Denis Rancourt, who has a PhD in physics and was a professor at the University of Ottowa, studied all-cause-mortality data to show there have been about seventeen million deaths as a result of official COVID-19 measures, but not from COVID, which is a lie. He criticized western medicine as a vehicle for control that creates illness and death. Rancourt explains a science of psychological murder that was used during the COVID pandemic. Trauma based mind control research shows that the CIA and our governments are aware of the deadly effects that traumatizing a population can induce. They are killing us with fear and trauma.
Denis Rancourt has a PhD in Physics, he is a former tenured Full Professor, and has published over one hundred articles in leading science journals. Rancourt and his team have used all-cause-mortality data to prove there have been about seventeen million deaths as a result of official COVID-19 measures, but not from Covid, which was a lie.
As far as I can tell, from the all cause mortality data that we've been studying extensively for a long time, there's no such thing as a viral respiratory pandemic. (Denis Rancourt)
There was no pandemic in the sense that there was not a particularly virulent new pathogen that was spreading and causing death. That is not what happened. What happened was huge assaults against vulnerable people by many different methods. And every time you did that, you caused excess mortality. In all the countries where they were not doing that, there was absolutely no excess mortality, even if it was a jurisdiction that was right beside the one that was doing this. (Denis Rancourt)
Rancourt explains a science of psychological murder that has been officially studied and documented for well over a century. It wasn’t just the spike protein that killed us, it was the whole damn thing.
Psychological stress and social isolation are dominant determinants of an individual's health that causes a suppression of your immune system. And you're going to get some kind of infection, cancer, heart disease. And very often the lungs are very exposed to the environments and they're subjected to all the bacteria that you live with all the time. You get bacterial pneumonia and it's a huge killer when a society is stressed, meaning all of its individuals are stressed. The kind of psychological stress that kills you is when you're entire world is turned upside down. Your whole life you thought you had a place in the world and it's gone. That will kill you within a very short time.
We always occupy a dominance hierarchy, a social dominance hierarchy. That is how we organize our societies because we are social animals. It is a fundamental truth of how we organize societies. The stress that is intended to keep you in your place within that dominance hierarchy is an everyday chronic stress, and the stressors have to keep changing how they're going to stress you because you get habituated to the stress. So they have to randomly hit you with hard things every once in a while to really make sure you understand what your place is. That stress is one of the biggest determinants of health.
But we have to admit that medicine itself is a massive killer. It's a massive cause of premature death of individuals. (Denis Rancourt)
Modern Western medicine is officially recognized as the third highest cause of death. It was designed to be a way of controlling the population.
It was designed to be a way of controlling the population. The role of medicine as an institution in our society is to maintain the dominance hierarchy, is to keep people sick and to put them in their place. It's just part of that institutionally. (Denis Rancourt)
Financed by the Carnegie Foundation and published in 1910, the Flexner report was used to outlaw natural medicine practices in America. The Rockefeller foundation then funded a new kind of medicine. An inverted form of heath care that utilized petrochemical drugs and experimental surgery to keep people sick, and in many cases, kill the patient. As Denis Rancourt has pointed out, this is how societies have been run for centuries.
A de-classified document entitled, “Geomagnetic Factors In Spontaneous Subjective Telepathic, Precognitive And Postmortem Experiences”, as well as decades of Trauma Based Mind Control research, shows us that the CIA and our governments are well aware of the deadly effects that traumatizing a population can induce. They are killing us with fear and trauma.
Mass mental illness is running amok across the world, and German scientist Dr. Michael Nehls offers some interesting insights as to why.Author of “The Indoctrinated Brain,” Dr. Nehls appeared with Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, on an episode of the “Health Ranger Report” to discuss the matter further.
In the following video, Dr. Nehls unpacks what he has learned over the past several decades in his studies on the human brain and how the globalist “elite” are exploiting it.
“I was seeing the attack on the human brain indirectly by the health policy of the last decades,” Dr. Nehls explained.
“But what we have observed in 2020 and even worse with the mRNA injection program in 2021 when it started, it became totally clear that this is a real major attack on the human mental immune system.”
Be sure to watch the full video below to see the entire interview:
(Related: One major way the globalists have taken control of people’s minds and bodies in recent years involves COVID “vaccines,” which are causing recipients to develop major personality changes – are COVID jabs genetically modifying human DNA, turning people into walking, talking GMOs?)
Humans no longer able to think due to attack on human mental immune system
While the attack on the human brain has been an ongoing operation for many years, it really ramped up with the onset of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) “pandemic.”
For the first time in recent history, people everywhere bought the lie that a scary “virus” was circulating that required them to stay at home in fear, cut off their friends and family members, and take chemical injection after chemical injection to stay “safe.”
COVID and the Operation Warp Speed “vaccine” campaign that accompanied it successfully disengaged most people’s brains, causing them to let down their guard and just believe whatever the “authorities” told them.
In order to survive as a species, humans must engage their mental immune system in a healthy and constructive way, which is many ways is no longer possible since humanity is under attack by an increasingly evil global governance system that disrespects human autonomy and strips people of the fruits of their labor.
It has become a situation where it no longer makes sense to even try, at least not to the degree that natural instinct would dictate, because doing so becomes an exercise in futility.
At the start of our lives, the human brain is filled with wonder and possibility about the future. The brain’s immune system coordinates with the rest of the body’s immune system to facilitate cooperation between the gut and brain.
That cooperative arrangement is under attack by all sorts of things, including not just COVID jabs and other childhood “vaccines” but also 5G and other related wireless technology, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food supply, brain-damaging media programming, and rampant corruption both in the public and private sectors that keeps humanity enslaved in a matrix of braindead existence from which there is no apparent escape.
Add to the mix the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and the replacement of the human brain with computers and robots and the situation becomes even more dire. Are humans still relevant, so to speak, or have the globalists rendered all their peasants redundant and obsolete?
Dr. Nehls believes that there are solutions that have the ability to “unblock” neurogenesis in the brain, allowing people to once again utilize their full brain power. Have a watch above to learn more about his ideas.
You will also find the latest news about the mass brainwashing of the global population into forced acceptance of global totalitarianism at Propaganda.news.
(NOTE: Full Lengthy Article attached, but Mercola’s site retains articles for only 48 hours, and this information is important)
California’s Misinformation Epidemic Pt. 1
I recently had the pleasure of getting to know one of my favorite pseudonymous writers on Substack who goes by ‘A Midwestern Doctor.’ This powerful essay needs as wide exposure as possible.
From The Forgotten Side of Medicine Substack, this essay brilliantly details the history, current state, and future of the criminal control of information, corruption of science, and coercion of the public in regards to vaccines. I consider it an honor to host this essay for my subscribers.
When I was younger, a friend who was a corporate executive told me about “tiger teams,” an approach industry would utilize to solve a complex problem facing them or to develop a plan for achieving a long-term strategic goal. After he vividly described the tenacity with which they attacked their problem, I realized large corporations could be expected to conduct highly strategic and Machiavellian plans over long timelines that would be difficult for anyone but the most talented observer to spot.
Since that time, I’ve also come to appreciate how most businessmen and their industries will default to reusing tools that have previously proven themselves for addressing each new problem that emerges. As a result, once you learn what each of the tools are, it becomes possible to predict each of the sequential steps a tiger team will choose to accomplish its goals.
Since I have held a long-term interest in the politics of vaccination, I have been able to witness the sequential steps that played out first in California and then throughout the nation. What I still find remarkable about these events was how each one directly enabled the subsequent event, and that in many cases, what happened subsequently had previously been promised to never come to pass.
Given everything that I have observed, I am almost certain one or more tiger teams working for the vaccine industry chose to have California be the means through which to accomplish their goal of regular mandatory vaccinations for the entire American population.
At this moment, a highly unpopular law that prevents physicians from spreading “misinformation“ by questioning any orthodox perspective on COVID-19 is awaiting the governor’s signature, and if this law passes, it will likely be disastrous for the nation as additional jurisdictions adopt it.
The purpose of this article will be to discuss exactly what brought us to the point a law like that could be on the verge of passing and the important insights that can be taken from the entire process.
The “Truth”
Throughout human history, one of the most valuable commodities has always been ownership over the “truth,” as so much power and profit results from holding a truth that aligns with your vested interests. Once larger societies formed, determining “truth,“ was always a key societal need, and excluding a few enlightened societies, the method of determining truth normally evolved as follows:
Might makes right.
Judging the preponderance of evidence.
A growing, and eventually unsustainable corruption of most “evidence.”
In many ways, forcing two opposing viewpoints to present their evidence and then having the appropriate parties determine which side presented the preponderance of evidence and thus “wins” is the best solution our species has developed for settling otherwise irreconcilable differences of opinion.
Unfortunately, as our times have shown, the natural response to having our society place a heavy weight on “evidence” is to have dishonest parties “win,” not by being on the side with the best evidence, but rather by buying out the entire evidence base and censoring the opposition — effectively creating a much more sophisticated form of “might makes right.”
In many ways, the anatomy of corruption within “science-based” medicine is quite simple and like many other things in business, continually reuses the same formulas. As a result, once you understand how corruption plays out in a few areas, it becomes feasible to understand how things will play out in many others.
I thus would argue many of the events we witnessed throughout COVID-19 (e.g. the sudden extreme censorship of scientific debate recently detailed by Pierre Kory), simply represents all of this longstanding corruption metastasizing to a degree which finally became visible to the general public.
Public Relations
Although Sigmund Freud is typically thought of as the most influential psychologist in history, his nephew Edward Bernays created an invisible industry that has had a far greater influence than Freud. To create his mark on the world, Bernays argued that the principles of psychology should be utilized not for individual psychotherapy but rather to control the population so that the irrational impulses of the masses could not derail the progress of society, and not surprisingly, the power-hungry elite fully embraced his narrative.
When you study the organizational structure of modern society, you will continually come across hierarchal pyramids being utilized that allow the top of the pyramid to exert a massive influence over the rest of society.
This is for instance why in medicine, doctors are expected to follow “guidelines” created by unaccountable committees that are typically composed of individuals being paid off by the pharmaceutical industry, and why in most cases it is nearly impossible for a patient to have any type of care provided to them without the approval of a doctor. Thus, by buying out a few committees, it becomes possible to exert a massive influence on the general public.
Public relations is essentially the science of how to create a pyramidal hierarchy throughout the media and to leverage that control so the general public can be manipulated into serving the interests of the sponsor.
We recently witnessed what I believe to be the most aggressive PR campaign in history and the collective effort to pull out every possible stop to sell the COVID-19 vaccines to the American public (ironically one of the individuals I know who became disabled from these vaccines worked in the industry and worked with a passionate zeal for over a year beforehand on the PR campaign for Moderna).
Studying the PR industry is quite depressing because it shows how much of the news is “fake,” just how manipulative much of it is, and how many foundational beliefs we hold in the culture are simply the product of a corporation’s public relations campaign. For those interested in this subject, an excellent book can be found here, a youtube documentary here, and an article here.
One of the most common tactics utilized in public relations is to take a complex subject and distill it down to a simple phrase that reframes it in terms that are favorable to the sponsor and removes the critical nuances from a debate (frequently this process is equated to weaponizing language).
Because the entire PR process is based around creating a pyramidal hierarchy that defers to the top, you can frequently observe these messages or scripted phrases that were developed by a PR firm be simultaneously disseminated on countless networks, including the “independent” ones:
Note: This behavior exists on both sides of the political spectrum; I am citing this one because it is the best montage I have come across.
“Misinformation”
During Obama’s presidency, the term “misinformation” started to come into vogue and was deployed to sink Trump’s presidential campaign (which failed as Trump managed to make the “fake news” meme every media platform was promoting stick to CNN instead of him). Before long, this steamrolled into “misinformation” being used as a justification to censor any viewpoint that challenged the status quo.
Initially, easy to disparage groups such as members of the far-right were targeted for censorship by Silicon Valley, before long liberal friends I knew who practiced holistic medical approaches (and had supported the initial censorship) were targeted, and by the time COVID-19 happened, this behavior had metastasized to the point it was nearly impossible to publicize any treatment for the disease or any potential harm from the vaccines.
Governments have continued their relentless push for censorship, best illustrated by the recent U.N. speech by New Zealand’s prime minister that declared free speech on the internet a weapon of war and called for the international community to work towards curating (censoring) all online information that questions government narratives.
Prior to Obama’s presidency, I had heard there was a push to establish a pyramidal hierarchy for all information on the internet, with a few major tech companies serving as the “gatekeepers” the public could access the information through, but until 2016, this always seemed like something that would happen in the far distant future. Recently, I learned that Sharyl Atkinson was able to identify when and where this all began:
“I first heard the term [curated] applied to controlling news and information in October 2016 when President Obama introduced the concept at an appearance at the private research university Carnegie Mellon. Obama claimed a “curating” function had become necessary.
The public at large had not been asking for any such thing. Instead, it was the invention of powerful interests that apparently felt the need to get a grip on public opinion — interests that were losing the information war online. But the concept is contrary to the nature of a free society and an open Internet. It would take some clever manipulation to convince the public to allow such “curating.”
“We’re going to have to rebuild, within this Wild, Wild West of information flow, some sort of curating function that people agree to,” said Obama. “… [T]here has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world.”
As far as I know, that signaled the start of what would become a global media initiative to have third parties insert themselves as arbiters of facts, opinions, and truth in the news and online [prior to this they were viewed as a joke and fortunately still are by half of the electorate].”
Credible Sources
Most of our modern hierarchies operate on the basis of being “credible.” For example, in journalism, about a century ago during the era of Bernays, the concept of “professional journalism” was created and a standard was set that news could not be considered credible unless it was disseminated by someone who belonged to a corrupt credible news organization that served the bidding of those in power.
This article for example discusses the profound consequences of the monopolization of journalism, and how as the decades have gone by, the issue has only gotten worse and worse.
Sharyl Attkisson’s book (the source of the above quotation) describes how pervasive corruption gradually entered her industry, and how despite her clout in the network as a premier news anchor, more and more of her investigations were not permitted to air by her superiors.
In the early 2000s, Atkinson was assigned to report on the controversial military anthrax and smallpox vaccinations, and not long after, the smallpox campaign was cancelled. Now, in contrast, no criticism whatsoever is permitted of the much more dangerous COVID-19 vaccines (and now even the government is paying to incentivize this censorship).
To see how much things have shifted consider this report that was aired on the nightly news after the 1976 swine flu vaccine debacle (this vaccine was not safe and I directly know people who developed permanent complications from it that persist to this day, but at the same time, it was much safer than the COVID-19 vaccines):
Something like this could never air today.
Evidence-Based Medicine
The pyramidal hierarchy of our society requires creating faith in authoritative sources and then having each institution work in unison to promote the sanctity of those (easy to control) sources. “Professional journalism” is one such example, another is the widespread societal adherence to the CDC’s arbitrary and ineffective guidelines (best illustrated by the absurd dictates they and other Western health authorities put forward in regards to social distancing during physical intimacy).
When evidence-based medicine (EBM) started, it was sorely needed by the medical profession because many disastrous practices were unchallengeable dogmas. However, in due time, as corruption entered the process, EBM became yet another means for “[financial] might to make right” as its authority was shifted into a pyramidal hierarchy. Presently, the “authority” in EBM rests in 5 areas.
The sanctity of all data.
Conducting large randomized clinical trials.
Peer-reviewed publications in high-impact scientific journals.
Authoritative committees reviewing the previous three to produce guidelines.
Other institutions (e.g. the media and the courts) upholding the sanctity of the data and evidenced-based guidelines.
There have been major issues in each of these areas for decades as industry has steadily worked to expand its influence over EBM, but as many observers noted, these issues spun completely out of control during COVID-19. Let’s review each of them:
The sanctity of all data — The major problem with “data” is that most of it is never made available for outside analysis, which allows those who “own” the data to only present data that casts the owner in a favorable light (which essentially makes the data worthless).
The pharmaceutical industry nonetheless has been able to sustain this practice by arguing that disclosing their data would constitute a violation of proprietary trade secrets. Thus excluding the occasional instance where they are forced to open their records as part of the discovery process (e.g. in the lawsuits against the antidepressant manufacturers) that research fraud and the concealment of critically important safety data never come to light (and never has for vaccines).
Almost all of the COVID-19 vaccine data likewise was never made available to the public (although the companies have suggested it may be made available a few years from now); instead, we simply received highly curated publications in prestigious medical journals. Since the vaccines have entered the market, countless red flags on their safety and efficacy have emerged in large datasets.
On one hand, I view all of this as an immensely positive development, as in the past critical data suppression like this typically remained hidden and forgotten. On the other hand, I consider it completely unacceptable the public is being forced to take a vaccination product on the basis of data they are not even permitted to review.
Conducting large randomized clinical trials — We are reflexively conditioned by the educational system to assume a clinical trial has no value unless it is randomized and controlled. While it is true that controlling for the placebo effect through blinding somewhat improves the accuracy of a study, conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is immensely expensive, and the biases introduced by those costs dwarf those obtained by controlling for the placebo effect.
A little known fact is that findings from study designs that do not rely on industry funding (i.e. retrospective observational controlled studies) reach the same conclusion, on average, to those of RCT’s. Yet the former are near systematically ignored by the high-impact journals and medical societies.
Put differently, RCT’s require industry funding, and industry funding has repeatedly been found to heavily bias trial data in favor of its sponsor. To highlight the absurdity of this, as the whistleblower Brooke Jackson showed, the RCT she supervised for the Pfizer vaccine was not even blinded because the trial site cut so many corners to produce a positive result for Pfizer.
For those who wish to know about how the industry games clinical trials, this book, this book and this book are the three best resources I have found on the subject.
Peer reviewed publications in high-impact scientific journals — In the same way we are conditioned to reflexively dismiss anything that is not a large RCT, many people will not consider a scientific trial unless it is published in a high-impact peer-reviewed journal.
This creates a setting where studies that support industry interests regardless of their deficiencies are published (e.g. pharmaceutical ghostwriting is a major source of fraud in the peer-reviewed literature), whereas articles that challenge their interests are never published. This has been a longstanding issue, and the earliest example I remember coming across was discussed in this 2001 book:
(I unfortunately was never able to track down the referenced news story; please let me know if you have)
The positions of the journal sponsors also gradually enter the medical culture, and the peer-review culture frequently censors or attacks publications that do not match industry findings. One of the best examples was Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 study which ruffled so many feathers by suggesting a link between autism and vaccination that the study was retracted and a thorough example was made of him (e.g. he lost his license) to deter further research into vaccine injuries.
Many other examples also exist, such as the extreme hostility faced by researchers who publish data that is critical of other sacred cows like routine statin usage or psychiatric overmedication.
Because of the systemic biases that exist against publishing anything which challenges medical orthodoxies, it can often take years or decades for bad practices to be abandoned as no one is willing to on take the risk of publishing studies refuting them.
For example, a few of my Ph.D. friends who researched viral genomes knew within a day of the original SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence being published that it came from a lab, yet not a single one was willing to expose themselves to the personal risk they would take from authoring a publication on that subject.
At this point, there seems to be an unwritten understanding that the introduction and conclusion of a scientific publication must match the prevailing biases of medicine. It is hence always fascinating to see just how often an article’s conclusion is not supported by the data within it (sadly few ever read those parts of the paper).
Throughout COVID-19, these problems also became much worse. To share a few memorable examples:
A large study was published in the Lancet which showed data from around the world indicated hydroxychloroquine killed COVID-19 patients who received it and was used by the WHO as justification to suspend clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine (along with governments forbidding its administration to patients).
Outside evaluators realized the data was nonsensical (leading to serious questions over how one of the best editorial boards in the world let it be published), the company that provided the data effectively admitted fraud had been conducted, and the study was retracted. Another one of the top 5 medical journals, the NEJM, also published a study utilizing Surgisphere’s fraudulent dataset.
Despite a tsunami of data showing severe harm from the COVID-19 vaccines, it has been virtually impossible for any publication on the topic to enter the peer-review literature.
As Pierre Kory has detailed throughout the last few years, numerous large clinical trials have been conducted that clearly show a benefit from ivermectin for COVID-19 and no risks associated with the therapy. Despite the evidence for ivermectin being stronger than what can be found for almost any other drug on the market, as Kory’s recent series shows, it is nearly impossible to have a study supporting ivermectin be published (unless the conclusion says the opposite).
When they are instead published as preprints they often are retracted for political reasons (retracting a preprint is absurd), and not surprisingly, ivermectin is now widely viewed by the medical community as both unsafe and ineffective.
Currently I believe that of the top five medical journals, the BMJ is the only “prestigious” medical journal still conducting itself in a manner deserving of its reputation.
Authoritative committees reviewing the previous three to produce guidelines — A common complaint from conservatives is that unelected bureaucrats are allowed to control our lives with impunity. One area where this is particularly true can be found within the committee model where “experts” are nominated to assess existing evidence and produce a consensus on what should be done.
Even though those guidelines which bypassed the legislative process should not be treated as law (as was ruled by a federal judge), in most cases they are. As you might expect, the people who make it onto these committees tend to have heavy financial conflicts of interest that inevitably result in their voting for their sponsors. Consider this paraphrased example that was shared in chapter 7 of Doctoring Data:
The National Cholesterol Education Programme (NCEP) has been tasked by the NIH to develop [legally enforceable] guidelines for treating cholesterol levels. Excluding the chair (who was by law prohibited from having financial conflicts of interest), the other 8 members on average were on the payroll of 6 statin manufacturers.
In 2004, NCEP reviewed 5 large statin trials and recommended: “Aggressive LDL lowering for high-risk patients [primary prevention] with lifestyle changes and statins.” [these recommendations in turn were adopted around the world].
In 2005 a Canadian division of the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed 5 large statin trials (3 were the same as NCEP’s, while the other 2 had also reached a positive conclusion for statin therapy). That assessment instead concluded: “Statins have not been shown to provide an overall health benefit in primary prevention trials.”
I believe that the most corrupt committee during the pandemic response was the NIH one responsible for determining the appropriate therapies for COVID-19. Some (and possibly all) of its members were appointed by Anthony Fauci, many had personal ties to Fauci and almost all of them held significant financial conflicts of interest with Gilead, remdesivir’s manufacturer.
Not surprisingly, that committee has consistently recommended against every therapy that effectively treats COVID-19 but is off-patent (and hence not profitable). Conversely, their recommendation for remdesivir is why it was the required treatment throughout the US hospital system despite the evidence for the drug being atrocious (a more detailed and referenced summary of this corruption can be found here).
In many ways, the remdesivir story is eerily similar to the early days of HIV. There, Fauci used his influence to keep a variety of effective therapies away from dying AIDS patients so that he could win approval for AZT, a dangerous drug many believe significantly worsened the prognosis of those who received it.
Other institutions (e.g. the media and the courts) upholding the sanctity of the data and evidenced-based guidelines — Many people I know used a variety of integrative therapies (e.g. intravenous vitamin C) to treat COVID-19 during the early days of the pandemic, and successfully saved many lives at the same time countless Americans were being sent to the hospitals to die (as they had no treatment for COVID-19 besides often lethal ventilators).
Yet, it was those who treated COVID-19 successfully (including a few of my friends) who were targeted by the government and either served with a cease and desist or prosecuted for “endangering” the public by utilizing unproven therapies not supported by the COVID-19 treatment guidelines.
The mass media was also fully complicit in this and never once mentioned any option for COVID-19 (other than needing to get more ventilators or vaccines), except when attacking the doctors who were providing life-saving outpatient therapies. However, while the new’s conduct was egregious, by far the biggest offender was Big Tech.
Curating Information
As I think through all the things that had to come together to enable the pandemic profiteers to destroy our economy, withhold life-saving treatments from the American public, and mandate a disastrous vaccination on the populace, I believe Obama’s push for the Silicon Valley to become the arbiter of what we were allowed to see online was by far the most consequential.
Since that time, I have observed a remarkable decline in the quality of discourse on many social media websites (as many worthwhile topics are now censored or flooded with bots — Substack is a rare exception) and it has become much more difficult to find the information I am looking for online (to the point I sometimes need to use Russia’s search engine to find it).
Throughout history, freedom of speech has always been a hotly contested subject as people tend to support it, except for viewpoints they disagree with, and frequently lack the insight to recognize why those positions are at odds with each other. Societies likewise follow cyclical trends towards and away from totalitarianism and fascist censorship.
The earliest example I know of was shared with me by a scholar who had reviewed the plays of ancient Greece and had found that as censorship (e.g. political correctness) entered the plays, it immediately preceded the fall of Greek democracy and an authoritarian government taking over. From studying countless iterations of this cycle, I now believe the following:
It must be acknowledged that any position you hold could be wrong or based on erroneous information.
It is important to defend the right of those you disagree with to speak and not hate them because they hold viewpoints you adamantly oppose.
If you refuse to defend your position in an open and fair debate, you are probably wrong.
Very strict stipulations must exist on what speech can be outlawed, and those stipulations must be agreed upon by (nearly) the entire society. Some things such as shouting “fire” in a movie theater as a prank everyone can agree on. Anything everyone cannot agree on I would argue does not meet the standard that must be met for censorship.
The government may incentivize speech it agrees with, but it cannot restrict speech it disagrees with.
Any attempt you make to censor a viewpoint you disagree with is not worth it because the censorship you helped create will inevitably be turned on you in the future.
During Obama’s presidency, two major changes emerged in Silicon Valley. The first many are aware of was an obsession (by these otherwise evil companies) with saving the world through social justice that I would argue was analogous to the well known practice of Greenwashing, where an egregious polluter conducts a token environmental initiative and through doing so successfully recasts themselves as protectors of the environment.
This social justice focus was particularly problematic as it was used to justify the censorship of anything that was not politically correct and I would argue that many of the tech employees who helped spearhead the movement are now directly experiencing the consequences of the climate they created.
Note: This focus on censorship in lieu of debating opposing (“unsafe”) viewpoints also creeped into the university system and then the culture during Obama’s presidency and I believe was a direct consequence of policies enacted by his Department of Education.
The second, much more important one was that Big Tech became a key financial supporter of the Democrat party, and to varying degrees merged with the pharmaceutical industry and biotech. Because of this, there was a seismic realignment in the priorities of the Democrat party and it began ardently supporting those industries.
It is important to recognize how these two trends dovetailed. Big Tech was able to use their “altruistic” focus on social justice to distract the public from the more sinister direction their industry was moving in by using the standard for censorship they had established in the name of creating a “safe” (politically correct) environment; while at the same time targeting threats to their partners in the pharmaceutical and biotech industry by censoring any voices suggesting dangers were associated with those products.
From watching each piece of the plan that has been rolled out throughout my career, I suspect the vision of these three industries is to transform medicine into an algorithmic practice where most medical “decisions” in patient care are made by an AI system and the human body is treated as a genomic software code that can be “solved” by programmers.
Although this approach will have the ability to overcome certain issues we presently face in medicine, it is also fundamentally incapable of addressing many of the needs of each human being who goes through the healthcare system and will likely prove disastrous to our species.
Antitrust Activity
At the time Bill Gates founded the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation he was one of the most disliked individuals in America. This was because he had leveraged the power of his operating system Windows, which was on almost every computer in America, to also monopolize the software market and prevent competitors like Netscape (an early internet browser) from being used by consumers.
From the foundation’s inception, Gates repeated the same antitrust behavior he had leveraged in the past but instead directed it toward the field of global public health. I first became aware of this behavior after I learned of the disastrous vaccination campaigns he conducted in India. For example to quote The Real Anthony Fauci:
“India’s Federal Ministry of Health suspended the [HPV vaccine] trials and appointed an expert parliamentary committee to investigate the scandal. Indian government investigators found that Gates-funded researchers at PATH committed pervasive ethical violations: pressuring vulnerable village girls into the trial, bullying illiterate parents, and forging consent forms. Gates provided health insurance for his PATH staff but not to any participants in the trials, and refused medical care to the hundreds of injured girls.”
Gates also diverted a large portion of the global health budget towards eradicating the last few remaining cases of polio by giving large numbers of the (live) oral vaccine to third world countries, in some instances 50 doses by the age of five. This was disastrous around the world, for example paralyzing approximately 491,000 children over two decades in India.
One of my friends who has worked for the WHO for decades told me that the WHO has implemented a lot of good public health measures that saved lives. Unfortunately, ever since Gates got involved, those measured have fallen to the wayside and the focus has been on monopolistic public health practices that ultimately serve to enrich a few select industries at the expense of the third-world citizens the measures are alleged to help.
Similarly, many in the global health community have stated that since Gates has so much influence over the global health budget (and the WHO), it is nearly impossible to criticize or question any policy he promotes. To further entrench this monopoly, his foundation has prioritized buying out the press (be it groups like the Cochrane Collaboration or putting over 300 million into countless media outlets around the world), so that anything that challenges his vision of public health is “misinformation.”
Much more could be said about Gates (and is aptly summarized within The Real Anthony Fauci). However, we will focus on the two most important correlates to the misinformation epidemic:
Gates made a lot of money from the pandemic. For example, on 9/4/2019, two months before COVID-19 emerged in China, he invested 55 million in the company that produced Pfizer’s vaccine. Last year that investment was worth 550 million.
It has now been admitted by the mainstream media that Gates (and the Wellcome Trust) directed the pandemic response that failed disastrously from a public health perspective (but not in money-making). One quote from that article is particularly telling:
“Leaders of three of the four organizations maintained that lifting intellectual property protections [which would prevent everyone from making money] was not needed to increase vaccine supplies – which activists believed would have helped save lives.”
In the second half of this series, we will show how this antitrust behavior and militant censorship metastasized within Silicon Valley and how increasingly draconian laws enforcing vaccine mandates for the pharmaceutical industry have been implemented by the California legislature.
In a study sponsored by Yale University — and started before COVID-19 shots were rolled out — researchers tested different messages of how to best persuade people to get injected.
Officially titled, “Persuasive Messages for COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake,”1 the researchers must have had some forethought that people would be wary of an experimental gene therapy, and set to work to decipher the best propaganda campaign to ensure their widespread uptake.
The study’s abstract starts out with questionable statements from the start, parroting the myth that “Widespread vaccination remains the best option for controlling the spread of COVID-19 and ending the pandemic.”2 The authors do not, however, expand on how this is so, considering that just three months after the shot those who are injected are just as likely to pass COVID-19 to their close contacts as those who do not get the shot.3,4
The reasons why people may be reluctant to get COVID-19 shots — such as safety and efficacy concerns — are also ignored by the study,5 which is only concerned with how to best use psychological tactics to get people on board with being injected.
Guilt, Anger, Embarrassment or Cowardice — What Works Best?
The full study, which was published in the December 3, 2021, issue of Vaccine,6 involved two experiments. The first tested “treatment messages” designed to affect people’s intentions about whether or not to get the shot. For the control group, subjects were exposed to a message about bird feeding, while others read the baseline vaccine message, as follows:
“To end the COVID-19 outbreak, it is important for people to get vaccinated against COVID-19 whenever a vaccine becomes available. Getting the COVID-19 vaccine means you are much less likely to get COVID-19 or spread it to others. Vaccines are safe and widely used to prevent diseases and vaccines are estimated to save millions of lives every year.”
For the experiment, the following messages were added to the baseline message:7
Personal freedom message
Economic freedom message
Self-interest message
Community interest message
Economic benefit message
Guilt message
Embarrassment message
Anger message
Trust in science message
Not bravery message
For example, the guilt message, which is designed to work by social pressure, reads:8
“The message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one’s family and community. The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and society must work together to get enough people vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.”
Never mind that this statement is false, since they can still spread the disease if they’re injected. Similarly misleading messages designed to demean, guilt and shame people into getting the shot include:9
“If one doesn’t get vaccinated that means that one doesn’t understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.”
“Those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.”
“[I]t asks the participant to imagine the embarrassment they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.”
“[I]t asks the participant to imagine the anger they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease.”
The researchers explained it this way:10
“One subgroup of messages draws on the idea that mass vaccination is a collective action problem and highlighting the prosocial benefit of vaccination or the reputational costs that one might incur if one chooses not to vaccinate. Another subgroup of messages built on contemporary concerns about the pandemic, like issues of restricting personal freedom or economic security.
We find that persuasive messaging that invokes prosocial vaccination and social image concerns is effective at increasing intended uptake and also the willingness to persuade others and judgments of non-vaccinators.”
Propaganda Messages Created With No Scientific Support
It’s ironic that the study includes a “trust in science” message, since the messages used in the study were created in early or mid-2020, before science was available to support them. Yet, as noted by a Children’s Health Defense (CHD) article, “The messages tested by the researchers have been woven into mainstream media narratives and public health campaigns throughout the world.”11
In the second part of the study, the most effective messages from part one were tested on a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. This included the baseline message along with community interest, community interest + embarrassment, not bravery, trust in science and personal freedom messages.
They found that, compared to the control group, psychological messages that involve community interest, reciprocity and embarrassment worked best, leading to a 30% increase in intention to get injected, along with a 24% increase in willingness to tell a friend to get injected and a 38% increase in negative opinions of those who decline to get the shot.12
The messages are designed to not only impact people on an individual level, but also further divide society by encouraging people to pass negative judgment onto others and pressure others to comply with “social norms.” According to the researchers:
“Viewing vaccination through the lens of a collective action problem suggests that in addition to increasing individuals’ intentions to receive a vaccine, effective public health messages would also increase people’s willingness to encourage those close to them to vaccinate and to hold negative judgments of those who do not vaccinate.
By encouraging those close to them to vaccinate, people are both promoting compliance with social norms and increasing their own level of protection against the disease. Also, by judging those who do not vaccinate more negatively, they apply social pressure to others to promote cooperative behavior.”
Shots as a ‘Morally Right Choice’
Since the pandemic began, conforming to confusing and questionable public health mandates has been made an issue of moral superiority — to the point that those who questioned mask mandates were labeled as “grandma killers.”13
In an article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2020, it’s further noted that “vaccination is a social contract in which cooperation is the morally right choice.”14 It further suggests that, under this social contract, people should change their behaviors toward those who choose not to get injected, and, indeed, people who are “especially compliant,” i.e., vaccinated, were less generous to those who were not.15 Further:16
“If so, vaccinated individuals should reciprocate by being more generous to a vaccinated other. On the contrary, if the other doesn’t vaccinate and violates the social contract, generosity should decline.”
Propaganda Aimed at Making People Feel ‘Disgusting’
CHD pointed out that one of the authors of the Yale study, Saad Omer, “has an extensive interest in public health messaging” and was behind the “Building Vaccine Confidence Through Tailored Messaging Campaigns” in 2020, which used social media to convince people to get COVID-19 and other shots.17
Working with the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts Working Group on COVID-19 Vaccines, Omer detailed what worked in the past to increase the uptake of the HPV vaccine, and suggested it could work for COVID-19 shots. The solution, he said, involved appealing to values and stooping so low as to make a person feel disgusting while presenting vaccines as a form of purity. CHD quoted Omer, who said:18
“We wanted to test out, can we have a purity-based message? So we showed them pictures of genital warts and described a vignette, a narrative, a story, talking about how someone got genital warts and how disgusting they were and how pure vaccines are that sort of restore the sanctity of the body.
So we just analyzed these data. This was a randomized control trial with apriori outcomes. We found approximately 20 percentage point effect on people’s likelihood of getting an HPV vaccine in the next 6 months … We are trying out liberty-based messages or liberty-mediated messaging around this behavior related to COVID-19 outbreak.
That wearing a mask or taking precautions eventually make you free, regain your autonomy. Because if the disease rates are low, your activities can resume.”
This is similar propaganda to what’s being used to promote vaccine passports, with many willingly giving up freedoms that, once gone, may be difficult, if not impossible, to get back. By showing proof that you’ve received a COVID-19 shot, via a digital certificate or app on your phone, the hope is that you can once again travel freely, attend a concert or enjoy a meal in your favorite restaurant, just like you used to.
Except, being required to present your “papers” in order to live your life isn’t actually freedom at all — it’s a loss of freedom that you once had, one that disappeared right before your eyes and one that’s setting the stage for increased surveillance and control, and erosion of your privacy.
Propaganda Is the Real Misinformation
Carefully crafted messages that play on your emotions and moral compass are just one part of the campaign to ensure public compliance with the mainstream narrative. Fact checking is another tool being used in order to control virtually everything you see and hear online, in order to serve a greater agenda.19
Take the term “conspiracy theory,” which is now used to dismiss narratives that go against the grain. According to investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, this is intentional, as the term itself was devised by the CIA as a response to theories about the assassination of JFK.
Debunked, quackery and antivaccine are all terms that are similarly being used as propaganda tools. “There’s a whole cast of propaganda phrases that I’ve outlined that are cues. When you hear them, they should make you think, ‘I need to find out more about it,’” Attkisson says.20
Likewise, CHD explained, “The efforts to eliminate ‘misinformation’ resulted in unprecedented censorship of virtually anything that steps outside of state-sanctioned consensus and the creation of a captive audience primed to accept a singular narrative.”21
It’s important to remain aware that messages are being carefully crafted to mold human behavior to comply with COVID-19 shots and other public health measures — and to recognize that the use of propaganda is perfectly legal, even in the U.S.
As CHD continued, “And thanks to a multibillion-dollar budget from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we are under the influence of the best messages money can buy — whether or not those messages are true.”22
Yesterday, you might recall, I blogged an article where gamma wave patterns on electroencephalographs record peculiar patterns when false memories are recalled, and about the potential implications of this research both for the “metaphysics of the mind” so to speak, but also for the possibility of remotely influencing or even remotely causing memory creation or alteration. Along those lines, K.S. shared another article from RT about similar research being conducted in Germany:
There’s quite a few things that caught my eye in this article, and they’re the subject of today’s high octane speculation. It is to be noted that unlike the research referred to in yesterday’s blog, the techniques involved here do not include any hard technologies, but rather are based entirely on “soft” techniques. Consider the following statements which form the core of today’s speculations:
A team of researchers in Germany has completed successful experiments in which they showcased how false memories can easily be planted and, more importantly, erased, with potentially serious implications for the justice system.
The team, from the University of Hagen, Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, and the University of Portsmouth conducted a series of memory experiments on volunteers over the course of several sessions.
They wanted to both confirm that it is possible to implant (or incept, if you will) false memories in the mind of a subject using certain psychological techniques and tricks that rely heavily on the power of suggestion through repetition, while also discovering to what extent these memories can be erased.
…
The researchers then reinforced these false memories in the minds of the participants by asking the volunteers’ parents to play along and claim things happened exactly as described, including the additional, fictional elements.
This process was repeated over the course of multiple sessions to such a degree that many of the participants became convinced the accounts were, in fact, true and thus, a false memory was born.
Now all that remained was to extricate these false memories from the minds of the volunteers, which turned out to be almost as easy as implanting them had been.
They merely asked the volunteers to identify the source of the memory while highlighting the fact that false memories can be created through a process of repeated, elicited recall that itself can become a form of conditioning. (Boldface emphases added)
Note the following implications: (1) repetition, (2) reinforcement of the memory by creation of a false context that include supposedly confirmatory elements or testimonies, and (3) the ability to remove such memories by focusing the victim’s intelligence on the source of the false memories. All of this implies something else, namely (4) the ability to erase real memories using all of the same techniques. Some people may recognize echoes of the strategies and tactics of Gnosticism that I outlined in my four volume work God, History, and Dialectic (available on Lulu), specifically with respect to the second of the elements mentioned: the creation of false contexts or testimonies giving confirmatory elements.
But what I want to focus upon here for the sake of our high octane speculation are precisely those first two elements, and their fusion with two other elements: mass media, and neuro-linguistic programming. For those familiar with the latter, it is possible to implant behavior patterns or memories by clever manipulation of what we’ll call, for the sake of this speculation, a “deep text”, that is to say, words occurring in a “surface text” that are weighted by reinforcement by some other means, such as a touch or other physical stimulation like a specific sound or tone, and so on. Thus weighted, these words become part of a “deep text” having little connection to the surface textual context in which they occur, and bearing an entirely different meaning. The ultimate expression of such a technique’s success is to get the victim of the process to start using the same language. Coupled with the use of such techniques in mass media, it would be possible to create false memories or to erase real ones or otherwise manipulate the mood of individuals. To draw an analogy, it’s like removing an inconvenient picture from the Soviet encyclopedia, not by actually removing the offending picture in the work itself, but rather, in the mind of the reader.
Which brings me to a final implication of this article, namely, the way to counter such manipulation is simply to make the victim aware of the process, and to drive the process back to sources themselves.
The government has all kinds of secrets, but only a true conspiracy theorist might suspect that “psycho-electric weapons” are one of them. So it’s odd that MuckRock, a news organization that specializes in filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with state and federal government bodies, received mysterious documents about mind control, seemingly by accident.
Journalist Curtis Waltman was writing to the Washington State Fusion Center (WSFC), a joint operation between Washington State law enforcement and the federal government to request information about Antifa and white supremacist groups. He got responses to the questions he asked, but also a file titled “EM effects on human body.zip.” Inside, where documents like this:
Documents held by the Washington State Fusion Center.
Nexus Magazine
And these:
Remote mind control AND remote brain mapping.
John St Clair Akewi
Human brain waves as described in documents held by the government for some reason.
Unknown
At least some of the images appear to be part of an article in Nexus magazine describing a 1992 lawsuit brought by one John St. Clair Akewi against the NSA. Akewi claimed that the NSA had the “ability to assassinate US citizens covertly or run covert psychological control operations to cause subjects to be diagnosed with ill mental health” and was documenting their alleged methods.
Nexus was, and still is, an Australian magazine focused on the unexplained, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine and the like. It covered Akewi’s case in 1996 but was unable to get Akewi to discuss it further: “I tried ringing Mr Akwei to find out what was the out-come, if any, of his court case. He firmly but kindly told me that he could not speak about anything to do with the case over the phone and hung up,” reads an editor’s note at the end of the article.
The federal government has absolutely experimented with mind control in a variety of methods, but the documents here do not appear to be official.
Waltman had no idea why these documents were included in his request and isn’t sure why the government is holding them. The WSFC did not respond to requests for more information.
The Facts:More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19.
Reflect On:Why are so many professionals and experts in the field being censored, ridiculed and shut down by organizations like the WHO? Should we not have the right to examine information openly, freely, and transparently?
Is this article ‘fake news?’ No, because the statement in the title that reads “we have a lot of evidence that it’s a fake story all over the world” is an actual quote from a representative of the group discussed in the article. The statement was said. Whether or not what the quote says is true, on the other hand, is up for you to decide or according to multiple governments, is up for the World Health Organization (WHO) to decide. Is the title misleading or inaccurate? No, again, it’s a direct quote and represents the opinion of multiple health professionals. Are these health professionals implying that COVID-19 is a fake virus? No, they are simply implying that it’s not as dangerous as it’s being made out to be., and I summarize some of that information below that has them coming to that conclusion.
These doctors and scientists are being heavily censored across all social media platforms, and those who write about them are experiencing the same. Many of the claims these doctors make have been ‘debunked’ by mainstream media, federal health regulatory agencies and ‘fact-checkers’ that are patrolling the internet. Any information that does not come from the (WHO) is not considered reliable, truthful or accurate, and that would include the information presented in this article and information shared by these experts in the field. People are being encouraged to visit the WHO’s website for real and accurate information about COVID-19 instead of listening to doctors and scientists who oppose the narrative of these health authorities.
What Happened: More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called “Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss.” Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss stands for the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee and was established to investigate all things that pertain to the new coronavirus such as the severity of the virus, and whether or not the actions taken by governments around the world, and in this case the German government, are justified and not causing more harm than good.
As the Corona-Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, we will investigate why these restrictive measures were imposed upon us in our country as part of COVID-19, why people are suffering now and whether there is proportionality of the measures to this disease caused by the SARS-COV-2 virus. We have serious doubts that these measures are proportionate. This needs to be examined, and since the parliaments – neither the opposition parties nor the ruling parties – have not convened a committee and it is not even planned, it is high time that we took this into our own hands. We will invite and hear experts here in the Corona speaker group. These are experts from all areas of life: Medicine, social affairs, law, economics and many more. (source)
You can access the full english transcripts on the organizations website if interested.
This group has been giving multiple conferences in Germany, in one of the most recent, Dr. Heiko Schöning, one of the organizations leaders, stated that “We have a lot of evidence that it (the new coronavirus) is a fake story all over the world.” To put it in context, he wasn’t referring to the virus being fake, but simply that it’s no more dangerous than the seasonal flu (or just as dangerous) and that there is no justification for the measures being taken to combat it.
I also think it’s important to mention that a report published in the British Medical Journal has suggested that quarantine measures in the United Kingdom as a result of the new coronavirus may have already killed more UK seniors than the coronavirus has during the peak of the virus.
Below is a press conference held by representatives of the group that took place last month, you can find more important information below that.
Why This Is Important: It can be confusing for many people to see so many doctors and many of the world’s most renowned scientists and infectious disease experts oppose so much information that is coming from the WHO and global governments.
Many scientists and doctors in North America are also expressing the same sentiments. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%. You can read more about that and access their resources and reasoning here.
John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate “is close to 0 percent” for people under the age of 45 years old. You can read more about that here. He and several other academics from the Stanford School of Medicine suggest that COVID-19 has a similar infection fatality rate as seasonal influenza, and published their reasoning in a study last month. You can find that study and read more about that story here.
Michael Levitt, a Biophysicist and a professor of structural biology at Stanford University criticized the WHO as well as Facebook for censoring different information and informed perspectives regarding the Coronavirus and has claimed that, with regards to lockdown measures, that “the level of stupidity going on here is amazing.” You can read more about this here.
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history is also part of Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned above and has also expressed the same thing, multiple times early on in the pandemic all the way up to today.
Implementation of the current draconian measures that so extremely restrict fundamental rights can only be justified if there is reason to fear that a truly, exceptionally dangerous virus is threatening us. Do any scientifically sound data exist to support this contention for COVID-19? I assert that the answer is simply, no. – Bhakdi. You can read more about him here.
Below are some interesting statistics from Canada. (source)
Last Sunday I didn’t finish scheduling blogs this week. There’s a reason for that, and it’s because my inbox was stuffed once again with articles in one way or another having to do with the Fauci-Lieber-Wuhan virus planscamdemic. So I was at a loss as to what to blog about. So I woke up this morning – in part due to the gentle urgings of Shiloh, who has a whole routine worked out now on how to wake me up – determined to schedule a blog for today and the rest of the week. As for her routine, this consists first of scratching herself furiously, then pawing at her blanket in order to move it closer to me, and then, with great drama, plopping herself down so that the effort literally pushes me toward the edge of the bed. If that doesn’t work, then it’s the circle-next-to-him-endlessly, and another plop-and-push. And if that doesn’t work, it’s the old paw-on-the-cheek-with-accompanying-sweet-whine trick.
But I digress. Back to the Fauci-Lieber-Wuhan virus planscamdemic narrative. I received, as I said, so many articles about it, I’ve decided once again to gather up the best of them for this weekend’s “honorable mentions”. I was still at a loss about today’s blog, however, until I opened my email inbox and found this article sent along by E.U., and I read the headline.
“You’ve got to be kidding,” I said aloud. Shiloh was sitting next to my chair, and I told her, “listen to this, Shiloh,” and read the headline to her. Even she gets how crazy it is, and cocked her head and whined. But in a way, you just knew this one was coming. After all, some crazy county – I think it was in Florida – actually announced they were considering mandatory nose feeder bags for people in their own homes, so you just knew this one was coming:
Yes, you read that correctly: you should now wear a mask during sex, to make sure the sex is completely safe sex. Get this:
The university reportedly sent out notices to on-campus students that said they should “consider wearing a face mask during sex. Heavy breathing and panting can further spread the virus, and wearing a mask can reduce the risk,” according to OutKick.
That’s right folks, not only wear a mask, but try to limit the heavy breathing during the activity, a difficult proposition, since masks tend to interfere with normal breathing to begin with. But the real insanity of the article is that the galloping, somersaulting kookery that is modern Amairikuhn edgyjkayshun in the modern Amairikuhn quackademy has now reached out and married itself to the gymnastic idiocy that is the Fauci-Lieber-Wuhan virus narrative. Ahh, but wait, dear reader, there’s more:
“You are your safest sex partner. Practice solo sex, or limit the number of sexual partners you have,” said the University of Georgia recommendations, according to OutKick, which identifies itself on Twitter as “fearless, data-driven sports reporting.”
Yes, that’s right, better just to have sex with yourself.
Ahh, but wait, dear reader, there’s even more:
In June, a study from researchers at Harvard University said that in order to prevent transmitting COVID-19 from one person to another, both people should be wearing a face mask while having sex.
The study also advised against kissing. It suggested partners shower before and after the act, and clean everything with alcohol wipes or soap.
“Data are lacking regarding other routes of sexual transmission,” said the study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. “Two small studies of SARS-CoV-2–infected people did not detect virus in semen or vaginal secretions. An additional study of semen samples from 38 patients detected the virus by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction in 6 patients (15.8%). However, the relevance regarding sexual transmission remains unknown. Until this is better understood, it would be prudent to consider semen potentially infectious.”
Yes, this lunacy is coming straight out of that hellish pit of quackademic lunacy, Harvard, home of Dr. Charles Lieber.
Wear your masks during sex, don’t kiss, and whatever you do, don’t breathe heavily (in fact, better not to breathe at all. We’ll get back to that).
Now, we all know where this is headed. Why, just a few weeks ago I was joking in blogs and interviews about the narrative leading to people wearing masks during sex. Apparently someone at Haaahvaaahd was taking me seriously, and did a study about it (I wonder how much of the missing trillions went to fund that one?!). So let’s press this “logic” a bit more. I seem to recall the whole purpose of wearing nose feederbags was to prevent the spread of “droplets” that could contain THE DREADED BUG, and then were were also informed that THE DREADED BUG’S way into the body could also be through the eyes or other mucus membranes as per the “wash-your-hands-at-all-times-and-don’t-touch-your-face-or-eyes” narrative. So some people are walking around now with feederbags and goggles. But now there’s that all-too-human activity – sex – to be concerned about. So, not only “practice safe sex”, but in order to be really, completely, totally and uncompromisingly safe, both partners should wrap themselves in cellophane or latex body-condoms (without breathing heavily of course), and have sex in cellophane, or better yet, if you have the money, buy a hazmat suit or buy a military grade gas mask. (Oh, but wait, aren’t the pores in cellophane or latex much larger than the size of viruses? It’s all so confusing…) And while we’re at it, we really should be wearing feederbags and goggles when we sleep, especially you married folk who like to sleep in the same bed, and if you do sleep in the same bed together, you might want to rethink that, and buy twin beds and practice Social Sleep Distancing. Hmmm, I just thought of something else, too… best to avoid public restrooms altogether; if you have to go, just go where you are and suffer the indignity of a little embarrassment rather than risk getting THE DREADED BUG. If you do have to use one, best to carry a pair of rubber gloves and toilet bowl cleaner in your “New Normal Backpack” at all times.
And come to think of it, investing in a little mustard gas would be helpful too, for that post-sex clean-up, to make sure your dwelling is really free of THE DREADED BUG, and a propane tank outside, rigged for hand sanitizer, and connected to your shower, would be helpful too. If your local industrial chemical supplier is out of mustard gas, you can make a simple version for yourselves out of chlorine bleach and… oh, I’d better stop now, because some soulless humorless product of the modern quackademy will not appreciate my satire and think “hey! that’s a good idea!”
I’m waiting for the next study from Haaahvaaahd: “Not breathing helps to slow the spread of THE DREADED BUG” and “Social Distancing During Sex Helps Limit the Spread of THE DREADED BUG.”
On Friday, July 31, in a column ostensibly dealing with health care “misinformation,” Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan opened by lambasting “fringe doctors spouting dangerous falsehoods about hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 wonder cure.”
Actually, it was Sullivan who was spouting dangerous falsehoods about this drug, something the Washington Post and much of the rest of the media have been doing for months. On May 15, the Post offered a stark warning to any Americans who may have taken hope in a possible therapy for COVID-19. In the newspaper’s telling, there was nothing unambiguous about the science — or the politics — of hydroxychloroquine: “Drug promoted by Trump as coronavirus game-changer increasingly linked to deaths,” blared the headline. Written by three Post staff writers, the story asserted that the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 is scant and that the drug is inherently unsafe.
This claim is nonsense
Biased against the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 — and the Washington Post is hardly alone — the paper described an April 21, 2020, drug study on U.S. Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with the illness. It found a high death rate in patients taking the drug hydroxychloroquine. But this was a flawed study with a small sample, the main flaw being that the drug was given to the sickest patients who were already dying because of their age and severe pre-existing conditions. This study was quickly debunked. It had been posted on a non-peer-reviewed medical archive that specifically warns that studies posted on its website should not be reported in the media as established information.
Yet, the Post and countless other news outlets did just the opposite, making repeated claims that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective and caused serious cardiac problems. Nowhere was there any mention of the fact that COVID-19 damages the heart during infection, sometimes causing irregular and sometimes fatal heart rhythms in patients not taking the drug.
To a media unrelentingly hostile to Donald Trump, this meant that the president could be portrayed as recklessly promoting the use of a “dangerous” drug. Ignoring the refutation of the VA study in its May 15 article, the Washington Post cited a Brazil study published on April 24 in which a COVID trial using chloroquine (a related but different drug than hydroxychloroquine) was stopped because 11 patients treated with it died. The reporters never mentioned another problem with that study: The Brazilian doctors were giving their patients lethal cumulative doses of the drug.
On and on it has gone since then, in a circle of self-reinforcing commentary. Following the news that Trump was taking the drug himself, opinion hosts on cable news channels launched continual attacks on both hydroxychloroquine and the president. “This will kill you!” Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto exclaimed. “The president of the United States just acknowledge that he is taking hydroxychloroquine, a drug that [was] meant really to treat malaria and lupus.”
Washington Post reporters Ariana Cha and Laurie McGinley were back again on May 22, with a new article shouting out the new supposed news: “Antimalarial drug touted by President Trump is linked to increased risk of death in coronavirus patients, study says.” The media uproar this time was based on a large study just published in the Lancet. There was just one problem. The Lancet paper was fraudulent and it was quickly retracted.
However, the damage from the biased media storm was done and it was long-lasting. Continuing patient enrollment needed for early-use clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine dried up within a week. Patients were afraid to take the drug, doctors became afraid to prescribe it, pharmacies refused to fill prescriptions, and in a rush of incompetent analysis and non-existent senior leadership, the FDA revoked its Emergency Use Authorization for the drug.
So what is the real story on hydroxychloroquine? Here, briefly, is what we know:
When the COVID-19 pandemic began, a search was made for suitable antiviral therapies to use as treatment until a vaccine could be produced. One drug, hydroxychloroquine, was found to be the most effective and safe for use against the virus. Federal funds were used for clinical trials of it, but there was no guidance from Dr. Anthony Fauci or the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel on what role the drug would play in the national pandemic response. Fauci seemed to be unaware that there actually was a national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses.
Following a careful regimen developed by doctors in France, some knowledgeable practicing U.S. physicians began prescribing hydroxychloroquine to patients still in the earlyphase of COVID infection. Its effects seemed dramatic. Patients still became sick, but for the most part they avoided hospitalization. In contrast — and in error — the NIH-funded studies somehow became focused on giving hydroxychloroquine to late-presenting hospitalized patients. This was in spite of the fact that unlike the drug’s early use in ambulatory patients, there was no real data to support the drug’s use in more severe hospitalized patients.
By April, it was clear that roughly seven days from the time of the first onset of symptoms, a COVID-19 infection could sometimes progress into a more radical late phase of severe disease with inflammation of the blood vessels in the body and immune system over-reactions. Many patients developed blood clots in their lungs and needed mechanical ventilation. Some needed kidney dialysis. In light of this pathological carnage, no antiviral drug could be expected to show much of an effect during this severe second stage of COVID.
On April 6, 2020, an international team of medical experts published an extensive study of hydroxychloroquine in more than 130,000 patients with connective tissue disorders. They reaffirmed that hydroxychloroquine was a safe drug with no serious side effects. The drug could safely be given to pregnant women and breast-feeding mothers. Consequently, countries such as China, Turkey, South Korea, India, Morocco, Algeria, and others began to use hydroxychloroquine widely and early in their national pandemic response. Doctors overseas were safely prescribing the drug based on clinical signs and symptoms because widespread testing was not available.
However, the NIH promoted a much different strategy for the United States. The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would they be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).”
In reality just the opposite was true. This was a tragic mistake by Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and it was a mistake that would cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the days to come.
At the same time, accumulating data showed remarkable results if hydroxychloroquine were given to patients early, during a seven-day window from the time of first symptom onset. If given during this window, most infections did not progress into the severe, lethal second stage of the disease. Patients still got sick, but they avoided hospitalization or the later transfer to an intensive care unit. In mid-April a high-level memo was sent to the FDA alerting them to the fact that the best use for hydroxychloroquine was for its early use in still ambulatory COVID patients. These patients were quarantined at home but were not short of breath and did not yet require supplemental oxygen and hospitalization.
Failing to understand that COVID-19 could be a two-stage disease process, the FDA ignored the memo and, as previously mentioned, it withdrew its EUA for hydroxychloroquine based on flawed studies and clinical trials that were applicable only to late-stage COVID patients.
By now, however, some countries had already implemented early, aggressive, outpatient community treatment with hydroxychloroquine and within weeks were able to minimize their COVID deaths and bring their national pandemic under some degree of control.
In countries such as Great Britain and the United States, where the “Fauci-Hahn Strategy” was followed, there was a much higher death rate and an ever-increasing number of cases. COVID patients in the U.S. would continue to be quarantined at home and left untreated until they developed shortness of breath. Then they would be admitted to the hospital and given hydroxychloroquine outside the narrow window for the drug’s maximum effectiveness.
In further contrast, countries that started out with the “Fauci-Hahn Doctrine” and then later shifted their policy towards aggressive outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, after a brief lag period also saw a stunning rapid reduction in COVID mortality and hospital admissions.
Finally, several nations that had started using an aggressive early-use outpatient policy for hydroxychloroquine, including France and Switzerland, stopped this practice when the WHO temporarily withdrew its support for the drug. Five days after the publication of the fake Lancet study and the resulting media onslaught, Swiss politicians banned hydroxychloroquine use in the country from May27 until June 11, when it was quickly reinstated.
The consequences of suddenly stopping hydroxychloroquine can be seen by examining a graph of the Case Fatality Ratio Index (nrCFR) for Switzerland. This is derived by dividing the number of daily new COVID fatalities by the new cases resolved over a period with a seven-day moving average. Looking at the evolution curve of the CFR it can be seen that during the weeks preceding the ban on hydroxychloroquine, the nrCFR index fluctuated between 3% and 5%.
Following a lag of 13 days after stopping outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, the country’s COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and the nrCFR index stayed elevated at the highest level it had been since early in the COVID pandemic, oscillating at over 10%-15%. Early outpatient hydroxychloroquine was restarted June 11 but the four-fold “wave of excess lethality” lasted until June 22, after which the nrCFR rapidly returned to its background value.
Here in our country, Fauci continued to ignore the ever accumulating and remarkable early-use data on hydroxychloroquine and he became focused on a new antiviral compound named remdesivir. This was an experimental drug that had to be given intravenously every day for five days. It was never suitable for major widespread outpatient or at-home use as part of a national pandemic plan. We now know now that remdesivir has no effect on overall COVID patient mortality and it costs thousands of dollars per patient.
Hydroxychloroquine, by contrast, costs 60 cents a tablet, it can be taken at home, it fits in with the national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses, and a course of therapy simply requires swallowing three tablets in the first 24 hours followed by one tablet every 12 hours for five days.
There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results — and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect. Of the remaining four studies, two come from the same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.
Millions of people are taking or have taken hydroxychloroquine in nations that have managed to get their national pandemic under some degree of control. Two recent, large, early-use clinical trials have been conducted by the Henry Ford Health System and at Mount Sinai showing a 51% and 47% lower mortality, respectively, in hospitalized patients given hydroxychloroquine. A recent study from Spain published on July 29, two days before Margaret Sullivan’s strafing of “fringe doctors,” shows a 66% reduction in COVID mortality in patients taking hydroxychloroquine. No serious side effects were reported in these studies and no epidemic of heartbeat abnormalities.
This is ground-shaking news. Why is it not being widely reported? Why is the American media trying to run the U.S. pandemic response with its own misinformation?
Steven Hatfill is a veteran virologist who helped establish the Rapid Hemorrhagic Fever Response Teams for the National Medical Disaster Unit in Kenya, Africa. He is an adjunct assistant professor in two departments at the George Washington University Medical Center where he teaches mass casualty medicine. He is principle author of the prophetic book “Three Seconds Until Midnight — Preparing for the Next Pandemic,” published by Amazon in 2019.
