryavtsev’ (a real person but certainly not the person in the call) is too stupid, by far, to demand this obviously important security protocol, and that stupidity is covered by the very fact of discussing ‘a secure line’ while posing him as half-awake & consequently ‘snookered.’ But even a hungover and half-awake 85 IQ (if such ever existed in the FSB, not likely) should grasp violating this protocol while running his mouth could find him hung upside down in chains in the basement of the Lubyanka (FSB Headquarters in Moscow) while his bosses decided what would become of him. This raises a related issue; why would someone who’d so famously screwed up a hit still be on the job? The entire business stinks from the beginning.

Then, at 18 minutes in, the ‘Russian’ troglodyte is volunteering via unsecured line a local investigative chief’s phone number to a ‘superior officer’ (Navalny’s alias) that prior to this call he has never even heard of:

It just goes downhill from there…

The concluding question should be, did Nalvany understand he had been talking to a Western intelligence asset/actor? The answer would be “probably not.” Narcissists are brilliant material for intelligence agency manipulations, in this case of Western intelligence engineering (from the outset) Nalvany being of greater value as an information operations asset in Berlin as opposed to a perpetually failed color revolutionary in Russia.

 

Related: Initial impression in the Navalny ‘poisoning’ (22 August)

*

A former Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence for Special Forces, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald had lived over thirty years in close association with Blackfeet Indians (those who still speak their language), and is published in international law as a layman: The Right of Self- Determination of Peoples and It’s Application to Indigenous People in The USA or The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole. Ronald has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.

Contact: penucquemspeaks@googlemail.com

Part one HERE, part three HERE

Article last updated 12 December

It should be kept in the back of the reader’s mind there will be many plausible cases of overlay in the warring camps; the operations (paramilitary) sector of the CIA is historically a George H.W. Bush fan club and George H.W. Bush was a “Never Trump” Republican. Yet my sources indicate there appears to be Pentagon aligned religious extremists at CIA. Also, at the Pentagon (my shorthand for the Department of Defense) there are CIA aligned generals (if temporarily in the present contest for control) opposed to Trump. Not that these last are in love with the extremely corrupt Biden force, they simply see Biden as a less immediate existential threat. Now, concerning the States versus States lawsuit with Texas taking advantage of its original jurisdiction at the Supreme Court (with up to 17 states joining Texas suing Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin), no matter how the SCOTUS political animals rule, the ante is upped when it comes the USA’s potential for being torn in half (see part one, linked above) per the extensive propaganda operations (information wars) convincing their respective voters there is a theft (position of Pentagon’s Trump camp) or a coup (position of CIA’s Biden camp) but both sides are playing it disingenuously. Biden’s controllers DID steal the election but it appears they were set up by the Trump camp who’re misrepresenting how the theft actually happened & on who’s behalf, covering for their own dirty players manipulating perception on behalf of certain geopolitical goals –

Now, let’s have another look at the developing story of Sidney Powell and Gina Haspel relating to the vote fraud allegations concerning the USA 2020 election. In short, it is alleged CIA Director Gina Haspel should have known and warned against the use of Dominion voting machines that have been (credibly) alleged to have rigged elections around the world:

^ Computer vote tabulation machines documented as easily subject to tampering/manipulation by brand (blackboxvoting.org 2016) [1]

The equally (to Dominion) fraudulent ES&S system (both use the old GEMS software originating with Diebold) covered the ‘Republican Heartland” as of 2016. This is the Pentagon’s historic vote theft ground. ES&S is the system that had turned Nebraska into a ‘red state’ some years back when used to put (subsequent Secretary of Defense) Chuck Hagel into the Senate. All of the states are ‘historically’ (age of internet & related computerized voting) stolen at will. The Pentagon (DoD) knew how to reveal the Dominion fraud in the 2020 election and attempted to do just that; knowing full well the CIA dared not point the finger back at the Pentagon’s ES&S fraud without opening themselves (becoming vulnerable) to the Dominion fraud charges. Where the Pentagon lost the contest to now is in the MSM coverage, historically CIA controlled turf, they have been unable to neutralize the propaganda.

Trump’s (longtime CIA asset) Attorney General William Barr says he cannot find any indication of voting machine fraud as evidence of exactly that is escaping the several states like feral street cats fleeing a dumpster on fire. It does well to recall here the man Barr just appointed ‘special prosecutor’ in the matter of ‘Russiagate’, that is John Durham, was in charge of the DoJ ‘investigation’ that ran cover for CIA Director Gina Haspel over a decade ago, when he (Durham) found Haspel not culpable for torture at a black site (a site Haspel was in charge of.) Trump Attorney General Barr’s subsequent (present) assertion he has seen no evidence of vote rigging, at first blush, is inconsistent with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani claiming vote fraud until you look at the suggestion Giuliani is deliberately screwing up the court cases he has filed, getting loss after loss registered in the media; reinforcing in a large portion of the public thinking there is nothing there. All four of the preceding named individuals have done tremendous damage to Trump and profile as Trump’s political enemies in a Trumpian psy-ops pseudo-reality created by ‘spooks.’

Then, we have the intrepid Sidney Powell who recently split from Rudy Giuliani (both purported to be fighting the computerized vote fraud on Trump’s behalf) coming up with what we are supposed to believe is the real score; she is producing numerous witnesses, producing evidence via experts (includes intelligence), producing forensic cyber analysis & expert opinion on statistical improbabilities, in short (with relevance possibly depending on the political alignment of deep state judges), producing what Giuliani has not, in his numerous court fails. And then, it gets weird.

Sidney Powell represents former (Obama era) Defense Intelligence Agency head Mike Flynn and he most certainly should know where the (CIA) bodies are buried, including vote fraud. In fact the Pentagon itself is ‘expert’ in vote fraud and has its own track record relevant to computerized voting in concert with CIA. [2], [3]

Does the present circumstance indicate a messy divorce?

Flynn can’t decide if it was ‘coup’ or China & Iran, he is all over the map (interview) when Flynn says (or at least strongly insinuates) China manipulated the electronic vote to favor Biden, but then he says an electronic vote didn’t get the result Biden wanted and this required ballot dumps [but in actuality if you needed to uphold an electronic tabulation fraud with a hand recount, then you’d see the ballot dumps happening.] So now we have the moronic idea the Biden team is dumping ballots to uphold an electronic voting fraud run by China. Did the Biden team have the fraudulent ballot printing outsourced to China and illegally plug the machines into the internet for China too? In fact Flynn appears to use his psy-ops training to associate “Socialist” Biden supporters (ignoring Biden’s people are shafting the AOC & Sanders’ agendas) and a stolen election with American mainstream media, Facebook, Twitter & China (he uses his credentials to conflate them all as identical.) [4]

Then, Lt General McInerney (retired) gets involved and some makes some lucid points but then starts talking about the 305th Military Intelligence Battalion (Arizona) is working for Trump and claims American Special Forces seized Dominion software implicated internet servers from the CIA at a secure military facility in Germany (see part two of the interview at preceding footnote [4].)

How this all spills out in the information wars is quite interesting. Military Times (owned by MSM, not the military) quotes certain American military spokesmen denying the 305th Battalion is an operational intelligence organization, rather asserting this is only a military intelligence “training” facility. In fact if such an entity actually existed as described by Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell and General McIinerney, a military intelligence training facility would be the perfect cover story for a clandestine military intelligence operations center; it easily could be both, a training facility AND an operational intelligence organization, with only the operational intelligence side knowing both the cover story (that actually trains people) & the operational aspect. Did Flynn, McInerney & Powell blow open a state secret here? [5]

Insofar as discrediting General McInerney because he was fired from FOX News for “falsely” claiming John McCain ‘sang like a canary’ for his North Vietnamese captors, well, maybe that claim wasn’t false after all, FOX fired McInerney in 2018, it was in 2016 the tape of John McCain singing a song of geopolitical fellatio on behalf of his captors (via Radio Hanoi) was recovered from the National Archives. [6]

So, wrapping this warring spooks camps’ multiple/competing psy-ops-information operations reporting up, it would appear nobody actually knows where or how this plays out except to say ‘the Russians did it’ boogeyman (CIA) is in a vote fraud (that DID happen) slug-fest with ‘the Chinese did it’ boogeyman (Pentagon.) This is painted as a vote fraud that ‘never happened’ (What?! The ‘Russians did it’ boogeyman isn’t blaming the Russians?!) by ‘the Russians did it’ boogeyman whereas ‘the Chinese did it’ boogeyman has China responsible for routing vote fraud through ‘the Russians did it’ boogeyman internet servers secured at a ‘the Chinese did it’ boogeyman’s military facility in Germany. Oh, don’t get me started on THAT aspect of this clusterf**k.

The really SCARY part of all of this is, ‘the Chinese did it’ boogeyman has tossed Iran into the conspiratorial soup; providing Trump (Mike Pence and the apocalyptic Christian Zionists at the Pentagon, actually) a recipe for casus belli; the narcissist-ego-maniac Trump gets fed spoonfuls of ‘the Iranians helped China steal the election from Trump to get Biden in and JCPOA back’ (sanctions relief) *with a robust push from MOSSAD* (Bibi has been trying to get the USA to attack Iran for over 12 years) and .. dragging China in? Well, It’s been an interesting life.

The ‘plot sickens’ it could be said; now it would seem this ongoing real life political clown act, at least in appearance, rivals a QAnon psyop (be certain to read the satire) running as a live exercise, you know, sort of like when Dick Cheney was running the war games that morphed into 9/11:

The ‘suicided’ (incorruptible) Michael Ruppert (above video) was a world class detective who’d uncovered CIA cocaine trafficking into Los Angeles’ Black community and life was never the same for him again.

And here’s a CIA moron confessing (bragging, actually) about his connections and insider knowledge preceding/concerning 9/11:

Naw, it couldn’t get that bad, you think?

References:

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fob-AGgZn44

[2] https://archive.li/Ox2XZ

[3] https://archive.li/CtHjf

[4] https://www.worldviewweekend.com/tv/video/wvw-tv-exclusive-lt-general-michael-flynns-first-interview-president-trumps-pardon

[5] https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2020/12/01/this-retired-three-star-falsely-claims-us-soldiers-died-attacking-a-cia-facility-in-germany-tied-to-election-fraud/

[6] https://www.trunews.com/article/john-mccains-1969-tokyo-rose-propaganda-recording-released

“There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians, it’s outrageous, this is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public”

This expert (speaking at a public meeting), and it is worth the listen, says that masks are only good for virtue signalling, that the lock-downs are counter-productive madness, covid amounts to nothing more than a bad flu and that’s exactly how it should be treated (stay home from work, take warm soup & don’t visit the elderly), politics playing medicine is driving panic, only the vulnerable (e.g. care home residents) should be protected & 3 to 5 thousand IU of vitamin D daily reduces their chances of clinical covid dramatically, people under the age of 65 have a one in three hundred thousand chance of dying from the disease, and that testing is worthless because positives DO NOT indicate there will be a clinical case and in precise quotation the testing is “driving public hysteria.”

At just over five minutes, it is really worth a listen:

Transcript:

“This is Dr. Hodkinson, I just wanted to let you know I’m standing by.

“OK, well we would love to hear from you, the floor is yours.

“Thank you very much. I do appreciate the opportunity to address you on this very important matter. What I’m going to say is lay language, and blunt. It is counter-narrative, and so you don’t immediately think I’m a quack, I’m going to briefly outline my credentials so that you can understand where I’m coming from in terms of knowledge base in all of this.

“I’m a medical specialist in pathology which includes virology. I trained at Cambridge University in the UK. I’m the ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association. I was previously an assistant professor in the Faculty of Medicine doing a lot of teaching. I was the chairman of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada Examination Committee and Pathology in Ottawa, but more to the point I’m currently the chairman of a biotechnology company in North Carolina selling the COVID-19 test.

“And I might, you might say, I know a little bit about all of this. The bottom line is simply this: There is utterly unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It’s outrageous. This is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to contain this virus. Other than protecting older, more vulnerable people. It should be thought of as nothing more than a bad flu season. This is not Ebola. It’s not SARS. It’s politics playing medicine and that’s a very dangerous game.

“There is no action of any kind needed other than what happened last year when we felt unwell. We stayed home, we took chicken noodle soup, we didn’t visit granny and we decided when we would return to work. We didn’t need anyone to tell us.

“Masks are utterly useless. There is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever. Paper masks and fabric masks are simply virtue-signaling. They’re not even worn effectively most of the time. It’s utterly ridiculous. Seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people — I’m not saying that in a pejorative sense — seeing these people walking around like lemmings, obeying without any knowledge base, to put the mask on their face.

“Social distancing is also useless because COVID is spread by aerosols which travel 30 meters or so before landing. Enclosures have had such terrible unintended consequences. Everywhere should be opened tomorrow as well as was stated in the Great Barrington Declaration that I circulated prior to this meeting.

“And a word on testing: I do want to emphasize that I’m in the business of testing for COVID. I do want to emphasize that positive test results do not, underlined in neon, mean a clinical infection. It’s simply driving public hysteria and all testing should stop. Unless you’re presenting to the hospital with some respiratory problem.

“All that should be done is to protect the vulnerable and to give them all in the nursing homes that are under your control, give them all 3,000 to 5,000 international units of vitamin D every day which has been shown to radically reduce the likelihood of Infection.

“And I would remind you all that using the province’s own statistics, the risk of death under 65 in this province is one in 300,000. One in 300,000. You’ve got to get a grip on this.

“The scale of the response that you are undertaking with no evidence for it is utterly ridiculous given the consequences of acting in a way that you’re proposing. All kinds of suicides, business closures, funerals, weddings etc. It’s simply outrageous! It’s just another bad flu and you’ve got to get your minds around that.

“Let people make their own decisions. You should be totally out of the business of medicine. You’re being led down the garden path by the chief medical officer of health for this province. I am absolutely outraged that this has reached this level. It should all stop tomorrow.

“Thank you very much”

As a ‘social scientist’ (of sorts) the study I would like to see is on how mass social hysteria (an induced ‘societal-wide’ panic attack) methylates entire peoples’ DNA, damaging their immune function, almost certainly greatly aggravating the numbers of people presenting with serious infections. As well, nothing quite like ignorance effectively preparing populations to be even more susceptible for the next pandemic, eh? [1]

Meanwhile, let’s all be good boys & girls, keep the ignorant nanny state politicians happy so they have no excuses to double-down on their idiocy, i.e. play by the rules dictated by our rulers until they can find their gonads and sanity returns (sooner or later, the idiots should be able to sort ‘It’s the economy, Mr or Ms Stupid MP’), and most of all don’t let fear drive you into a worse social circumstance than that already created.

At nearly 70 years, I don’t need this infection but I also don’t need ‘increased measures’ (social controls), especially if I have had the virus already and gotten over it like any other bad cold.

23 Nov update:

“In their ruling, judges … referred to several scientific studies. Most notably this study by Jaafar et al., which found that – when running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more – the accuracy dropped to 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false positives. The ruling goes on to conclude that, based on the science they read, any PCR test using over 25 cycles is totally unreliable. Governments and private labs have been very tight-lipped about the exact number of cycles they run when PCR testing, but it is known to sometimes be as high as 45″

 

[1] https://archive.li/wip/ERtg6

*

“It is the habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they would prefer not to examine” -Thucydides

*

Decolonization as envisioned by the United Nations is (in real effect) little more than a self-serving Western propaganda ploy; assuaging ego where there is in fact little wider social consciousness of what (and what has not) been accomplished. To achieve de facto (authentic) decolonization, to begin, this should require the decolonization of the psyche of those ‘indigenous’ populations educated into Western way of thinking. This would be no mean task!

When the colonizing powers ‘withdrew’ and ‘lip-serviced’ (should sound like political fellatio) ‘the right of self determination of peoples’ … they left intact unnatural colonial borders that in any case DID NOT respect the purported right of self-determination, rather put in place multiple Western infected national psyches within so-called ‘indigenous’ leadership determined to (more often than not) behave like Whitemen (Western European mentality.) This has further created numerous cases of social friction across the globe, particularly concerning so-called ‘minorities.’

The related ‘meme of democracy’ has accomplished the following few examples of too many examples to list in one short article:

The largest stateless ‘minority’ in the world (5,000,000 compared to ‘sovereign’ Montenegro’s 500,000), that is the Kurds, are in (varying degrees of) conflict with Iran, Iraq, Syria and (not least) Turkey, due to persisting colonial borders. This leaves the Kurd population open (across several vectors) to murderous geopolitical (read intelligence agency) manipulations in endless iterations (most recently by the USA & Israel.)

In the so-called ‘international law’ (a Western developed concept) Azerbaijan is allowed an Azerbaijani majority exclave, Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, separated by the territory of Armenia, but Armenia is NOT allowed an Armenian majority exclave, Nagorno-Karabakh, separated by the territory of Azerbaijan. Common sense calls this hypocrisy. Common people adhere to common sense and the Armenian common sense is cynically exploited in Ottoman imperial style geopolitical machinations:

So, what would be the point of common sense (a gift of our creator) in the view of those who propose to rule us? I doubt they could answer this question in any sensible (read honest) way for the fact there is no sensible or (especially) altruistic justification of the preceding. Any honest answer would have to take in account incompetence, greed & political-cultural narcissism (imperial arrogance) often prohibits the de facto right of self determination of peoples, any pretensions of decolonization at the United Nations notwithstanding.

In light of the preceding, just suppose (a laughable fantasy) the West were to take up Russia on an offer to repeat the plebiscite in Crimea with international observers; a plebiscite is the most democratic of all democratic principles. The obvious outcome would be (and why the ‘democratic’ West would never agree to this proposition) Crimeans would overwhelmingly (again) exercise their right of self determination to join the Russian Federation. Furthermore, the whole (majority ethnic Russian) East of Ukraine might then demand equal right to determine its own future and wellah, suddenly Putin’s Russian borders extend West to the Dnieper River. The Western states insistence Crimea remain a part of Ukraine is a case of the West maintaining a stance of ‘democracy for me, but not for thee.’

Meanwhile, the crude Spanish judicial system (dominated by judges aligned with the Popular Party, a political legacy of Franco) has jailed and continues to bring to trial those Catalan separatists who dared do what? They held a plebiscite (that most democratic of all democratic principles) to separate Catalonia from Spain (a state that has historically treated the Catalans as lackeys only fit to lick the Spanish boot.)

To keep this short, we’ll jump to Kosovo; where the Western states (NATO & the EU) has determined Serbia is not fit to govern a minority (of ethnic Albanians) on their own territory but the now purported (by the West) independent Kosovo is fit to govern a minority (of ethnic Serbs.) Never mind the inconvenient fact that recent Kosovo ‘leaders’ are being arrested and delivered to international tribunal for crimes against ethnic Serbs (includes organ harvesting), also not to mention the 250,000 Serbs driven from Kosovo in an ethnic cleansing pogrom following the NATO bombing of Serbia. Hey! Isn’t that just the sort of act the bombing was supposed to stop? NATO ‘just allowed’ that to happen when they’d grabbed control? Huh. Maybe that Albanian ‘majority’ wasn’t statistically big enough to justify an independent Kosovo (and secure Kosovo a ‘right’ to host Camp Bondsteel.)

All of this follows on a few historical facts overlooked by the Western propaganda machine; Eastern Orthodoxy’s majority Serbian population in the region of Srpska Krajina recently (90s Balkan Wars) ethnically cleansed from Catholic Croatia by “Operation Storm” (never mind the Serbs have been made the boogeyman for everything that went wrong with the breakup of Yugoslavia), as well the fact unnatural ethnic borders have been enforced in relation to Republik Srpska, ensuring there will be ongoing tensions within Bosnia on the border of Serbia and not least, the remnant Serb majority region in the North of Kosovo is denied their right of self determination to join with Serbia, ensuring perpetual inter-ethnic conflict that serves only to weaken the institutions of state via ongoing radicalization of both populations, Orthodox Christian Serb and Muslim Albanian. Europe couldn’t do a better job of promoting a war of civilizations if it had actually tried, if one were to presume it is mere incompetence derived from ego-narcissism has birthed this circumstance into the present. But maybe it is more than that, a weakened state with artificial borders is ‘low hanging fruit’ posing possibility of consolidating control over a region culturally tied to Russia (as well historically coveted by the Catholic headquarters at Rome.)

Finally, it must be noted that, similar to the Sioux Indians had founded their culture upon a spiritual relationship to the Black Hills of South Dakota from which they had been expelled, Serbia’s relationship to “Old Serbia” (Kosovo) is little different; but imperial ambition had seen the Serbs ethnically cleansed by the Albanians on multiple occasions, first under the ‘patronage’ of the Ottoman Turks, then the Albanians were backed in further pursuing pogroms against Serbs by the fascist Axis powers of World War II (similar to Croatian Ustasha persecution of Serbs during the war) and finally a coup de grace of sorts was delivered by communism under Tito, who forbade ethnic Serbs to return to their homes in Kosovo following 1945. [1]

The epilogue to all of this would be the colonizing of Serbia by the European Union at the point of a gun:

saint hoax dresses political leaders for war drags you out

^ Ursula von der Leyen

Maybe the title of this piece should have been ‘Recolonization.’

*

“In any democracy, ethics, self restraint, tolerance & honesty will always take a second seat to narcissism, avarice, bigotry & persecution, if only because people who play by the rules in any democracy are at a disadvantage to those who easily subvert the rules to their own advantage” (Ronald’s Maxim)

*

[1] https://archive.li/r64Og

This book review is reproduced for my Australian readers, particularly, but is recommended for everybody. The simple fact this review is banned in Australia gives added credence to the exposé it covers; the excellent journalism of John Helmer debunking the MH-17 (state sponsored) disinformation campaign cooked up by liberal democracies in the geopolitical game demonizing Russia. Originally found at John Helmer’s site. Reproduced with permission.

*

By Evan Jones, Sydney
@bears_with

The MH17 was brought down over six years ago. John Helmer, with others, has compiled a book on the farce that has attended the pursuit of cause and culprits. Australia’s involvement is peculiarly both integral and marginal.

Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was brought down over Eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014. All 298 people on board lost their lives – including 196 Dutch, 43 Malaysians and 38 Australian.

Overseen by the Dutch, a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) was established in August 2014, formally comprising personnel from the Netherlands. Ukraine, Australia and Belgium. Malaysia itself was not admitted to the JIT until late November, reputedly because of  its scepticism towards the Ukrainian version of the cause of the shoot-down and who was responsible.

Before anybody had inspected the site, that line was that Russia and/or pro-Russian rebels against Kiev did it. The weapon was a Buk ground-to-air missile, the launcher brought in from Russia and returned after the dirty deed.

The JIT investigation and Dutch court case is effectively a Dutch-Ukrainian affair. As Helmer et.al (henceforth Helmer) note, Ukraine possesses the  ‘right as a JIT member to veto what is investigated, what is disclosed, who to convict’ (Ch.6). Belgium  (4 nationals dead) is out of picture. Australia is both inside and outside the tent.

Site material reclaimed is partial, and evidence is spotty. Ukrainian air traffic control data have not been released. However, two forms of evidence, Australian-linked, appears to be atypically decisive, at least in a negative sense.

Helmer (Ch.6): ‘Two reports by Australian coronial investigators, David Ranson, a pathologist from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM) and Iain West, deputy coroner for the state of Victoria, have revealed the cause of death of the victims, ruling out shrapnel from an exploding Buk missile warhead. The first Ranson-West report, released in November 2014, [is outlined] here. A second report, eight pages in length and written by Ranson, followed a month later. This was sent to the Victorian State Coroner, Judge Ian Gray. …

‘To date, the consensus identification of the external blast source is a point to the left of the aircraft, forward of the left wing. … The record by [Dutch pathologist George] Maat’s Australian team members at [Dutch military base] Hilversum is that no Buk detonation could have taken place without filling the bodies of passengers on the left (port), forward side of the cabin, but the evidence of the bodies shows this didn’t happen.’

The Ranson report was released to victims’ families, discussed with the Australian Federal Police, and to select others. Ranson and West also spoke on the matter at the Asia-Pacific Coroners Society Conference in Melbourne on 14 November. However the material has subsequently been classified. Why?

The sister of the Malaysian MH17 pilot went to Halversum to inspect her brother’s body. She claimed that (Ch.8) ‘she had seen a film of his body and had been told by investigators there were no shrapnel or bullet wounds’. Her response was deflected in the Dutch media.

The Abbott government was in place. Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop had a priori opinions on whodunnit (Chs.8 & 9). In early November, Abbott claimed: ‘“We were given very strong security advice [that is, from the Americans] in the days following the atrocity as to the type of weapon, as to the place from where the weapon was fired and as to the likely prominence of the weapon and there’s been nothing since then to question that original security advice.”’

Their interests ran contrary to the information that Coroner Gray had in his possession. Abbott, titular Rhodes Scholar, had trouble reconciling his will, impetuous, with the forensic evidence produced by Australian specialists.

According to former Army officer James Brown in 2016, Abbott had initially offered to send Australian troops to control the crash site. Brown is Malcolm Turnbull’s son-in-law and apparent conduit for Turnbull’s exposé of Cabinet activity. Abbott then willingly brought Australia into an American-hatched idea to send Dutch and Australian troops (of which 3,000) into Eastern Ukraine (Ch.18), with logistic support from others. Germany said it’s not on; the Dutch then said it’s unrealistic. But Abbott had the Australian military and security establishment in knots even after the potential European partners had pulled the plug.

Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister in September 2015, bringing his own brand of ambiguity to the fog. Turnbull promised the victims’ families action to find and prosecute those responsible, wanted to blame the Russians, yet was more circumspect than Abbott. Turnbull declined to issue certification as to the crash’s cause that would open the way for the Australian government to pay compensation to the families under the Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas Act.

There was another source of dissidence from Australian specialists. The Dutch Safety Board, officially responsible for investigations, had quickly (with Ukrainian and American governments’ support) attributed the aircraft’s demise to a Buk missile. Yet the senior figure in the Australian contingent, the AFP’s Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghue, urged caution. Helmer notes (Ch.14), citing Donoghue before a Victorian Coroners Court hearing 15 December 2015, ‘“initial information that the aircraft was shot down by a [Buk] surface to air missile” did not meet the Australian or international standard of evidence’.

In court, the forensic pathologist repeated conclusions contained in his late 2014 reports that no ‘distinctive pre-formed’ metal fragments had been found in the two CT scans of the Australian victim bodies.

Donoghue also noted that, courtesy of secret Australian government negotiations with Novorussian leaders, his Australian team had belatedly gained access to the crash site, in the face of Ukrainian government-enforced restrictions. Donoghue reported that some potential witnesses who had come forward refused to testify unless provided protection from Kiev reprisals.

Bizarrely, Deputy Coroner West’s judgment defied the evidence before him from Donoghue and Ranson, claiming that the Dutch Safety Board had it right in determining that a Russian Buk missile had caused the MH17’s destruction. This in spite of the fact that West’s name is attached to the first Ranson report of November 2014 which (with the second December report) notes the absence of metal fragments in the bodies that a Buk missile warhead would have produced.

In March 2017, then Attorney General George Brandis delivered to Prime Minister Turnbull advice that there remains (Helmer) ‘insufficient evidence of what and who caused the MH17 crash to meet the Australian statutory test of a terrorist act’ (Ch.21). Apart from attribution of guilt to culprits, there is the necessity to prove malicious intent.

Several days previously, the Ukrainian government (Helmer) ‘had applied to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to convict Russia of financing, arming and aiding terrorist acts, including the destruction of MH17’. Australian legal opinion thus undermined the Ukrainian government’s move, as well as the Joint Investigation Team’s renewed claim in September 2016 (Ch.18) that the Russians and the Ukrainian rebels reliant on them were responsible. The Dutch and Ukrainians aren’t listening.

Yet Turnbull continued to publicly blame Russia. On 5 March, the Sydney Morning Herald reported Turnbull, in the context of a stoush with Senator Pauline Hanson, thus:

‘But Mr Turnbull said there was no doubt Russia was involved in the 2014 “murder”. “Vladimir Putin’s Russia is subject to international sanctions, to which Australia is a part, because of his conduct in shooting down the MH17 airliner in which 38 Australians were killed. Let’s not forget that,” he said. “That was a shocking international crime. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is not, and should not be, an object of admiration in any respect.”’

Turnbull was wearing two hats – one as lawyer, the other as politician.

Part Three of Helmer’s book (‘The standard of proof’) is devoted to the Dutch prosecutor’s absence of proof. Part Four is devoted to the trial of four accused individuals – three Russians and a Ukrainian – amidst disdain for the absence of proof, involving  a travesty of Dutch law itself.

The farcical character of the proceedings has been ignored in the Australian media. The  Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) is representative.

The  SMH did report (8  March 2020) the disgust of the Russian Ambassador to Australia at the lack of evidence for the ‘official’ accusations of Russian guilt.

The  SMH also gave voice to one Jerry Skinner (27  May 2018), an American lawyer, flamboyantly seeking victim family clients to sue first Malaysia then the innately evil Russians for their murderous act. Skinner claims to have ‘helped negotiate $2.7 billion from the Libyan government to compensate families  of victims of the Lockerbie air disaster’. Given that the Libyans were not responsible for this atrocity (see Helmer’s Ch.25), Skinner’s talents are evidently remarkable. Helmer deals with Skinner and his litigious law firm in Chs.16 & 23.

The bulk of  SMH coverage of the MH17 crash and the investigatory and legal aftermath has been carried by successive London-based correspondents Nick Miller  and Bevan Shields. Miller and Shields have dutifully repeated the Western correct line without deviation.

What and who to believe? The detached Australian might ask, how could Dutch authorities be engaged in skulduggery? Aren’t the Dutch a decent and progressive people?

Well not quite. As is noted of the MH17 book’s co-author: Max van der Werff, he ‘began his career as a citizen journalist investigating the torture of civilians by the Dutch colonial administration during the Indonesian war for independence’.

As legal academic  Ramses Wessels reported  in 2008, the Netherlands opportunistically abandoned its previous neutrality in joining NATO in 1949. Wessels notes: ‘During the Cold War, the Netherlands proved  to be an active and loyal member of the Alliance, which allowed for a much larger role in international affairs than its size would justify.’ Ah, punching above their weight – where have we heard that before?

The Netherlands continues its allegiance to what has become, following the fall of the Soviet Union, a transparently criminal organisation.

As for the economy, the opportunistic Netherlands has probably been the second biggest beneficiary after Germany of the European Union and its exploitative hierarchy. Not content with its perennial trade surplus, the Netherlands has turned itself into a tax  haven at the heart of the EU (documented meticulously by Gabriel Zucman), that status becoming particularly attractive to trans-border European companies (such as Airbus and Peugeot/Fiat).

In short, predictably, the Netherlands has no principles, only interests. And thus it is with the MH17 show trial.

In the meantime, the victims’ families are treated as mere pawns in a brutal revamping of the Cold War, with the post-coup Ukraine dictating terms via the seemingly respectable Dutch court system. It is a phenomenon beneath contempt. You’ll have to read Helmer et.al because you won’t read about it in the Australian MSM.

[*] This review has been banned from publication in Australia.

Left, Associate Professor Evan Jones is a retired political economist, based in Sydney. He taught at the University of Sydney from 1973 until 2006. Right, click to read the book.

So, Navalny’s Soros worshiping clique is asserting he has been poisoned. Immediately a plane is dispatched from Germany to snatch his body (lingering with a bit of inconvenient life) or better said, ‘rescue’ a gravely ill man from the nefarious Russian state; invoking the ghosts of Litvinenko, Nemtsov (oops, he was shot, not poisoned), and Skripal.

What do all of the above share in common?

1) None of them were in any sense a threat to Putin or the Russian state, in short, all of them had either outlived their usefulness (Litvinenko, Skripal) or never lived up to the expectations (Nemtsov, Navalny) of the West’s propaganda machine (read manipulations by foreign intelligence agencies.)

2) All of them become more useful to the West’s propaganda machine when dead, rather than appearing increasingly impotent, or irrelevant, while alive. How? Their deaths can be blamed on EVIL PUTIN!

Now, before we delve into the unthinkable, let’s (merely for the sake of argument) all rollover and assume Navalny has been poisoned. But not necessarily by the Russian state.

What?! If you have no conscience or soul (a prime ‘talent’ for those waging clandestine warfare via assassinations on behalf of the state) or simply ‘believe’ a wrong can be made into a right (along the lines of thinking ‘Navalny will never pull a color revolution off in Russia, but if Putin ‘poisons’ him, and this helped the West, no doubt he’d understand’ (you know, the future debriefing of Navalny in a WASP/Catholic chapter of Heaven that more or less excludes the Orthodox albeit with ‘chosen’ Soros sponsored exceptions.)

To demonstrate the pure hypocrisy of the West pointing to Putin and the ‘Russian regime’ as ‘poisoners’ one need look no farther than Western intelligence agencies own enraged idiots that cannot keep their mouths shut, this ‘gem’ of an example came in the wake of the Snowden revelations:

“…a US Army Intelligence Officer stated to Buzzfeed: “I think if we had the chance, we would end it very quickly.” [USA intelligence would like to find Snowden] “Just casually walking on the streets of Moscow, coming back from buying his groceries. Going back to his flat and he is casually poked by a passerby. He thinks nothing of it at the time starts to feel a little woozy and thinks it’s a parasite from the local water. He goes home very innocently and next thing you know he dies in the shower.” [1]

Now, if perennial color revolution non-threat Navalny risks looking ultimately impotent (he’d been at it too long with too little result) and would serve the interests of empire better if suddenly dead, and indeed he had been poisoned, probably the Russian state should be the last suspect. So, if it wasn’t Putin, who was it? News for you Kira Yarmysh, Ivan Zhdanov, Leonid Volkov, Cinema for Peace, Pussy Riot and countless other manipulated  stooges, chances are that Navalny, if actually poisoned, was hit by Western intelligence for the fact he was ineffective and therefor ‘transitioned’ from a useless idiot into a useful dead idiot. That thought brings up a bit of recent news:

“A minister has revealed real James Bonds can now eliminate enemies in countries other than war zones.

“Defence minister Annabel Goldie was asked if UK agents target foes “located in non-belligerent states”

“She replied: “The Government may draw on wide a range of tools including lethal force where there is no other effective option” [2]

There you go; United Kingdom had just gone on record as authorizing its intelligence agencies to carry out assassinations in Russia (among other countries.) Meanwhile Putin doesn’t need (or want) the negative publicity of another murder falsely pinned on his ‘regime’, for ‘edification’ in these matters, check out the alternative Skripal narratives, there’s plenty of credible investigators with sites proposing and/or developing evidence refuting the official line. [3], [4], [5], [6]

News for all of you Soros wannabe color revolutionaries, if you think Bernard Émié, Alex Younger, Gina Haspel, Bruno Kahl, Yossi Cohen, or any of the rest of the Western intelligence heads, actually care so much as a rat’s ass about people like Navalny, you’re as dumb as anything has ever set foot in God’s creation. If Navalny were convertible from a color revolution useless idiot to a Western intelligence propaganda operation’s useful dead idiot, to better serve the agenda of Western intelligence, that’s exactly what he’d be, a useful dead idiot. It is not only perfectly plausible that’s what happened to Litvinenko, Skripal, and if poisoned, now Navalny, it is actually far more likely Western intelligence did it than any likelihood these morons had been hit by the Russian state.

Alexey Navalny 2017.jpg

^ the look of mental hemorrhoids 

Follow-up article on Navalny: The Hoax Call

 

[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bennyjohnson/americas-spies-want-edward-snowden-dead

[2] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/britains-real-life-007s-licence-22527547

[3] http://johnhelmer.net/

[4] https://patrickarmstrong.ca/

[5] http://www.theblogmire.com/

[6] https://gordonhahn.com/

20 February 2021 update: “We’ll have herd immunity by April” by Dr. Makary, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health –

Вирусолог Павел Волчков

^ Geneticist Pavel Volchkov

“The intelligence services of the United States and Russia are essentially at war” -Dmitri Trenin, Colonel, GRU (retired)

There is little reason to believe Covid 19 would not be subject to the intelligence agency driven propaganda wars between the Western democracies and Russia & China. For those who’ve studied the Western propaganda method, it is clear the Edward Bernays’ ideal has triumphed on behalf of corporate boardrooms. In short, ‘public relations’ (media) is suborned to the sole benefit of the capital/corporate model. Western intelligence has become heavily invested in preserving what the USA calls its ‘vital national interests’, a euphemism for Western corporate control of the world’s resources and markets. All of this plays in the model envisioned by Bernays (pervasive lying to the public while incorporating principles of psychology), refined and applied to the modern media with a robust assist from the USA’s Central Intelligence (to which the NATO and European states intelligence agencies are practically feudal vassals.) From Carl Bernstein’s “CIA and the Media” in 1977, to the more recent confession of Udo Ulfkotte in his 2014 book “Bought Journalists: How Politicians, Intelligence Agencies and High Finance Control Germany’s Mass Media”, it is demonstrated Western media has (for many decades) been taking prepared script from Central Intelligence and ‘friends.’ No matter the light Bernstein (who folded back into mainstream, Wikipedia avoids directing readers to his 1977 work) or Ulfkotte (who found his audience in the German right) might be cast in now, both parties are/were veteran mainstream media personalities and their claims are credible.

Russian propaganda (I’ve not studied the Chinese method), on the other hand, recognizes Western media is so corrupt, the Russians need only more or less stick to the facts when reporting, to convince intelligent people their news platform is the superior model and ‘go to’ source to discover what is actually happening. Where the story might have ‘inconveniences’ that must be dealt with, the preferred Russian method is to initiate what I call ‘the flip’ (related to ‘lies by omission.’) Misleading, under-reporting is the result. Time to time, this becomes a quite notable event, where the Russian propaganda method skews things along (somewhat goes along with) the Western story-line; to neutralize the demonization employed by the Western intelligence (modified Bernays) model. When the Russians run with a Western propaganda lie, in order to ‘flip’ it, it usually is a ‘whopper’ (a really big lie.) A contemporary example of this would be the Russians allowing the patently fraudulent Dutch Buk missile story to gain traction at Sputnik & RT because the Russians have solid evidence that particular missile was in the possession of Ukraine when MH 17 was downed. That the Ukrainians (independently of the MH 17 downing) exploded that missile to create false evidence and blame Russia is not a story (argument) the Russians are interested in. The Russian propaganda approach (flip) is ‘if you want to claim that missile brought down MH 17, fine, we have the original Soviet era paperwork showing Ukraine possessed it’ (never mind all parties know it was a Ukrainian Air Force SU 25 combat jet brought down the civilian passenger plane.)

With the Covid 19 epidemic, there may be emerging evidence of a similar approach; where Russia to now has more or less played along with the West’s propaganda game (and ‘flipped’ it with high profile technical & humanitarian aid, e.g. to Italy) concerning the Covid epidemic rather than open up to be overtly demonized. But now Sweden and a particular (very well accredited) Russian virologist/geneticist may have thrown a bit of a monkey wrench into the propaganda machine’s gears. Follows is the Russian online magazine Izvestia interview that goes counter to all of the hysteria we see generated elsewhere. So, what are the real facts? Will there be a second Covid 19 wave? Do people lose their Covid immunity? These are valid questions.

**

Izvestia: Based on the fact that 20% of people with antibodies to coronavirus were officially recorded in Moscow, we can safely assume that 40-60% of the capital’s residents already have immunity to it, Pavel Volchkov, head of the MIPT genomic engineering laboratory, told Izvestia in an exclusive interview. This means that there will be no second wave of morbidity in the capital, the expert is sure. In addition, the virologist shared his views on exactly how the COVID-19 pandemic began. He is leaning towards the laboratory-origin version of SARS-CoV-2.

Izvestia: Pavel Yuryevich, from your point of view, how many people in Moscow already have immunity to SARS-CoV-2?

Volchkov : Recently, an article was published by Swedish scientists who conducted a study of T-cell immunity (“Sustainable T-cell immunity in recovering patients with the asymptomatic COVID-19 course”), the results of which I personally had long been waiting for. They analyzed a large number of biological samples by conducting an expensive ELISPOT analysis (Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSpot – T-cell detection method). It turned out that even those who did not have IgG antibodies had T-cell immunity. And there are two to three times more such people in the population than those with antibodies.

Izvestia: What does it mean?

Volchkov: If in Moscow [it is] officially recorded 20% of people with high titers of IgG antibodies, then you can safely add another 20-40% to this figure. It turns out that about half of Moscow residents are immune to coronavirus. They will not get sick anymore.

Izvestia: Recently, articles appeared that showed that antibodies are lost …

Volchkov: And that’s fine. They must be lost. This always happens. There is a half-life of IgG, IgM, IgA antibodies. Their amount in the blood begins to fall six months to a year after meeting with the infection. There are so few of them that this amount cannot be detected by any test. What is the purpose of antibodies? Here the virus flew into the respiratory tract, infected a group of cells, created a small local focus (with a mild course of the disease). The immune system recognized these cells and localized them – it is like the city of Wuhan was closed in China. It turns out that a large number of antibodies do not seem to exist, but the immunity has formed and worked. However, it is concentrated in T- and B-memory cells. When the infection again is exposed to a person, the immune system recognizes it, the cells will begin to produce antibodies.

Izvestia: Does it make sense then to test for IgG antibodies?

Volchkov: It does. This test is cheap and gives us a cutoff. This cut-off now is 20%. So we can multiply this amount by two to three times. It’s hard to say the exact number, for this you need to conduct a large-scale study using expensive ELISPOT analysis, as the Swedes did.

Izvestia: Is it possible to say that the ‘herd’ immunity that everyone has been talking about for so long has already taken shape in Moscow?

Volchkov: For the multi-million population city, today’s figures in the region of 700 new infected per day indicate that it has formed. If we really had only 20% of the residents with immunity, then with open restaurants and shops, we would expect a much larger number of infected people.

Izvestia: But after all, on this figure (+700 people per day) you can maintain for a long time. Or not? What is your prediction?

Volchkov: I think this figure will now begin to decline and will reach zero at the end of August. It is clear that in the capital for a long time there will be imported cases from regions that belatedly began to ‘pick up’ the coronavirus.

Izvestia: That is, the second wave will not happen?

Volchkov: For Moscow, it is already impossible. Now people who have formed natural immunity in the capital are 40-60%. If the dynamics continues, their number will increase by the end of August to 80–90%.

Izvestia: And in other cities of Russia, the second wave is possible?

Volchkov: Only in those that are well insulated and where there is an extremely low level of infection. In big cities, definitely not. If you have already burned the grass, then the burned-out areas cannot be ignited again. Do you know how firefighters fight fire? They take and burn the front of the strip to stop the fire. This strip is our buffer immunity.

Izvestia: But what about the fact that the virus mutates and the body may simply not recognize it?

Volchkov: In any case, it does not mutate very quickly. Even the seasonal flu virus needs several years to re-infect you. And then in the event that part of its segments, and the flu has eight, will be re-sorted, that is, replaced by parts from another influenza virus. Coronavirus is single-segment – it cannot change that way.

Izvestia: But can it recombine?

Volchkov: Maybe. But this event is more rare. It must take at least a couple of years for it to be able to return and cause you some kind of pathology. And still it will not be comparable to the first time. The immune system at least somehow recognizes it, which means it [the immunity] will work. A secondary immune response will develop.

Izvestia: The war of supporters of the natural and artificial origin of the coronavirus continues on the pages of the media, on social networks and blogs. What can you say at the moment when so many articles about its structure have been published?

Volchkov: I came to the conclusion that the probability of the virus overcoming the inter-species barrier without human help [accidental eating of a bat carrier SARS-CoV-2] is significantly less than the one that it had help. By help, I mean prolonged cultivation of the virus in the laboratory, the introduction of amino acid modifications, experiments to infect human cells if possible. All this is described in the famous article of 2015 [Nature magazine, November 9, 2015]. In favor of this hypothesis is also the location of the city of Wuhan.

Izvestia: How is that in your thinking?

Volchkov: Wuhan is located in the very center of China. Bats are not found there. They live in the south, in Yunnan, on the border with Vietnam. It was there that they were caught to isolate new coronaviruses, which are now stored in the collection of the Wuhan laboratory. Although theoretically it can be assumed that they were brought thousands of kilometers to eat.

Izvestia: But it is possible?

Volchkov: Yes, perhaps. But in practice, traditional cuisine is considered traditional because its menu contains local species of animals. If the virus ‘jumped’ onto a person when it was eaten, it would be found in Yunnan, on the border with Vietnam, Laos and Myanmar. From there the epidemic would have spread.

Izvestia: Speaking about the origin of SARS-CoV-2, you can only consider probabilities?

Volchkov: I’m afraid so. In the [genome] sequence it is not written: ‘I am made synthetically.’ There are no obvious ‘donkey ears’ – traces of a genetic engineering structure. But there is a hint of it. This is the famous furin insert, about which much has already been said.

Izvestia: But could it find itself in the genome of the virus during recombination?”

Volchkov: It could. However, the likelihood of this event greatly increases, provided that you create thousands of amino acid mutations. And the fact that American and Chinese scientists did this is proved by the 2015 article. If you look at the publications of these scientific groups, it becomes clear that they are very active, have worked with these viruses for a long time. In addition, the Chinese have a large library of coronaviruses, where the most genetically close sample of RatG13 has been discovered. It was brought to the Wuhan Institute of Virology from Yunnan in 2013. For seven years, when it was cultivated, passivated, it could naturally acquire a large number of mutations. In addition, science has made great progress in this regard over the past 10 years. We live in an era of synthetic biology, when you can synthesize some parts de novo, and then ensure a seamless insertion of such a synthetic part into the genome.

Izvestia: That is, 10 years ago, you would definitely say, looking at the genome, what is inserted there?

Volchkov: Exactly. And now there are technologies of extended genetic synthesis, when thousands of nucleotides can be synthesized. You simply send the letter sequence to a special company that synthesizes it and sends it back. The possibilities are huge now. In this way, whole libraries of new coronaviruses can be generated. Suppose there are 10 million of them there. And then you can choose the most promising one from them, assemble it using the reverse genetics method and test for the ability to infect human cells.

Izvestia: That is, from your point of view, the probability that the virus has leaked from the laboratory is quite high?

Volchkov: Yes. An argument in this favor is also that coronaviruses were not considered particularly dangerous for some time. And it was possible to work with them at the second level of protection [there are four of them, the third and fourth levels, according to the American classification, are especially dangerous. – Izvestia]. Actually, this is understandable, because the initially isolated viruses could not pass from an animal to a person to overcome the inter-species barrier and, accordingly, from person to person.

Izvestia: That is exactly what was affirmed at the very beginning of the pandemic …

Volchkov: At the second level of protection, it could easily fly out and infect the scientist. And what’s important: it’s impossible to see right away. The funny thing is that the one who brought this virus out of the laboratory did not even understand that they did it. And still may not understand to now.

The original Russian language interview with geneticist Pavel Volchkov at Izvestia:

https://iz.ru/1031582/anna-urmantceva/vtoraia-volna-dlia-moskvy-uzhe-nevozmozhna

An aside: insofar as freedom of press is concerned, something so straightforward with counter-narrative as the preceding interview in what amounts to Russian ‘mainstream’ news would NEVER pass muster and go to press in the Western corporate media.

Tip of the hat to John Helmer –

Further reading:

1) https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/covid-19/

2) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/stockman-clown-cars-are-fully-loaded-and-dr-faucis-leading-parade

 

%d bloggers like this: