Musk thinks this technology will eventually allow full data-streaming to the brain.
Meaning: loads and tons and mega-tons of information will enter brains. Sent from the outside. From outside people who decide what to insert. In brains.
There is only one response to Musk’s claim. When he’s ready to deploy full data-streaming, HE’S the first volunteer.
Because I have news. Not only is this program a crime, not only is it a medical assault…
It doesn’t work.
Musk and other high IQ idiots fail to understand a simple thing. The brain is not the mind.
The brain isn’t consciousness.
The INDIVIDUAL isn’t the brain.
Sending 500 tons of data into brain cells doesn’t make that info usable.
It will, however, cause massive confusion, chaos, and psychosis.
Musk will find that out when he’s the first volunteer.
Musk is one of those high-IQ people who were educated during the first flush of the Age of Information—and bought into the myths. They believe, wrongly, there is something intrinsically alive about data. They like that idea because they have a facility with data.
Whereas, actually, data are dead.
You could put a trillion pieces about flying planes into the brain of an inventory manager at a warehouse, and then sit him in the cockpit of a Cessna, and if he could somehow get the plane off the ground, he’d crash it. Right away.
He’d have all the data, but he wouldn’t KNOW anything. He wouldn’t have piloting skills.
A shop steward at an auto plant wouldn’t suddenly start playing Bach harpsicord fugues.
A doctor wouldn’t throw a no-hitter at Yankee Stadium.
Chances are good that, after the “full data-streaming,” they’d all be on Thorazine. Permanently.
And we’re not even getting into the mind control1 aspect of all this insertion insanity:
Discover how mind control techniques have been used on society and how this contributed to people falling prey to the Covid narrative with Max Lowen, David Charalambous, and Jason Christoff.
Please be aware that this recording may stimulate uncomfortable emotions and/or memories and is not recommended for children under the age of 16.
Part 2: Addressing Mind Control in the Covid Era
On Tuesday 24 April 2024, World Council for Health (WCH) Steering Committee Members Dr Tess Lawrie and Dr Mark Trozzi hosted a special feature on trauma-based mind control and Organized Ritual Abuse (ORA). Part 1of this two-part article covered disturbing stories from survivors of MK Ultra mind control and Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA).
In Part 2, we discover how mind control techniques have been used on society as a whole for many years, and how this contributed to people falling prey to the Covid narrative. Panel members – Max Lowen1, a survivor of satanic ritual abuse, torture, and trafficking; David Charalambous2, a behavior and communications expert; and mind control researcher Jason Christoff3 – share insights into how we can strengthen our minds and our resolve so that we are no longer vulnerable to these insidious techniques.
Commenting on the stories shared by fellow survivors, Max Lowen calls on humanity to recognize how powerful we really are. Those who perpetrate these hideous forms of abuse have severed their connection to the light and prey on our energy to create hell on earth. But Max believes “we have the option to create something completely better and different.”
According to Jason Christoff, just as the MK Ultra program has used drugs and trauma to control the minds of victims of Organised Ritual Abuse (ORA), the same mechanisms are being used to control society as a whole. We are witnessing the widespread legalization and sale of psychoactive drugs, as well as the traumatizing effects of modern entertainment, such as violent movies on Netflix. Both of these increase our susceptibility to mind control. The TV is known to be a hypnotic military device, through which messages can be laid down in our subconscious. And even coffee shops play a role, with caffeine having a profound effect on the area of the brain responsible for creating memories! Mind control methods such as these contributed to many people uncritically falling prey to the Covid narrative.
David Charalambous calls this state ‘manufactured apathy’. People think they cannot challenge the authorities, but this is not our true nature; it is a conditioned response that makes us easier to control. From infancy we are subjected to traumatic images, beginning with ‘Bambi’. Movies, music videos, and ceremonies (such as opening ceremonies of the Olympics and the Gothard Tunnel) normalize horrific acts, poisoning the mind, and causing people to detach from their feelings and become numb. And when something is portrayed as the norm, people simply accept it.
The destruction of attachment
Mind control starts early in our society. From the moment of birth, the attachment between mother and baby that used to be normal is deliberately broken. Babies born in hospitals are removed from their mothers and isolated in bassinets in a nursery, deprived of the bonding that creates a sense of safety. Increasing economic scarcity, and the need for both parents to join the workforce, have resulted in children being put in the care of the State at earlier ages. In some countries, Child Protection Services are empowered to remove children from their parents and some are even involved in child trafficking operations.
Schools are designed to resemble prisons. Children are trained to submit to authority and rewarded for regurgitating information rather thinking critically. It is hardly surprising that such a system generates apathy.
Societal violence and wars add to the experience of trauma, fragmenting the psyche and leading to dissociation. Living in a state of fear causes the prefrontal cortex of the brain to shut down, undermining rational thought and enabling the programming of the mind. Fear, ignorance, and compliance make for a population that is easily manipulated.
The Covid response as a satanic ritual
We all know that we are stronger together. So, it is much more effective to conduct psychological warfare on the public if people are isolated. This was the role of lockdowns – to isolate us, devastate us economically, and render us powerless. In this state we were more susceptible to being traumatized by TV-mediated messages hypnotically repeating fear-based propaganda, death counts, and hyperbolic (often staged or fake) imagery.
As in a satanic ritual, the power differential was exaggerated during Covid, with all-powerful decision-makers controlling powerless victims; and masks (which served no medical purpose) obscuring people’s identities and deepening the sense of isolation.
Satanic rituals are death rituals. The Covid event, the ensuing countermeasures, and the bizarre societal changes that have unfolded since, have all been death focused. The daily covid death tallies; the fake photos of mass graves; the midazolam murders in ‘care’ homes; the increased rates of death from the shots; the incentives to accept medically assisted suicide; and even the delayed deaths due to transgender confusion causing children to destroy their reproductive capacity – all these aberrations are about death, and they are all being normalized.
The pursuit of justice
You have my vow personally to … hunt these perpetrators down, and to keep pursuing justice for everybody involved. – Jason Christoff
Dr Mark Trozzi observed that, for people who live according to the ‘golden rule’ of treating others as they would like to be treated, it is hard to imagine the levels of depravity experienced by the survivors of ORA. The ‘global parasites’ who have infiltrated our governments and institutions have exited the human contract and their relationship with God. They have become energy vampires, parasitizing children.
But we do not have to continue accepting the subversion of our civilization by this satanic cult. The darkness has become so overwhelming that we must now face and address this wickedness. The challenge is to find ways to bring the perpetrators to justice in lawful and spiritually enlightened ways. To this end, WCH Steering Committee Member, Shabnam Palesa-Mohamed, encouraged viewers to consult the WCH policy brief on human trafficking titled Ending Modern-Day Slavery, and to become critically aware of legal efforts to tackle the ritual abuse of children in various jurisdictions.
The time to act is now!
“What can I do?” asked seven billion people. The answer came: “Pretty much anything. All the major changes in the world are made by individuals.”
The last four years have undermined our long-held view of the world, and this has been a very uncomfortable experience. Arriving at this crossroads we have two choices: We can stick with the trauma and continue to suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or, as we seek out the support of other people, we can experience Post-Traumatic Growth (PTG). So let us reach out to one another, build supportive communities, and start healing. And then let us take action to make the world a better place!
The panel shared their thoughts on how we can do just that:
Never give in to the ancient strategy of ‘divide and conquer’. Our only enemy is the global cult. Let us unite as humanity, and not allow constructs like race, gender, or religion divide us. When we come together, we are unstoppable and together we can create a completely new reality.
Recognize that we have been programmed for decades to prepare us to accept the current policies. Narratives are controlled and slurs were prepared in advance (e.g. right-wing conspiracy theorist) to stop people asking questions and shut down debate.
David Charalambous shared how to communicate more effectively under these unnatural conditions. To get through to someone, avoid arguing but instead try to really connect with them. Remember that people come to their conclusions based on the information they have been exposed to. However, as many of us have found, we are very unlikely to get through to someone by giving them lots of facts. It is more effective to expose people to an experience that resonates at a deeper level in the mind. Experiences that jar with people’s previous assumptions – such as listening to the survivors’ testimonies – have the power to change minds.
Jason Christoff explained that one of the reasons why it is difficult to talk about the issue of trauma-based mind control and ORA is that our society is in a ‘comfort coma’ and is desperate to avoid pain. “Pain is a goblin that needs to be avoided at all costs,” he says, but refusing to face the pain of ritual abuse will not solve the problem. Instead, facing pain develops courage and the will to become a better human being.
May Jason’s words inspire us all to step into our courage:
If we want to address it, we’ll have to walk right into it and look this devilish content in the eye and put on the armor of God and protect these children. … I never back away from the dragon’s fire. I will stand in the middle of that fire no matter how painful. I will not sedate to it. I will not tranquilise to it. Even though this group is well-organised and well-funded, they are controlled by evil, and evil is too low IQ to ever win a battle this big!
The perpetrators of these atrocities operate by intimidating others. But they fear independent, strong, healthy, empowered adults. A healthy body equals a healthy mind – and a healthy mind can resist mind control. So, if we want to take our power back and face down this group, we must be the strongest versions of ourselves. Jason Christoff recommends first attending to our physical health: reject sources of poison and address the addictions that contribute to mind control – alcohol, coffee, junk food, and the poisoning of the mind through TV and Netflix. Once we are physically strong, we can focus on building mental, intellectual, spiritual, financial, and emotional strength.
Dr Mark Trozzi reminded us that it is our responsibility as adults to protect children and young people and to expose them to the best of their cultural heritage – to that which is godly, righteous, conscious, and useful. Let us share stories that reinforce the golden rule and encourage young people respect wisdom and speak with kindness. Let us also empower young people to recognize mind control techniques, particularly in the music industry, so that they can step away from these influences and avoid being manipulated and controlled.
In Conclusion
Referring to the I Ching, Dr Tess Lawrie concluded:
The family has been under attack and a lot of healing needs to take place. A healthy family is incredibly powerful. When the house is set in order, the world is established on a firm course. We need to heal the human family so that our house can be set in order and a better world can be established.
Thank you for bringing your brave hearts to this meeting.
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)
