Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked Anthony Fauci, the face of the official US response to Covid, in a July 22nd interview: “Why don’t we hear the downsides of any vaccines?”
“The menstrual thing,” replied Fauci, “is something that seems to be quite transient and temporary … We need to study it more.”
The NYT’s treatment of the study was equally dismissive; the subheading read: “For some, a side effect of getting vaccinated was a change in menstrual cycles – but experts say there is no cause for alarm.”
The “some” referred to 42.1% of the study’s more than 17,000 regularly menstruating subjects who reported heavier than normal bleeding, compared with 43.6% who reported no change. The study found that nearly two-thirds (65.7%) of 1,815 respondents who were pre-menopausal but not menstruating because they were taking hormonal treatments had breakthrough bleeding after a jab. Similarly, 66% of post-menopausal women reported breakthrough bleeding.
Laeticia, a 44-year-old flight attendant who declined to give her surname or identify her employer, took part in a European Parliament panel discussion earlier this year about vaccine harms to flight crews and the particular dangers they pose.
Flight attendants “are the pilots’ eyes and ears – I’m the firefighter, the security agent who was trained by the GIGN [France’s elite security force], the one keeping terrorists out of the cockpit. We help any passenger who falls ill – stroke, heart attack, childbirth.”
Like pilots – most of whom know they risk heart problems resulting from the airlines’ mandatory vaccines – flight attendants like Laeticia “have to be at 100% of my physical and mental shape,” she said.
Laeticia apologised to the men in the audience: “I’m sorry, sirs, these are very intimate things, hard for me to talk to you about.” For the previous 30 years, Laeticia’s menstrual cycle had been “like clockwork”: she had her period every 28 days, and it lasted three days. Starting one week after the second dose of a Pfizer vaccine she haemorrhaged for 18 days straight. “When I say haemorrhaged, I mean emptied of my blood … I saw clots exit my body. I wondered if my body was decomposing.”
She also described experiencing memory loss, problems with speech, aches and pains, shaking and weak legs. “I couldn’t leave home, I couldn’t get dressed without being immediately stained,” she said.
Her doctor told her she had experienced “normal” side effects, and her gynaecologist agreed. “The doctor said, ‘if I told you otherwise it would mean I don’t believe in medicine’.” He referred her to a psychiatrist who wondered if she was suffering burnout. “I don’t know what relationship there is between burnout and 18 days of haemorrhage, but I’m not a doctor,” Laeticia said.
She was prescribed a medication to stop her bleeding which took five days rather than overnight as promised.
“Many of my colleagues do not want to speak out about what’s happening to them, they have very serious disruptions such as no periods for more than nine months, having to get a hysterectomy because of unbearable pain, which I also had – it was worse than when I gave birth,” Laeticia told Holding The Line.
“A lot of my colleagues complain of menstrual problems but they are afraid of repercussions if they speak out,” she said.
As a result of widespread omerta over menstrual problems blamed on the vaccines, self-help groups have sprung up online, such as “Can we talk about it?”, “RealNotRare” and “Où est mon cycle” (“Where is my period” in English), with tens of thousands of posts. Huge Facebook groups sprang up, only to be shut down.
Menstrual woes can be far worse than heavy periods. According to a user-centred survey, MyCycleStory, which yielded a total sample size of 6,049, nearly five per cent (4.83%) or 292 women reported experiencing decidual cast shedding (DCS). In lay terms, this means passing the entire lining of the uterus in one go. The phenomenon was extremely rare before the covid vaccine rollout, with fewer than 40 cases appearing in the medical literature since 1914.
Gag orders
“The menstrual thing” is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the vaccines and reproductive health.
As with practically everything covid, accurate data is elusive, but the vaccines are clearly causing countless tragedies for would-be mothers. Reports of miscarriages, fetal deaths and stillbirths have soared, while Dr James Thorp, a maternal-fetal medicine expert, says attempts to quantify them have been hampered by the imposition of gag orders on physicians and nurses in September 2021.
The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) put out a statement warning that any physician who, in the Board’s view, spreads “misinformation” may have their licence to practise medicine revoked.
“Perhaps not coincidentally, this same language appeared and was published almost simultaneously by [a panoply of medical groups], governmental and private organizations with ties to the pharmaceutical industry, the pharmaceutical industry itself, Big Tech companies, the mainstream media, multiple medical journals, insurance companies, and many others who have a financial or other stake in pushing the experimental gene therapies,” Thorp wrote in a letter to ABOG.
In an interview with feminist and journalist Dr Naomi Wolf, Thorp said: “All of the licensing board agencies, within a matter of four weeks – September of 2021 – gagged every physician and nurse in the United States of America. Unprecedented, unprecedented. And the sole purpose of that was to eliminate vaccine hesitancy.”
The medical establishment also quashed information about or investigation into the dangers of the vaccines for pregnant women. Independent sources all over the world have observed significant increases in spontaneous abortions or fetal deaths, fetal malformations, neonatal or infant deaths, autoimmune diseases in infants, cognitive impairment, seizure disorders and opportunistic infections, and many other disastrous pregnancy outcomes.
Estimates of actual fetal deaths on the basis of reports to VAERS (the official US online reporting system for vaccine side effects) vary according to the under-reporting factor (URF) used, with the system itself warning: “VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely.”
Thorp, an obstetrician and gynecologist with 43 years of experience, uses a URF of 41 derived by investigative journalist Steve Kirsch on the basis of VAERS data for anaphylactic shock. Miscarriages reported to VAERS in 2021 and up to October 21, 2022, totalled 5,311. Using the URF of 41, the actual figure could be 217,751. The bar graph reflecting just the reported miscarriages since VAERS began in 1990 is eye-popping: the previous high was 230 in 2009, compared with 3,670 in 2021.
Scotland has experienced an alarming rise in infant deaths. During March 2022, 18 babies under four weeks old died, after 21 died the previous September – a rate of 4.6 and 5.1 per thousand, respectively. Both triggered an investigation because they exceeded a “control limit” threshold of 4.4 per 1,000. Historically, the average death rate among newborns in Scotland is about two per 1,000 births.
Incredibly, health authorities have already ruled out vaccinations as a factor, and will not investigate the vaccination status of the bereft mothers, the Herald reported.
The article notes that “consultants” advised Public Health Scotland against carrying out such an analysis because it was unlikely to lead to a change in a vaccination policy that was already “appropriately informed by good-quality population-level evidence and safety data”. The decision came to light in internal emails obtained through a freedom of information request.
The Scottish government ordered a review of the surge in the death of newborns, the BBC reported in September. According to the Scottish government’s latest statistics, the second quarter of 2022 saw 46 infant deaths, or 4.1 per 1,000 live births, which was 12.2% greater than the April-June average.
It is bewildering that the covid vaccines have not been subject to the longstanding ‘5/50 rule’. Under this rule, when a drug, vaccine or medical device is linked to five deaths, a ‘black box’ warning is issued; when the toll reaches 50, the product is immediately pulled from the market.
Fertility nosedives
Meanwhile, blogger Igor Chudov is tracking sharp declines in fertility, reporting on nosediving birth rates in Hungary, Sweden, Germany, the UK and Switzerland. Separately, Scottish government figures for the second quarter of 2022 show that births there were down 11.5% on the five-year average at 11,237.
Chudov notes that few countries provide live monthly birth statistics, but that the nativity arrow is pointing downward in those that do. Notably, Hungary saw a 22.2% drop in the Budapest region in the first quarter of this year compared to the first three months of 2021. The Hungarian data shows a “statistically significant negative effect of vaccination on birth rates”.
Research has been done on the covid vaccines’ effect on male fertility. A study published in Andrology, the official journal of the American Society of Andrology and the European Academy of Andrology, has reported a decline in sperm count and motility in the three-month period after vaccination.
Aga Wilson is a human rights advocate who has served as a consultant and project manager on human rights, policy development and training for nonprofits, NGOs, and the United Nations. She set up the #CanWeTalkAboutIt campaign to break the silence about covid-19 vaccine injury and death, and told Holding The Line: “We’re looking at a big problem because this is about fertility. It’s the biggest humanitarian crisis I’ve seen in my career.”
True to form, the mainstream media, exemplified by a Telegraph article, has ignored the vaccine elephant in the room. The Telegraph article cites economic disincentives and a trend towards ‘leisurism’ as the main reasons why young Westerners are avoiding child rearing while failing to explain how these trends accelerated with such force nine months after the covid vaccine rollout.
The new age of cavalier science
The manufacturers of the experimental jabs showed a monumental lack of curiosity and concern over their possible effects on pregnant or breastfeeding women.
Pregnant or breastfeeding women were excluded from the clinical trials, something that has been openly acknowledged. According to FactCheck.org in February 2021, under the headline “No Evidence Vaccines Impact Fertility”: “There’s limited data on vaccine safety for pregnant women because they were excluded from the first clinical trials of both the Pfizer/BioNTech and the Moderna vaccines.” Nor were women asked about their periods or any other reproductive impacts.
A study first published online in April 2021 by the New England Journal of Medicine was widely invoked in support of claims that the vaccines are safe for pregnant women. At the time the study by Tom T. Shimabukuro et al seemed unimpeachable; after all, it was sponsored by the US Centers for Disease Control, and the NEJM is one of the world’s most highly respected medical journals.
Never mind that the study is significantly flawed because it lacked 20-week follow-up data for most (73.9%) of the subjects needed to calculate the risk of miscarriage. It was corrected in October 2021 to note that “no denominator was available to calculate a risk estimate for spontaneous abortions, because at the time of this report, follow-up through 20 weeks was not yet available for 905 of the 1,224 participants vaccinated within 30 days before the first day of the last menstrual period or in the first trimester. Furthermore, any risk estimate would need to account for gestational week-specific risk of spontaneous abortion.”
Moreover, the study had no data at all for 97% of the subjects drawn from the CDC’s “V-Safe” mobile phone reporting app.
Another major shortcoming is that while the paper noted that the results were preliminary since many of the women were still pregnant, the researchers did not follow up; the final results were never published.
These failings did not stop health officials and medical bodies from citing the study to allay the fears of pregnant women. Fears over long-term effects of the vaccines (normally the subject of phase IV trials conducted over at least two years) were thrown to the wind at a time when a lockdown-weary public was increasingly looking to the jabs as a panacea. The authorisation for pregnant women was a historical first. By comparison, the flu vaccine was in use for decades before it was authorised for use during pregnancy in 1997.
Long-term monitoring would also uncover heightened risks for cancers in general, and those affecting women – notably breast cancer, but also ovarian and uterine cancer – are rising dramatically.
But Eric Rubin, editor in chief of the NEJM, prefers the guinea pig alternative.
“We’re never gonna learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it,” said Rubin, a member of the US Food and Drug Administration advisory committee who voted to authorise the jabs for five-to-11-year-old children.
The public must be told who funds The Disinformation Project because it underwrites and legitimises the Government’s sinister ‘domestic extremism’ narrative. After the most recent storm in an ‘extremist’ teacup, it’s time to fess up.
A few weeks ago The Looking Glass wrote an article containing a screenshot of a media invitation to secret briefings by The Disinformation Project for journalists to discuss mis- and disinformation and diversity.
Since then it’s made the rounds online and sparked much discussion, particularly from Sean Plunket at The Platform.
On 3 November it was announced by Newsroom’s Marc Daalder that the secret briefings, set to take place last week, had been cancelled due to harassment, a security breach and a death threat.
It should be stated up front that I do not advocate or condone violence or violent rhetoric – death threats and the like – no matter how angry and scapegoated one may feel in the present environment.
All violence should be condemned, and I take no pleasure in Kate Hannah or anyone else losing sleep over receiving messages of this type. Given the vilification and pathologising that those of us in the freedom community are facing, it would be wise of us to continue to occupy the high ground.
However, at present, we have no way of knowing if she did indeed receive harassment and threats, except by trusting the reporter in question. Certainly comments on Twitter suggest an overall scepticism.
But we have plenty of evidence of the media pushing these stories, misrepresenting the freedom community at every opportunity and furthering sinister intelligence agency talking points that frame disgruntled Kiwis as extremists. Marc Daalder, who wrote the report, is particularly notable for headlines in this vein.
Both the fact that it came from him and the timing (report published 3 November) are worthy of note – this came in a week of hysteria about domestic extremism, with head of the SIS Rebecca Kitteridge asserting that the growth of “anti-authority” extremism had taken off in the wake of covid-19 and asking us to dob in our neighbours (31 October). We saw Jacinda Ardern ramping up the rhetoric, telling us disinformation was a top security concern at the annual He Whenua Taurikura hui on terrorism (1 November). This was also the week Web of Chaos was released (1 November): all of which strongly suggests a planned propaganda drive.
Given that I published my story nearly a month ago, and that the secret briefings have been discussed and critiqued in social and independent media in the subsequent weeks, why didn’t we hear about the alleged harassment earlier? Daalder’s report achieves maximum impact, providing ‘real world’ proof that anti-government extremists are a danger to us all, coming on the heels of proclamations from our leaders saying as much.
The Disinformation Project is an unaccountable organisation that has an extraordinary amount of undue influence on news reporters and therefore the general public. To use a woke term, TDP is ‘platformed’ frequently and uncritically. Yet we do not even know with certainty who is funding it. Daalder and his colleagues in the legacy media, to my knowledge, have never asked this question.
This information is crucial given the prominence afforded to their views, and should be clearly signposted in any report featuring TDP as a matter of transparency and journalistic integrity, given their main grift is to scare people.
The public has been treated to front row seats to Hannah’s views in both Fire and Fury, and the more recent Web of Chaos propaganda films, alongside numerous news reports and interviews, just as we once were to Government funded Siouxie Wiles and Sean Hendy (whose jobs were also to scare us), while alternative voices were ignored and dismissed. The arguments Hannah fronts are flimsy and full of holes, but prompt no challenge from reporters – TDP has even suggested that ‘freedom of speech’ is an American concept, and only people with ‘right wing’ views care about it.
The whole thing is just bizarre. Why has this question not been asked? Are legacy media content, knowing the enormous bias embedded in the messaging of the TDP, to let this go unanswered? Surely the funding ought to be straightened out. Surely? Forget about ‘follow the science’, how about our MSM reporters ‘follow the money’?
It is highly likely from what we know, that TDP is government funded. If confirmed, this raises serious questions about why and how a government can so freely act to propagandise (possibly illegal?) and influence the views of New Zealanders with no checks and balances in place. This is the meat and gristle that journalists used to live for.
Instead we see secret briefings. Has the TDP scrutinised the disinformation coming from Government? Have journalists?
This cosying up between journalists and TDP, Government and its intelligence bureaucrats will to a high degree of certainty, lead to the demonisation of everyday Kiwis for having dissenting opinions by striking fear into the hearts of the gullible. The likelihood that the credulous and fearful will enable and excuse further restrictions on freedom is the whole point – after all, we assured them of this when we rolled over and accepted lockdown without a squeak.
Hannah and TDP’s other major spokesperson, Sanjana Hattotuwa, are claiming that people in the freedom movement are drawing people in with appealing imagery – like Nordic-looking children with braided hair with flowers in it – to ultimately sell white supremacy. And it goes unchallenged.
The invitation posted at The Looking Glass was intended to draw attention to the way media are ‘handled’ by narrative pushers. The result is a fawning collaboration, rather than a challenge from journalists. Tova O’Brien, for example, reckons New Zealand needs more Kate Hannahs. She even wrote an oped arguing we need a Misinformation Minister. Her reasoning? Some people mistakenly believe a rumor that she used to flat with Jacinda Ardern. I mean, serious stuff.
The Platform’s Sean Plunket has invited Hannah on his show to grill her about TDP’s funding and claims. He was declined. Independent journalist Chantelle Baker attended a talk by Hannah last year and politely confronted her about the same. The only answer she got was that TDP was funded mostly by Hannah’s husband.
Plunket and The Daily Blog’s Martyn Bradbury both tried to register for one of the secret workshops but were given fake excuses why they couldn’t attend. Bradbury was told it was full, after only two days, and Plunket was told it was because he wasn’t a member of the Media Council. This isn’t credible. They weren’t welcome because they couldn’t be trusted to be on-side. They would have inevitably challenged the panel, done journalism.
These events were clearly for ‘on-message’, ‘friendly’ journalists – those who have already signaled their acquiescence to this narrative and who can be trusted to produce reams of reports and flood the public consciousness about this bogus threat of extremism – that “they are among you”, as Hattotuwa put it so creepily in the Web of Chaos hit-job film.
The public has a right to know how groups like this, described by propaganda expert Greg Simons as a front group, interact with the fourth estate – whose primary job used to be protecting the people from the government and predatory corporate agendas.
And look, even the Human Rights Commissioner, Paul Hunt, has joined the witch hunt. The failure of all of our public watchdogs in the covid era is another one of the great tragedies, more or less giving a pass to the authoritarians who are surely but steadily advancing their police state, with censorship and surveillance laws, and more.
As Glen Greenwald’s recent reporting shows, this is a global threat, backed by a consortium of state and corporate power, propped up by the fake disinformation industry. Our Prime Minister is the global spokesperson for this movement, as her UN speech in September made clear.
We are all in the storm now.
One of the most grave human rights problems confronting Aotearoa New Zealand is the tsunami of toxic misinformation and disinformation threatening respectful, evidence-informed, discussion which is the life blood of our democratic society.
As I’ve said, I do not condone death threats or abuse against Hannah and her colleagues, or anyone, ever. Nor do I wish to censor TDP, despite the fact that I consider their rhetoric dangerous. It’s dangerous because it goes unchallenged.
I would like to see the legacy media clearly and unequivocally establish TDPs funding, challenge their talking points, and provide a wide range of views. Here’s an idea, they could offer right of reply to those being pathologised. Give it all a public airing – and allow the public the opportunity of an informed view, the chance to decide for themselves, instead of being told.
My story was cynically, cleverly – perhaps predictably – spun into a foil for alarm about domestic extremism. Just look at the tag sitting atop Daalder’s article. One could say it’s ‘extreme’ hyperbole. To advance the current push to demonise free speech and make censorship an acceptable proposition.
We should all be demanding transparency and explanations, because those who should are simply not going to.
The SPARS PANDEMIC 2025-2028, published by the Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security in October 2017, is another of those amazingly prescient, yet “entirely fictional” scenario plans that ended up looking like the blueprint for the actual covid pseudo pandemic (i). It is in fact the prequel to that other freakishly coincidental pandemic wargame, Event 201, hosted in October 2019 (a few weeks before SARS-COV-2 hit the headlines) by the same institution along with the CIA and the World Economic Forum (WEF). What business does the CIA and its brainchild, the WEF, have going anywhere near public health strategy planning? Absolutely none, unless of course public health strategy is to be used as a nefarious special purpose vehicle for intelligence services and the global corporate oligarchy.
If you’re not yet up to speed on pandemic planning shenanigans, check out this brilliant investigative report by German journalist Paul Schreyer who traces the 20-year arc of pandemic simulation wargaming involving collaborations between the most prestigious medical scientific institutions, the mainstream media, and government intelligence agencies – the latter two being a very peculiar inclusion in any nexus of front-line public health strategy planning. This report by Schreyer is a vital contribution to the copious body of evidence demonstrating the Machiavellian planning which preceded the covid pseudo pandemic.
This particular scenario plan, which I will frequently refer to in this essay as the Pandemic Play, was “designed to illustrate the public health risk communication challenges” posed by an infectious disease outbreak. [emphasis added]. Important to stress from the outset – not actual public health risks, but PR risks. In short, it’s concerned with what those with unwashed brains would instantly recognise as brainwashing. For the purposes of this essay the question is, why bother dusting off a five-year-old simulated pandemic plan when the actual events have been slapping us in the face, and very hard I might add, for the past two years?
The answer to that is provided by a James Delingpole tweet which suggests that a key endpoint of the plan – ‘vaccination’ – was anticipated to fail. What’s more, having planned something they knew was destined to fail, the planners also banked on snatching victory from the jaws of defeat by escaping any meaningful punishment or opprobrium. As the evidence of the scale of the ‘vaccine’ atrocity mounts, there is a feeling, among those of us who are most aware and most disgusted with it all, that the tide is turning in our favour and we now have the planners up against the ropes. But is this true or have the pandemic planners merely adapted their own version of Ali’s famous rope-a-dope tactic?
Laying a trap like this makes perfect sense – if you’re going to come up with a plan as preposterous as the ‘Pandemic That Never Was’ to mass inject a ‘Vaccine That Never Was’, you really ought to make allowance for enough people getting wise and blowing the whistle. And that’s precisely what they did. The challenge for the true Machiavellian scholar is how to use the inevitable discovery to transform the heroes who expose the villainy into tragic figures who end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
We are in the Reveal stage of the pseudo pandemic – the denouement – but before we turn to the relevant part of the Pandemic Play to understand what the planners had in store at the time they wrote the final act, it would be remiss not to comment on the character of the document in its entirety.
Blurred lines – pandemic mitigation or pandemonium management?
It is a masterclass in absurdity which has its roots in the inherent contradiction in drafting a plan that purports to deal with the inevitable fallout of a manufactured crisis while pretending that the crisis is not manufactured. Its aim is to present failure scenarios to public health spin doctors, referred to as “public health risk communicators”, and invite them to “mentally rehearse responses” to these failures. But, in providing pitiful explanations for all the failure scenarios, it effectively exposes the Medical Counter Measures (MCMs) of a corrupt pseudo pandemic for the sham that they are.
Instead of mitigating the consequences of a real pandemic, the MCMs are the very things that perversely create the necessity for narrative spin and psyops. Which is of course exactly how it panned out when the plan was transported from the 2017 stage play into the real world. Lockdowns, masks, and mass vaccination were/are all massively destructive and therefore all necessitated military grade psyops to shoehorn them in. It tries to get around this by deflecting blame for MCM failure, which is presented in two ways: either as the inevitable consequence of being caught in the whirlwind of a pandemic – hence, ‘not our fault, guv’, or; not a failure at all but rather the appearance of failure stemming from the public’s incorrect perception of the situation – again, ‘not our fault, guv’! Stupid, stupid public!
Thus, the line between using communications as a tool to disseminate health information and using communications as a tool to manipulate public perception about health policies is blurred, and not skilfully either.
Medical and scientific issues are falsified through deliberate over-simplification, and front-line doctors, the second most important protagonists in a pandemic story after the patient, are conspicuous by their absence.
Because its primary aim is narrative spin, it’s an information warfare manual. The battleground is social media platforms, and the imperative is for public health agencies to adopt “a diverse range of social media technologies” since it is “the diversity of new information and media platforms” that is “challenging their technological grip”. Apposite choice of language since no dictator accepts a challenge to his grip.
In short, it describes a crisis which turns out not to be a crisis but primes public health officials to treat it as a crisis anyway. It describes treatments which turn out to be ineffective because the public is being used as experimental fodder, but challenges public health officials to come up with innovative ways to gaslight the public into believing this is how science is really supposed to work. It is a ‘public health’ psyops manual written by people without a conscience (pandemic planners) for people without a conscience (the “risk communicators”).
I have parsed some of the more ludicrous subplots in the Pandemic Play in footnotes to this essay under the following headings:
Is there actually a problem? (ii)
Get-out-of-jail card for vaccine producers automatically assumed (iii)
Just a spoonful of sugar makes the bad medicine go down (iv)
Unsafe and ineffective? Switch the conversation to uncertainty (v)
Vaccine hesitancy – black arms matter (vi)
Psychopaths also have a sense of humour (vii)
(Reading the footnotes isn’t essential to an understanding of the arguments I make in the main body of the article, but I hope they prove the underdeveloped mindset of the pandemic planners and the contempt in which they hold the public.)
Constructing a new reality – will they succeed?
While the Johns Hopkins Pandemic Play looks like The Moron’s Guide to Public Health Relations, it would be a mistake to conclude that the authors are themselves morons. The document looks bizarre precisely because it’s an instruction manual for people whose job is ad hoc reality dismantling and reconstruction – the “public health risk communicators”.
It is undoubtedly sinister because of its prediction of all the ‘errors’ and ‘mistakes’ that were made in the manufactured covid ‘pandemic’. In the latter sections of the document – the Reveal stage – the planners anticipate fallout from being unable to keep a lid on vaccine injury. Nevertheless, a somewhat happy ending for the pandemic planners is fashioned in their Pandemic Play. So, will they succeed in constructing the reality they desire?
In the 2017 playbook, as “claims of adverse side effects beg[i]n to emerge”, the pandemic planners coyly suggest that the demands for the “removal of the liability shield protecting the pharmaceutical companies” will be deflected by the “emergency appropriation of [taxpayer] funds”. Because God forbid that Big Pharma, having siphoned off billions from the taxpayers’ purse for efficiently distributing poison, might then be subjected to the humiliation of footing the bill for the injuries caused by it.
The pandemic planners were also prepared for the ethical quandary of hastily mass injecting an experimental preparation with no long-term safety data. The ‘rare’ side effect rebuttal is alluded to by reference to “relatively few reports of neurological symptoms” while the problem is framed as an overblown social media response. Ultimately the blame is placed squarely at the feet of an ignorant public – those “demand[ing] proof that the vaccines [do] not cause long-term effects” are “displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific research”! You just don’t get it, so let me spell it out to you on behalf of the pandemic planners. You, the entire public, the 5.3 billion people injected so far – you are the subjects of the experiment, and the experiment isn’t over until the CDC, FDA, MHRA et al say it is. You are the long-term data. You may die in the process but that’s science in the 21st century!
The anti-science and anti-human proposition that most people in the Western world appear to have accepted is that medications are simply presumed safe until real-life post-marketing data tells us that they aren’t. They also signed a full waiver of liability. This, in a nutshell, has been a major objective of the covid coup – to pervert the paradigm of what ethical drug experimentation entails.
We now have Pfizer executives telling us that jabbing 5.3 billion people with a ‘vaccine’ that wasn’t even tested to meet the essential criterion for a vaccine – preventing transmission – was unavoidable because they had to move “at the speed of science”. Just think about the implications of such a cretinous statement – the safety of the entire planet was entrusted to mindless psychopaths who laugh at our expense by talking about moving “at the speed of science”.
While the statement is cretinous, the Pfizer executives are not cretins. They are pretending to be cretins because they firmly believe that this is the level of the general public’s consciousness, and they are therefore confident that the public should be spoken to at that level. But they know full well that science is not a fast car on a racetrack. They know that science is a painstaking process for determining truth in the material world and that it is propelled forward by the accumulation of knowledge which has accrued over thousands of years.
The victory of these psychopaths over reason and real science is now borne out by the eight-mouse test for approving ‘boosters’, which is the outcome of a “Future Framework” report by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to green-light the release of updated covid shots without conducting any additional clinical trials. The new medical Wild West is no accident; it was planned, and the 2017 Johns Hopkins Pandemic Play was simply laying the groundwork for a new reality.
The 2017 handbook’s solution to public grizzling about vaccine injury is to “communicate with compassion and genuine sympathy toward those in the vaccinated population who experience medical issues subsequent to being vaccinated”. Tellingly, the pandemic planners’ confidence in the public’s capacity for absorbing abuse is conveyed in the prediction of its “broad willingness to accept a prescribed countermeasure that promised to end the pandemic, but whose long-term consequences were not fully understood at the time.” Shit happens. The public will deal with it.
So, to the Pandemic Play’s denouement:
“the investigations grew in intensity, several high-ranking officials at the CDC and FDA were forced to step down … Exhausted employees of these agencies … simply wanted to put the whole response behind them. Little desire remained on the part of decision-makers or those who served in the trenches during the response to rehash the events of the past several years.”
Alas, a public selfishly wrapped up in the petty dramas of lockdown trauma and ‘vaccine’ injury is predicted to be unappreciative of those poor souls in the public health agencies who “served their time in the trenches”. Can life get more unfair than this?
And of course, the pandemic planners underline in the very last paragraph the only two components that make a for a happy and successful pandemic experience: “continued commitment to vaccination programs as well as accurate, culturally appropriate, and timely communication from public health agencies across the planet.” It’s all about the ‘vaccine’ and the PR spin to get it into arms – that’s it, in a nutshell.
The End.
It’s both anti-climactic and anti-truth: mass vaccination has never ended a pandemic. What’s more, the utter failure of this ‘vaccine’ deployment in the covid p[l]andemic has forced the CDC to unwittingly declare the vaccination paradigm – prevention of infection and transmission – defunct through a change in the traditional definition of vaccination. The vaccination paradigm is dead. The funeral has not yet been held but its tombstone will read: “Killed by the CDC in 2021”.
The hypothetical story’s ending is intended to be anti-climactic because the implication is that, although there will be some grizzling from the sheep, it will be successfully dampened down by the public health psyops warriors with “culturally appropriate” communication. Lessons will be learned and incorporated into the next Pandemic Play. All’s well that ends well. Above all, the masses will have been acculturated to pandemic tyranny in all its chaos, manipulation and bio-fascist experimentation.
That’s how the pandemic nightmare ends in The SPARS Pandemic Play written by the Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security. Not with the anguished screams of a violent awakening which typically brings nightmares to an end. No. Just a bit of whinging from an ungrateful public and a few exhausted public health warriors taking a well-earned break from trying to convince the impudent masses how lucky they were to have been shepherded by such valiant, clever and selfless people. It ends this way because, for the pandemic planners, it’s not a nightmare; it’s a dream. And not any kind of dream either. It’s a lucid dream, one that they control. Or so they believe. Will the pandemic planners control the covid Reveal stage now playing out in the same way they controlled the Pandemic Play Reveal stage?
Four possible endings to the covid Reveal stage
Are the pillars at last crumbling as Mark Sharman suggests? It feels like it. We have ‘revelations’ by MEPs that, shock and horror, Pfizer knew all along that they hadn’t tested their ‘vaccine’ for stopping transmission. Actually, we knew that two years ago in October 2020. Will dominoes start to fall in the UK following calls from a top-flight cardiologist to halt the vaccine programme? What will happen in the US now that Florida’s Surgeon General has advised all males aged 18-39 against having a covid vaccine owing to an associated 84% increase in cardiac-related death? Bear in mind, it was foretold in the Pandemic Play.
There might be a coming storm but will the pandemic planners weather it? Time for a thought experiment. Let’s ponder four possible closing scenes to the covid drama with some thoughts on the plausibility and likelihood of each.
1. Justice prevails
Dr Peter McCollough, the most published cardiologist in his field in history, has recently said:
“When Republicans come to power in the House they’ll start to have real strong subpoena power, investigation power … I think the FDA commissioner is in deep trouble, NIH Division Directors in deep trouble, CDC director, you know, they’re gonna have nowhere to hide.”
Ed Dowd, financial investor and former Black Rock manager, when asked by Naomi Wolf if ‘vaccine’ manufacturers’ immunity from liability could be lifted owing to fraud, responded:
“If fraud is proven it vitiates all contracts … so immunity will be broken and not only are individuals going to sue, governments are going to sue … the daisy chain effects of this are mind boggling … it will take down the FDA, the CDC, the NIH. It’ll take down many politicians’ careers, global governments will be shaken to the core.”
Whether criminality will be fairly dealt with by the justice system hinges on the answer to the question: how deep is the Deep State? We are in the middle of a global financial oligarchic coup d’état masterminded by the major intelligence agencies of the world with the CIA as the capo di tutti capi. They’re not just going to fold. Being on the back foot with the ‘vaccine’ crisis is an added incentive to accelerate the other manufactured crises currently on the burner – the Ukraine war / energy crisis. These have the potential to dwarf the ‘vaccine’ crisis.
What’s more, if the pressure really mounts, governments captured by Big Pharma and the corporate oligarchy are likely to defend Big Pharma’s liability protection by expanding government vaccine injury compensation schemes in some way. It’s debt that ordinary taxpayers will shoulder, not the oligarchy. And they are firmly committed to ‘resetting’ it in the coming collapse anyway.
2. Mob justice prevails
If the criminals responsible for these atrocities are untouchable by the system they own and run, we might consider the possibility imagined by John O’Looney, the whistleblowing funeral director who is certain that justice will not come from the courts but from the collective masses. He is pessimistic about court justice prevailing for the reasons I have stated above:
“Because you cannot reason with genocidal maniacs, there is no “law system” that will work, they run the law system and they already totally ignore it – it doesn’t apply to them.”
This is how O’Looney sees the covid pandemic final scene playing out:
“The people who have had their kids sterilised, the people who have had their family members murdered and maimed by these injections … will target those they can get to” and not the ones who called the shots but who will be unreachable – the Johnsons and the Trudeaus of the West. As one fearful nurse who sees the writing on the wall put it: ‘when they find out what we have done they will stone us to death.‘ ”
He also suggests this descent into civil war is “by design” but it’s not clear what the intended end point of this design is and how it works for the forces that orchestrated this disaster. At any rate, I think that the problem with this scenario is that it’s the violent fantasy of those who are rightly angry, but conjured on behalf of the injured, and for that reason is unlikely to manifest in reality. Those who are angry but didn’t fall for the cruel ‘vaccine’ hoax have the luxury of engaging in such fantasies. However, those who fell for the hoax and got injured are either broken or in denial.
I cannot see violent mass uprisings happening, although sporadic acts of vengeful violence are a possibility that The System could easily cope with under narratives of domestic terrorism, unhinged anti-vaxxers and so forth. In any event, I think it’s unlikely that large-scale mob justice will grip nations in the West and particularly in the UK. Why? Because this is not South Africa, and I don’t say that to disparage South Africans. But when South Africans get angry, they tend to make a good fist of it. Not so much here. Revolution doesn’t come easy to these British Isles, which may have a gene for repression running through them.
Additionally, a culture of abject statism mitigates against mob rule. Most people accepted that the state had a right to manage their health risks. On the one hand, this does mean that people will seek redress for state failure by queueing for compensation. However, provided that this process is carefully stage managed by the state, people will accept the token crumbs handed out by compensation schemes. At the root of self-abasing statism is an infantile acceptance of parental authority by the state even when the state proves itself to be a thoroughly bad parent. After ‘mistakes’, the debate turns to ‘learning lessons’ and ‘reform’, and the cycle repeats ad nauseam. Refer to the next possibility below.
3. Narrative control by pandemic planners
C J Hopkins calls the Reveal stage The Morning After and he paints a depressing story of how the pandemic planners emerge victorious. “After being systematically terrorized, gaslighted, threatened, and otherwise tormented” for the past two-and-a-half years, most people are probably going to be “grateful for anything resembling ‘normality’ no matter how fascistic it turns out to be”. Populations are now ripe for an introduction to a new reality. Yes it’s true many people are realising that they were sold a crock, but running parallel to that realisation is process of forcing themselves to believe that they never believed that crock in the first place.
Hopkins describes the “really nauseating” part prophesied by our ‘risk communication’ experts at Johns Hopkins – the bit where the New Normal psychopaths pretend to respond to the outrage “with compassion and genuine sympathy”. They’ll admit “mistakes were made” and express regret at the needless infliction of murder, mayhem and psychological torture. There may even be one of those public enquiries that airs just enough of the right kind of dirty linen, but nothing too smelly. These enquiries are like truth and reconciliation commissions – they work very well for the establishment by providing catharsis without justice. Full-time score: Humanity 0 – Pandemic Planners 10.
4. No narrative control required – bigger fish to fry
There is a very serious possibility that the Pandemic Planners might have no need for a Reveal stage or a Morning After. They seem to be taking another approach, which is to create ever bigger and hotter pans to fry us in. There’s a manic rush to get us all securely under lock and key by 2030 so they might end up skipping parts of the show that were included in the draft 2017 script. Having a Reveal or Morning After scene in the play is a luxury we might want to forgo when we’ve got Dying of Cold, Food Shortages, Deindustrialisation Caused by The Energy Crisis, Financial Collapse, Cold War II, Unemployment and Bank Runs on the horizon. Did I mention Nuclear Fallout? With such an action-packed agenda, I think the loyal patrons might be only too happy to skip a whitewashed Chilcot enquiry for ‘vaccines’ and The Pandemic That Never Was.
Which option will prevail?
I do not believe that a reckoning on the ‘vaccine’ crime is imminent. That’s not to say it won’t happen. Just don’t hold your breath. The CDC in the US has just doubled down by approving, for the first time, an unlicensed (Emergency Use Authorisation) covid ‘vaccine’ to be added to the childhood immunisation schedule. The good news is that Florida is set to lead the way in red states sticking two fingers up at the Federal death cult. But the UK regulator is mulling over jabs for infants as young as six months and the UK Government, having been petitioned to open an inquiry into covid ‘vaccine’ safety, has declined to do so. The Government is a fugitive on the run from prosecution for crimes against humanity. They’re going to keep running until they are caught.
Of all the scenarios discussed above, my money is on the last one – an avalanche of new crises that will put the Reveal stage in the rear-view mirror, at least for a time. That does not rule out a ‘vaccine’ reckoning but it delays it and ultimately makes it dependent on the outcome of the next stage of the coup. The corporate oligarchy’s preferred candidate for UK PM, Sunak, has been anointed and the Government is retreating from the covid battlefield to launch an offensive in the financial collapse arena. This retreat actually began under Johnson in early February and, so far, shows no signs of u-turning.
There remains a chance that covid restrictions in some shape could return under Sunak’s WEFminster premiership, but my gut tells me it’s more unlikely than likely, even if only by a slim margin. I want to emphasise that the margin is slim because lies and u-turning are now the norm and the Government continues to work feverishly on covid passes despite the assurances that covid passes are a thing of the past.
The short-term aim of financial collapse is further wealth consolidation by the global corporate oligarchy, after which they will attempt to set the stage for a debt and monetary reset, the precursor to CBDCs and digital IDs.
Towards the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Whether they are conscious of it or not, the pandemic planners responsible for the Johns Hopkins SPARS Pandemic Play are proponents of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) in which information is the new currency and the most important tool of control. To that end, it can be used to bend reality into the shapes the controllers want you to see. In a world where objective truth is deemed to be the arbiter of action, a pandemic is an event that demonstrably causes severe illness and sincere efforts are accordingly directed towards saving lives. But, under the 4IR paradigm, a pandemic is an event conjured by pandemic planners to direct efforts towards data manipulation and social media control, creating the perception of a grave health threat in order to control the populace.
Of course, information has always been a means of control. But until now, the possibility has never existed for the whole of humanity to be locked up in a digital hell to which the keys are held by a cabal of psychopathic technocrats. In this hell, the safety and efficacy of drugs are determined not by real health outcomes but by the medical establishment’s “technological grip” on social media platforms. The WEF’s vision of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is the cementing of the new totalitarianism. Hannah Arendt put it this way:
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (that is, the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (that is, the standards of thought) no longer exist.” – Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
But the Fourth Industrial Revolution can go one of two ways. Either we can seize its reins to liberate the internet and decentralise control, or we are herded into a totalitarian matrix. The battle for the internet is the battle for your minds. If you don’t own your mind, you don’t own your body. And if you don’t own your body, you are the slave of those who control your mind and body. Will you be a slave?
(i) Before the World Health Organisation softened the definition of pandemics in 2009 in order to make them a regular occurrence in the calendar, a key characteristic of pandemics was disease severity. The covid ‘pandemic’ saw negligible excess mortality in nearly all countries including the UK until 2021, when coincidentally, mass jabbing began. The covid infection fatality rate for the under 70s is estimated to be 0.1%. The event was no worse than a bad flu season, and bad flu seasons are not treated as pandemics. Hence the qualification of the word ‘pandemic’ with the word ‘pseudo’.
(ii) Is there actually a problem?
At the outset of the 2017 Johns Hopkins Pandemic Play, in chapter 1, it is recognised that the prevalence of mild cases combined with the broad range of non-specific flu-like symptoms of the pathogen – eerily reminiscent of covid symptoms – would result in an initial inflation of case fatality estimates owing to large numbers of untreated and undiagnosed cases in the general population. This initial inflation would spark panic, but the document acknowledges that “later in the SPARS outbreak, data that included more accurate estimates of mild SPARS cases indicated a case fatality rate of only 0.6%.” Which is basically what happened with covid very early on – panic created by bogus models, followed by irrefutable evidence that the threat was grossly exaggerated.
At this point, the true “communication dilemma” is obvious to sane and honest observers: how do you tell the public that there is no longer a public health emergency and that we’ve got the equivalent of a bad flu, so keep calm and carry on but mind how you go. And oddly enough the answer to that dilemma would be: “Dear Joe Public, we’ve got the equivalent of a bad flu, so keep calm and carry on but mind how you go.”
Needless to say, that is not the tack the document takes. Instead, it goes on to describe a feature of the virus, something not known to have ever existed before in respiratory viruses – yes you guessed it, asymptomatic spread. That scenario, conjured out of absolutely nothing, was as preposterous in 2017 as it is now and its nightmarish invention two years before the ‘pandemic’, ungrounded as it was in any scientific evidence, is proof positive that malevolence has been in the air for far longer than we knew. The SPARS info warriors sum up the communication dilemma with this question: “What medical and morale-boosting purposes does sharing information about self-protective actions (eg, infection control measures) serve for the public during an uncertain and fear-instilling situation?”
So, at the very beginning of the scenario plan the “risk communicators” are indoctrinated into a thematic undercurrent that runs through the whole document – avoidance of the colossal elephant in the room, which is that there actually might not be a ‘public health emergency’, as evidenced by the acknowledgement of the “case fatality rate of only 0.6%.”. An inability or unwillingness on the part of the “risk communicators” to see this gigantic flashing neon sign is taken as a given because they are expected to be uncritical automatons incapable of stepping outside their field of expertise – public brainwashing – to ask paradigm-shifting questions like: is there really is a public health crisis and, even if there was, would military grade psyops and manipulation be the ethical way to address it? And in fairness to The John Hopkins Centre, their assessment of public health ‘risk communicators’ is spot on – covid has proved them to be grade-A morons incapable of asking big picture questions.
They are propaganda warriors whose only requirement is to be presented with battle scenarios. Good soldiers don’t ask why they’re fighting. Good soldiers just need orders, and this is what this document achieves – infantile prompts on how to engage the enemy in various info war scenarios.
(iii) Get-out-of-jail card for vaccine producers automatically assumed
Liability protection for vaccine providers was envisaged in the 2017 document alongside the contractual requirement to ensure “safe and effective” products – a patently illogical contradiction, since if you were contractually required to deliver a safe and effective product, then failure to do so would be a breach of contract. But if the contract can be breached with impunity, there’s clearly no incentive to honour it. It confirms that as far back as 2017, safety and efficacy were known to be a pipe dream and that the taxpayer would pay the price for this baked-in failure. One of the communication dilemmas posed by this in the Pandemic Play: how to deal with the consequences of health officials understating the “potential risks of a novel SPARS vaccine when long-term effects are not yet known”. [emphasis added] Sound familiar?
(iv) Just a spoonful of sugar makes the bad medicine go down
The Pandemic Play foretold the fallout from the release of an ineffective and unsafe anti-viral drug, “Kalocivir”. Here we see the tightrope walk that is to become familiar: on the one hand, the inevitable calamities that ensue as part of a manufactured pseudo pandemic must be presented as dilemmas to the “risk communicators” if they are to appreciate their task but, on the other hand, these calamities must also be positioned as problems merely of perception to be solved by massaging the message. Downplaying the true nature of the failure is intended to reassure the reader that it’s perfectly reasonable to paper over these cracks because they’re not atrocities caused by the modus operandi of the psychopaths at the helm of Big Pharma; they’re just problems of perception, in the same way the pain of the vaccine injured was dismissed by so many physicians as psychological. This speaks to the level of contempt in which the public is held by the pandemic planners.
This is the line between using communications as a tool to disseminate health information and using communications as a tool to manipulate public perception. Trying to navigate the two when the first was never a sincere goal causes the whole document to descend into farce from the outset.
The Pandemic Play describes Kalocivir’s side-effects as severe stomach cramping and projectile vomiting while adding that it was “not completely effective at treating SPARS”. Covid’s Remdesivir, which also turned out to be “not completely effective”, was renamed Run-Death-Is-Near by nurses in the US who saw its effects first-hand.
The communication dilemma posed by the ineffective anti-viral with “potential side effects” is: “why might communicating the science around MCM [Medical Counter Measures] adverse effects alone not be enough to address the public’s fears and concerns about a MCM like Kalocivir”. Fair point: science can never be enough if you’re peddling a defective product. So, what extra help should be recruited? The answer, posited again in the form of an infantile nudge question, is: “Why is it also important to communicate with compassion, concern, and empathy?”. Because compassion and empathy are all that’s needed to make really bad medicine go down.
This is a paradox of psychopathy. Psychopaths cause harm because they have no empathy. But they understand that fake empathy can be weaponised against normal humans to ameliorate the damage they inflict.
(v) Unsafe and ineffective? Switch the conversation to uncertainty
A closely related communication dilemma invites risk communicators to grapple with drug “safety and efficacy” spin: “In the time leading up to the newly revealed data about antiviral safety and efficacy how might health communicators have better prepared the public for uncertainty and fluidity of crisis response and the need to act in the absence of complete information?” [emphasis added]. It’s worth parsing this because of the implicit and casual assumption of criminality in drug deployment.
“Newly revealed” data obviously implies a deficiency in the data that preceded it and so data deficiency, though couched in evasive terms, is envisaged as par for the course. Newly revealed data just emerges mysteriously, and we are not to ask questions about why the preceding data was unreliable. In the real, or more accurately surreal, covid world, we know the deficiency was caused by rushed and fraudulent trials. Of course, under the circumstances, the only viable source of the “newly revealed data” is from post-marketing analysis. In other words, the public at large is the guinea pig. The need to “act in the absence of complete information” is a euphemism for authorising the marketing of drugs that haven’t been properly tested for safety and efficacy.
Let’s be clear – this is a document from a prestigious scientific institution that advocates using the public as guinea pigs in industrial-scale medical experimentation and cynically disguises this as an imperative driven by “uncertainty and fluidity”. Here is Fauci on 4th October 2022 explaining the only thing, in his opinion, that he got wrong during the handling of the pandemic: “I probably should have tried to be much, much more careful in getting the message to repeat — the uncertainty of what we’re going through”. Fauci certainly read his copy of the Pandemic Play.
(vi) Vaccine hesitancy – black arms matter
Next up on the agenda: cultural messaging. The public, aware that the case fatality rate is only 0.6%, is “grow[ing] increasingly hostile toward continued SPARS messaging.” Damn right they are! The problem for the pandemic planners in their ‘hypothetical’ kindergarten Pandemic Play is that the Holy Vaccine has not yet been blessed by the CDC for rollout. Back in 2017, they hadn’t yet conceived of the eight-mouse test. In 2017, the novices playing pandemic wargames thought the vaccine would take longer than a year to roll out, even under their envisaged “accelerated clinical trial process”. They had not bargained on Big Pharma Warp Speeding them into the world’s veins in six months. Perhaps the distribution of this document in 2017 proved invaluable in concentrating minds to find a solution to this particular dilemma.
At any rate, the document provides classroom material for woke racism as it broaches how to tackle African Americans who just don’t seem to want to get over the Nazi-like Tuskegee experiment that was conducted on Black people after the Nazis were supposedly defeated in 1945. (This shocking experiment began in 1932 and ended only in 1972 after exposure by investigative journalists.) How to overcome this irksome resistance? With the condescending cringe fest of a celebrity endorsement circus, of course! Just roll out a former president and, wait for it, a “popular hip-hop star by the name of BZee”. I. Kid. You. Not.
The woke racist solution to be deployed for these “community” crises is: “pre-crisis partnerships and alliances with intermediary groups and/or opinion leaders…to reduce the likelihood and mitigate the impact of anti-Corovax sentiments among specific minority groups.”
(vii) Psychopaths also have a sense of humour
There is a psychopathic sense of humour on display towards the end of the document when, not for the first time, the planners foretell justified public wrath aimed at “several influential politicians and agency representatives…for sensationalizing the severity of the event for perceived political gain”. The awful suggestion of political deception in exaggerating the threat is dismissed as a canard by wryly adding that the witless public can be forgiven for thinking they got scammed because “successful efforts to reduce the impact of the pandemic created the illusion that the event was not nearly as serious as experts suggested it would be.”
In other words, the deftness of the experts and politicians in averting total annihilation prevents the public from appreciating just how bad things would have been had they not been there to shield the sheep from the flu-like pathogen with a CFR of 0.6%.
As we well know, this droll observation eventually played out in the live covid world as: imagine how bad it would have been if we hadn’t locked down and stopped the NHS from working, put thousands out of work, set the education of our children back, caused depression, anxiety and addiction to skyrocket; imagine how bad it would have been if we hadn’t pumped pathogenic spike protein laced with anaphylactic polyethylene glycol and blood vessel-shredding graphene oxide into your veins. Why aren’t you grateful?
More pearl clutching from ‘misinformation experts’ over the freedom community’s political engagement.
One of VFF’s memes ahead of last week’s local body election. The professional and organised nature of the freedom movement has media actors very concerned.
Pathologising dissent has been a perennial theme at The Looking Glass, but now media actors are moving beyond targeting pesky protestors and dissidents to cast a shadow over entirely pedestrian activities.
Activists in the freedom movement are now being called by MSM journalists and their ‘experts’, ‘the misinformation and disinformation community’.
Yes, the biggest purveyors of actual mis-and-disinformation are in a panic about people who have come to different conclusions about this whole covidian clusterf**k. It all has a very McCarthyite undertone. ‘Reds under the bed’ is now conspiracy theorists attacking woke tropes, with some good old Russophobia thrown in for good measure.
Two examples from the last two weeks are salient. First, the head of journalism at Auckland University of Technology penned an op-ed in favour of ditching the right of reply for groups pushing back against government overreach. Second, an academic from the Orwellian ‘The Disinformation Project’ described normal civic participation by members of the freedom movement – an interest in voting for representatives who reflect their values – as something the wider public needs to be fearful of.
Well I would generally agree – but reporters and editors have spent that last two and half years peddling the most egregious and obvious lies and propaganda put out by governments. It has been appalling to watch, and worse because parsing the actual facts is not particularly hard to do.
When people with enough nous to smell a rat began to speak up, the establishment rounded on them like a pack of wolves, labelling them conspiracy theorists and mis-informants and has continued this campaign relentlessly ever since.
But what is startling about Treadwell’s piece is that he actually advocates for ditching long standing rules of journalism. Rules put in place to ensure the public is in a position to take an educated view of an issue, because they have received a balance of information.
This new ‘ethos’ started in the Trump years and came to be known as Trump Derangement Syndrome. Essentially the democratic establishment in the US, and the liberal media globally abandoned journalistic norms in favour of activism in order to destroy Trump.
Now, I am no fan of Trump, a narcissistic opportunist at best, but he is quite far down my personal shit list. I am even willing to give him credit for the occasional moment of lucidity, while recalling that he was also responsible for Operation Warp Speed, the disastrous programme to fast track the covid jab rollout.
But his Presidency broke a lot of people’s brains, and the liberal media allowed themselves to become completely de-moored from bedrock principles of journalism in order to oust him.
Holy shlit
Sam Harris just admitted he supported censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story because it helped Biden
Recently, liberal pundit Sam Harris laid this bare in an interview with the UK’s Triggernometry, in which he shamelessly admitted the liberal media conspired to bury the Hunter Biden laptop story so that Trump would not be re-elected. He went so far as to say Hunter Biden could have murdered children in his basement and it would still have been the right thing to do to keep Trump from another term in office.
The lead journalist on Stuff’s hit piece film Fire and Fury, Paula Penfold, more or less gave a nod to these new journalistic norms when she admitted they did not offer Voices for Freedom et al the right of reply.
We are now living an era where derangement syndrome has become the dominant mindset of legacy media. Alarmism, fearmongering, omission and supression are acceptable if they produce a particular outcome.
Outrageously, Treadwell argued that the Media Council should not uphold the principle of ‘right of reply’ when it comes to grassroots activist group Voices for Freedom’s recent complaint about the Fire and Fury film, a group which has the support of well over 100,000 very normal, very average, everyday kiwis.
Treadwell wrote:
“Such a finding, despite any immediate logic to it, would be simply unthinkable.
“It would allow purveyors of disinformation to cast themselves even further as victims of the ‘mainstream media’ and perhaps even force Stuff to provide a platform for their mistruths and conspiracies.
“It would open the gate wider to proto-fascist movements seeking to pollute our public sphere and thereby wound our democracy.”
It’s worth reminding readers here that the so-called ‘misinformation and disinformation’ put out by groups like VFF is never identified, and always left intentionally vague so news consumers are not able to judge for themselves what might be the case.
And that a bunch of people who are trying to uphold freedom of speech, civil rights and the liberties democracies base themselves on are described as ‘proto-fascists’ is either intentionally deceitful or deeply ignorant. These values are the literal antithesis of fascism.
What is characteristic of fascism is the desire to control the information landscape totally – can you smell the hypocrisy here? It reeks.
'I could be barking up the wrong tree here, Greg, but I would cautiously suggest that implying that journalistic balance could lead to fascism is a prime example of tweaking reality to stir up fear for your own editorial gain.'
I was grateful to see Sean Plunket enthusiastically challenge this thinking on The Platform (I’m not usually a fan, particularly of his disgraceful ‘nutter test’ and his recent rude interview with a whistleblower undertaker), while his colleague Ben Espiner wrote a great rebuttal here. Espiner says:
“I think we should be concerned about what our young journalists are learning about their role in a democracy from people like Treadwell. People who are supposed to be raising our next generation of reporters, yet appear increasingly to be abandoning their duty to convey the principles of balance and fairness in favour of drilling fear into their students over the entirely imagined danger of ‘platforming’ views they don’t like.”
Disinformation ‘experts’ attempt to stigmatise perfectly normal behaviour
The Disinformation Project’s Sanjana Hattotuwa said on Breakfast TV this week:
“The most interested in exercising their franchise, from what we study, come from the mis and disinformation communities. They are the most motivated, they are the most intentional, they do the most researchand they really want to go out and vote and they are … by order of magnitude exceeding what we have studied are campaigns put out by LGNZ and the Vote 2022 Campaign … So it’s not good: they are instrumentalising the voter apathy and the most interested voting is coming from the mis and disinformation communities.”
Did you do a double take there? By exercising your political right to vote, you are taking advantage of all the people who don’t bother. It used to be considered a virtue to be motivated and informed, but now we’re told that this is ‘not good’.
I have said before mis and disinformation experts aren’t real experts on anything. They are propagandists in sheep’s clothing. A fake discipline, probably covertly funded by governments. The Disinformation Project is not upfront about its funding, but claims it is independent, while being linked to government funded Te Pūnaha Matatini (TPM) by its lead researcher, Kate Hannah, and publishing its non-peer reviewed papers on TPM letterhead.
The Disinformation Project has published papers on government funded TPM letterhead, but says it’s an independent research group and does not disclose its funding.
Earlier this year assistant professor at Uppsala University and propaganda expert Greg Simons, someone who has spent decades studying the machinations of political communications, said of The Disinformation Project:
“The project is run in a classic front-group style of information operation and influence activity. They attempt credibility by not disclosing their financial and political conflicts of interest. The underlying reason is that they want to be seen as being more credible at a time when the New Zealand government is increasingly (and rightly) seen as being less trustworthy and credible.”
Ardern’s free speech problem
Despite YouTube only allowing people who post the videos to view the number of dislikes, there are ways around that. Jacinda Ardern's speech on the official UN's YouTube channels has more than 7,900 dislikes. Read the comments too. Link here. https://t.co/ar7xSC9Enqpic.twitter.com/7vYrswpUm6
The timing of these two pieces of commentary is interesting, and I do not believe coincidental, coming on the heels of two major signals from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern about the direction of travel. While in New York last month, Ardern announced she was heading up a global task force to tackle mis and disinformation, which was quickly followed by a remarkable speech at the UN, in which she claimed access to information online was a ‘weapon of war’, and called for a global censorship regime.
She has been widely criticised, mocked and derided abroad for her outrageous attacks on the bedrock of democracy, but the legacy media in New Zealand has only applauded her, and as we have seen, appear fully committed to her agenda.
Muriel Newman at Victoria University’s Centre for Political Research wrote an excellent critique this week, titled The New Face of Authoritariansm.
Newman remarked that the Prime Minister’s UN speech signalled how far she intends to go to control what Kiwis can and can’t see and read, by controlling internet algorithms, with the result that it will soon take a lot of effort and determination to find alternative, unofficial, views.
“What this means is that algorithms are being changed to ensure that internet searches no longer give you what you want, but what ‘they‘ want you to see. George Orwell’s age of Big Brother really has arrived. Its name is Jacinda Ardern.”
Grooming journalists
Following on from these global announcements, journalists are being targeted again with more misinformation propaganda.
The Disinformation Project has just announced in-person media resourcing sessions to be held early next month, in which journalists and producers are invited to discuss disinformation issues with the project team.
These sessions will follow Chatham House Rules, meaning what is said will remain undisclosed outside of the room, apparently in order to allow free and frank discussion.
The TDP sessions for journalists have a focus on disinformation and diversity – is a new narrative about to hit the headlines? One possibility is that the freedom movement, inconveniently broad-based – politically, socially and ethnically – will be sold to journalists as racist at some level. Or, perhaps the fact that it brought such a diversity of people together to stand up for their rights and freedoms will be used to push a narrative about how the ‘mis and disinformation community’ are exploiting people’s emotional weaknesses and need for belonging to ‘radicalise’ them. We’ll have to wait and see.
The sessions will be run with the support of the Science Media Centre, a global PR outfit that curates science stories and scientist comment for reporters, and also trains journalists on science reporting, thus majorly skewing science journalism towards corporate interests. It has had a very pernicious impact on science journalism in the last decade or so.
“A decreasing pool of time-pressed UK science journalists no longer go into the field and dig for stories. They go to pre-arranged briefings at the SMC … The quality of science reporting and the integrity of information available to the public have both suffered, distorting the ability of the public to make decisions about risk,” said Connie St Louis, director of the science journalism programme at City, University of London, back in 2013.
Yes, we really do have a new Pravda on our hands. Rather than interrogate The Disinformation Project about its funding and origins, I’m betting the legacy media will continue to legitimise it by regularly quoting its spokespeople and publicising its ‘research’.
Perhaps it’s unsurprising that such things are going on in New Zealand when the country’s leader is at the forefront of a global project to implement mass censorship. It makes one wonder whether Kiwis will be the first victims of Ardern’s experiments, the guineapigs? Hasn’t New Zealand often been the test case for global technology roll outs? Will we also be the first people in the west to have our access to information curbed and the right to speak our minds limited?
Fun times! Watch out for a volley of new ‘mis and disinformation’ reporting come November, with a ‘diversity’ twist.
The Workers of England Union (WEU) is quite possibly the only union in England to have robustly defended workers’ rights against no jab/no job policies following the Government’s coercive drive to maximise covid vaccine uptake. Such policies are clearly an affront to the basic rights of bodily autonomy, medical freedom and voluntary informed consent. It beggars belief that 75 years after Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg for violating this principle, governments across the world violated it all over again.
WEU has put itself on the right side of history by defending workers against the Government’s full-frontal assault on these basic human rights and, for that reason alone, I wanted to have a discussion with its General Secretary, Stephen Morris, about the battle that his union has fought for employees and what success it has had.
However, the WEU has also been associated with far-right politics owing to its association with the English Democrats, a party that is labelled as “far-right” by mainstream commentators. In addition to being the General Secretary of WEU, Stephen Morris is also the North West Area Chairman for the English Democrats.
I wanted to explore whether this characterisation of WEU as far-right is fair and to understand the extent, if any, to which WEU policy and operations are affected by the relationship of its General Secretary with the English Democrats. I also wanted to explore some potential contradictions between the union’s position on bodily autonomy and some of the English Democrats’ policy positions. I think it’s valid to explore this given that Stephen Morris straddles two roles as both head of WEU and a senior ranking member of the English Democrats.
Stephen Morris’s active participation in trade unionism began as a branch secretary for Unite in 2000, when he was working for Metrolink, Greater Manchester’s tram/light rail network. It was around this time that he started to question whether England needed its own Parliament as the Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh Assemblies were taking root. He also became disenchanted with what he saw as a lack of transparency in annual union pay negotiations: senior union representatives appeared to be doing deals with senior management behind closed doors and presenting them to the shop floor as a fait accompli.
As someone who identifies strongly with England and wants to advance its interests, Stephen had a brief flirtation with the Conservative Party but left it after concluding that English nationalism within the United Kingdom would not be advanced under that party. It was in 2009 that he joined the English Democrats, who were campaigning for the advancement of English interests within the Union of UK nations. Around this time, his disenchantment with the disconnect between the trade union hierarchy and its members led him to collaborate with a few like-minded colleagues to form the WEU.
WEU has been successful in fighting no jab/no job mandates mainly by exploiting technical breaches of employment law. As a result, its membership grew from slightly over 1,000 in 2019 to the current level of over 9,000 in 2022.
A key difference between WEU and other unions is that its union reps are not workers’ reps with employer line managers. They therefore avoid the conflicts that can arise when a union rep’s boss is also the boss of the employee with a grievance. On a nod and a wink, union reps can be given preferential workplace treatment that might colour their judgement when handling employee grievances. WEU reps are not connected in any way to the employer, which removes this type of conflict.
Hope Not Hate (HNH), a charity that claims to campaign against racism, has alleged that WEU is not a legitimate union but rather an association without any obvious benefits to its paying members. Stephen Morris responded that the claim is false. WEU has been a certified union since 2012 and is required to comply with the same regulations as all other trade unions. It submits annual audited accounts and reports to a certification body that is now its regulator since April. Stephen Morris asserts that WEU is subject to and complies with the same regulations as major unions like Unite, Unison and GMB.
HNH also assert that the English Democrats are “far right” and known for their anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim attitudes. Crucially, they claim that WEU is guilty by association. There are two strands to this that I asked Stephen Morris to respond to. First, are the WEU’s professional interactions with members affected by the political views, whatever they might be, of its management? Second what is his response to the claim that his party propagates distasteful far-right views?
On the first point, Stephen asserted that the union is run professionally, and the politics of its officials does not affect its representation of members. He says its workplace is like any other in which people of different political backgrounds leave their politics at the door in order to work together to deliver a professional service. As far as he is concerned, there are simply no grounds for assuming that the WEU is incapable of providing services independently of its managers’ personal political views.
My view is that, in the absence of any complaints by WEU members on this point, it’s hard to give credence to HNH’s allegations. To assume, without evidence (and HNH has not provided any), that HNH’s allegations are credible is to assume that WEU is somehow incapable of drawing a line between the professional service it offers to its members and the personal politics of its management. Bring me the evidence and I’ll change my mind.
You would also have to credulously accept other implausible scenarios such as WEU vetting members to ensure they shared the same political views as WEU management. Again, show me the evidence and I’ll change my mind.
On Stephen Morris’s personal political positioning within the English Democrats, he sees himself as being to the left of the party’s agenda, which, in his view, makes him a centrist in broader national political terms.
When pushed on whether the English Democrats can fairly be characterised as a far-right party, Stephen discussed the party’s evolution from initially absorbing BNP and EDL members in its early days, which he described as “unfortunate”. He claims these hardliners left the party after they realised that it was not branding itself as ethno-nationalist. Stephen Morris maintains that the Party’s manifesto has an emphasis on community and that several senior ranking Council members were not born in the UK. He says they are a party “for anyone who wants to live and work in England.”
He talked about England’s inclusivity and its history of absorbing immigration, not as something he regrets but as something which he sees as contributing to England’s character. That said, I expressed the view that the party’s manifesto, on my reading of it, seems to lay many of England’s problems squarely at the feet of immigrants. That looks very much like a form of scapegoating, the consequences of which could be quite ugly, as we know from the scapegoating of the unvaccinated. I asked Stephen how he reconciles the apparent moral contradiction of working for a union that doesn’t tolerate scapegoating of the unvaccinated and being active in a party that appears to scapegoat immigrants in its party manifesto language.
In response to this, Stephen Morris maintained that the party is not against immigration but that it wants controlled immigration. Hardly a radical position in today’s political landscape. Stephen recalled a video some years ago promoting England’s participation in the Commonwealth Games. It featured people from different backgrounds and ethnicities all training for the Games and ended with the slogan: “We are England.” Stephen said he wished that the English Democrats had produced that campaign for themselves.
When questioned on the prevalence of the term ‘indigenous English’ in the party’s manifesto and the implications for a potential preferencing of the rights of one group over another, Stephen asserted that the aim is not to suppress other cultures but to re-assert the right of English people to express nationalist sentiment in ways that have become taboo, such as displaying the Saint George’s cross.
I raised allegations made by Silkie Carlo of Big Brother Watch who, at a Left Lockdown Sceptics meeting earlier this year, said:
“I think pushing people to unions like the Workers of England Union is a bad idea. They’re run by people from a right-wing party … they’re against the Human Rights Act. They’re against equality law.”
Having already explored the whole “right-wing” issue, I was keen to focus on the alleged anti-Human Rights and anti-equality law position of the English democrats. Could scrapping the Human Rights Act be an act of self-sabotage by opening the door to legalising the scrapping of bodily autonomy and other rights foundational to individual liberty and workers’ rights? Here Stephen Morris claimed that the current Human Rights Act waters down England’s original Bill of Rights and that the English Democrats would seek to enact a Bill of Rights that would not diminish existing rights in any way.
On this point, Stephen said all the right things, but I remain sceptical of the intentions of any party that wants to fix something that isn’t broken. The devil will be in the detail, and I’ll make up my mind when there’s more detail.
On the question of cooperating across political lines Stephen stated emphatically:
“I’ll cooperate with anybody who’s there to protect the rights of the individual in employment, freedom of speech, bodily autonomy.”
He then recounted one of the strangest weeks he’d had in his time with WEU:
“I had two meetings. One was with a Muslim guy who was up for a disciplinary on free speech. And his issue was he wanted the abolition of Israel. And we defended his rights and he kept his job. And in the same week, I was representing a Jewish guy who had made derogatory comments about Islam … We kept them their jobs because at the end of the day, my job is to represent them and their rights.” Would I join the Workers of England Union on the strength of this interview with its General Secretary? Likely.
LAST week, News Uncut journalist and former executive of Sky and ITV Mark Sharman, released his film, Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion.
Produced in tandem with Oracle Films, it was an honest, heartbreaking and brutal documentary about people who have been injured or killed by the Covid jab.
It was also released at the same time that one of the UK’s leading cardiologists, Dr Aseem Malhotra, published his peer-reviewed investigation into the harms caused by the Covid jab. In it, he calls for the immediate halt of any further jabs, saying that, for anyone under the age of 70, they were doing more harm than good.
In journalism, we call these two events ‘news stories’.
The basic teachings of what a news story should be – at entry level via the National Council for the Training of Journalists [NCTJ] – is this:
1: Interesting to the public
2: In the public interest
Number one needs no explaining other than whether the public would find a particularly story interesting.
A further explanation of a story being in the public interest is that: if it were not for the reporter, undisclosed information affecting the public that governments, companies and other powerful interests hold would remain hidden.
All of which leads us to the point. Not one mainstream media outlet – not one member of the once highly regarded UK Press – covered either Mark Sharman’s documentary, or Dr Malhotra’s peer reviewed paper.
Why?
So today, News Uncut has published an email sent to all editors of the UK’s national newspaper and main TV channels asking for a response.
How sad it is that journalists and news organisations, once relied upon to hold people to account – and who still boast and believe that they do hold people to account and are proud of their journalism – are now the ones being held to account themselves.
Here is the email in full:
To:
Alison Phillips [Daily Mirror editor]
Tony Gallagher [The Times editor]
Katherine Viner [The Guardian editor]
Ted Verity [Daily Mail editor]
Victoria Newton [The Sun editor]
Chris Evans [The Daily Telegraph editor]
Gary Jones [Daily Express editor]
Jon Clark [Daily Star editor]
Oly Duff [The i editor]
Emma Tucker [The Sunday Times editor]
David Dillon [The Mail on Sunday editor]
Gemma Aldridge [The Sunday Mirror, Sunday People editor]
Allister Heath [The Sunday Telegraph editor]
David Wooding [The Sunday Express editor]
Paul Webster [The Observer editor]
Peter Lowe [Sky News managing editor]
John Ryley [Sky News head of news]
Tim Davie [BBC director general]
Michael Jermey [ITV head of news]
Louise Compton [Channel 4 director of news and current affairs]
Also sent to the Press Gazette
Dear editors,
I am a freelance journalist writing to you as the editor/news editor/head of news for one of the country’s most respected news organisations.
I’m writing a story on why not one national, mainstream media outlet covered two important news stories that both qualify under the tenet of:
1: Being interesting to the public
2: Being in the public interest
As I’m sure you pride yourself on your standards of journalism, I’m surprised that you have not covered the launch of the recent documentary released by former executive at Sky and ITV, Mark Sharman, entitled Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion.
And you would have seen and read Dr Aseem Malhotra’s peer-reviewed paper on the Covid injection and his calls to halt further injections with immediate effect, including his quote that, for anyone under the age of 70, these jabs are doing more harm than good. I’m surprised again that you did not cover this major news event.
I’m writing to all mainstream publishers that did not cover these ground-breaking events and I have several outlets looking to publish your responses on Wednesday evening. So please let me know by noon Wednesday, October 12 what your reasons are, or whether you do actually plan to cover these news stories.
And in this particular case, why you are no longer interested in being balanced and fair.
On the 5th October 2022, HTL welcomed back James Corbett for another discussion about his work and to get some insights into the current state of world geopolitics.
James hosts and produces the very well-known and very well-respected Corbett Report. The Corbett Report is an independent, listener-supported alternative news source and an outlet for independent critical analysis of politics, society, history, and economics. James himself is an award-winning investigative journalist who has lectured on geopolitics at the University of Groningen’s Studium Generale. He has also delivered presentations on open source journalism at The French Institute for Research in Computer Science, at Ted-X-Groningen and at Rit-su-meikan University in Kyoto. The Corbett Report is essential viewing for an understanding of how the world works and how powerful institutions shape history.
In the interview with Rusere Shoniwa, James discussed one of his latest pieces of work – an epic three-part documentary series entitled False Flags: A Secret History of Al Qaeda. It takes you on a mind-blowing journey into the history that shaped geopolitics in the Middle East and gave birth to Al Qaeda. Crucially, it draws on a bank of evidence that is so rich in quality and depth that it leads ineluctably to the conclusion that 9/11 was a false flag event.
In reaching this conclusion, the documentary series unveils the true meaning of 9/11. In many respects, one can’t understand what is happening now unless we understand 9/11 – not just the evidential holes in the narrative but getting to the heart of how the deep state used 9/11 in its aftermath. This is crucial to the whole story because the reasons for 9/11 are unfolding right now. The ultimate goals of that project are continuously morphing. The terror suspects in 2001 all had Arabic names and came from faraway places in the Middle East. Today, if you disagree with the orthodoxy of the day and if you express that disagreement in ways that truly threaten the Government’s programme, you are the terrorist – a domestic terrorist. This is the route that governments in the formerly free world are going down with various forms of legislation to censor and criminalise dissent of all forms.
The conversation segues into a discussion of the geopolitical implications of the Ukraine conflict, speculation on the Nord stream pipeline sabotage and on the future of humanity in a multipolar world under the NATO and BRICS power blocs.
The third in a regular series courtesy of our New Zealand partner site, The Looking Glass
‘I could tell you my adventures—beginning from this morning,’ said Alice a little timidly: ‘but it’s no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.’Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll.
Which council candidates value free speech?
The New Zealand Free Speech Union has put together a guide for the upcoming local elections, to help voters identify candidates who value and are willing to stand up for free speech.
New Zealand Government debt surpasses $100 billion
A recent ‘documentary’ put out by the BBC to pick apart the minds of the unvaccinated and attempt to convince them they’re wrong, asks: ‘What did we get so wrong about the way that we’ve been talking about this, that millions of people still don’t want to take the vaccine?’
The presenter, Hannah Fry, gets an answer in this (tragi-comic) video. It drives the point home very well. Unfortunately, it includes some fascism from one of my former heroes, Noam Chomsky. How times have changed.
BBC moves to censor vaccine injury groups on Facebook
And the BBC continues its campaign against those who deny the god-like nature of the covid injections. Facebook groups set up for vaccine injured people to share stories and connect are being purged from the social media site with the help of the BBC.
The British broadcaster complained to the Trusted New Initiative that the groups were using carrot emojis to represent vaccines, in order to game (avoid censorship) Meta’s algorithm detection.
Despite being a place to discuss vaccine harm, the groups are being labelled as ‘anti-vax’. The groups, one with hundreds of thousands of members, were removed for “violating our harmful misinformation policies”, Meta says.
Jacinda Ardern tackles ‘disinformation’ and ‘radicalisation’ in New York
Yep, she’s back again to tell us how dangerous ‘misinformation’ is, and how it’s driving people to ‘extremism’. Yawn.
New Zealand will spearhead an international effort to look at how social media algorithms drive people to content the government considers ‘extreme’ and potentially ‘radicalising’.
Ardern appears to have lost the public though. Comments on this Herald tweet show many people are not buying her censorship justifications anymore.
OIA loophole allows ministers to evade accountability
A new Substack post from sociologist Jodie Bruning explores a massive loophole in the OIA Act that means when ministers are reshuffled, they are no longer obliged to answer OIA requests from their previous portfolios.
Bruning has been frustrated by failed attempts to find out how “slippery Hipkins”, Minister for the Covid-19 Health Response before he was transferred to policing, deliberated over the laws he imposed. She was further frustrated by the response from a lame duck Ombudsman who is powerless to investigate.
“This is nothing less than insane. And unjust. And bullshit.
“Hipkins produced legislation that put in place surveillance, compulsory medication, quarantine and lockdown measures at an unprecedented pace. But he could then shift portfolios, jump ship and sail into the distance.”
New Zealand Police expands number plate surveillance network
Police issued new rules about the use of automated number plate recognition (ANPR) last week. They can now tap into private networks, adding thousands of cameras to their surveillance capabilities.
The approach, similar to new proposals in San Francisco, joins the public law enforcement tools with private surveillance and raises extensive privacy concerns. Further, the new law that allows this also shields police from liability for data breaches and makes it harder to get information.
The latest police policy on Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology, allows the police to access number plates recorded by Auror and SaferCities. Both companies operate large CCTV networks in the country and massively extends how long police can keep the number plate footage for.
In 2014, they said strict protocols meant “all information” would be deleted within 48 hours; the new upper limit is 12 months, with others set at 60 days and six months, depending on the type of investigation.
The network was first year during last year’s Northland lockdown, when three women were able to cross into Auckland due to a clerical error. The police are now rolling this partnership out as a permanent surveillance tool. It’s believed by some to be a forerunner to facial recognition technology.
The Government first announced a review of the Search and Surveillance Act in December last year as part of the Government’s response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on the Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019.
Brutal Tokelau house arrest for unvaccinated families ends
The family of Mahelino Patelesio in the Tokelau Islands has been released this week from house arrest after more than a year of being unable to leave their home, go to church, go fishing, receive visitors or connect with the community – for being unvaccinated.
A number of families were in this position, and any parent who refused to have their child age five and over injected with mRNA was also placed under house arrest/isolation.
With an hour left, the Tunoa was lifted. There are 3 clear lessons: 1.) Preparing diligently for court action pays off. 2.) All bullies will eventually back off when we stand up to them together. 3.) Never give up until we are all free from the liars and the corrupt ones!
The tunoa was imposed while Ross Ardern, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s father, was the appointed administrator of Tokelau. He is no longer in the position.
A legal team supported by FreeNZ told island leaders that papers would be filed unless the family was released. The tunoa was lifted within an hour of the deadline. Read FreeNZs timeline of events and watch multiple interviews with Patelesio here.
An appalling RNZ report on the lifting of the tunoa, casts Patelesio as someone who broke cultural customs by taking to social media to bring attention to his family’s plight, and completely omits to highlight the discrimination and human rights abuses these families have endured for choosing to remain unvaccinated, which de facto implies RNZ views the house arrests as justified, at least on cultural grounds.
Can this ever be an acceptable way to treat human beings who have done nothing wrong?
Canadian woman dies seven minutes after booster shot, coroner rules ‘natural causes’
A Canadian woman on 14 September died suddenly in a pharmacy within minutes of receiving the new bivalent covid booster shot (tested on just eight mice), according to her daughter. Carol Pearce texted her daughter, Stephanie Foster, at 12:31 p.m. to say she received her booster shot and was waiting the recommended 15 minutes at the pharmacy. At 12:38 p.m, Pearce was unconscious.
A spokesperson from Saskatchewan Health said Pearce died from natural causes. “The Saskatchewan coroner’s service has investigated this instance and determined that the person died from natural causes.” The woman’s daughter disputes the ruling, and believes it was caused by the jab.
Rory Nairn’s death caused by covid injection, coroner rules
Coroner Sue Johnson has ruled that Dunedin man Rory Nairn’s death from myocarditis was caused by the covid jab. Nairn, 26, died on November 17, 12 days after receiving his first dose of the Pfizer injection. This was the second death from the injection in New Zealand. according to coronial inquiry.
The pharmacist who gave the jab was not aware myocarditis could be fatal and didn’t warn Nairn. Informed consent was therefore not provided.
Speaking to the NZ Herald, Nairn’s parents said Rory was failed by health authorities, and his symptoms should have been treated with greater urgency – instead they were more concerned with not encouraging so called ‘vaccine hesitancy’.
News reports continue to obfuscate the rates of post-jab myocarditis, claiming it is rare and usually mild.
As at 31 August there were 944 recorded cases of myocarditis with CARM, New Zealand’s adverse event monitoring system, which is acknowledged to capture only about 5% of all adverse reactions.
VAERS adverse events reports show there have been more than 52,000 reported cases of myo-and-pericariditis following the jab in the US. VAERS data from the US is considered to account for less than 10% of all actual adverse events.
Could Pfizer deaths get buried with proposed changes to the Coroners Act?
The Justice Committee has tabled an amendment Bill for the Coroners Act that allow coroners to record a cause of death as “unascertained natural causes”, if it was considered that a death was from natural causes – no further investigations would be required. No inquest, or even post-mortem would be required, even if they died suddenly and in an unusual or unnatural manner that could be connected to vaccination.
This means that coroners’ role to diligently pursue the cause of death can be diluted somewhat.
Reliable mortality research requires that cause of death be recorded as accurately as possible. Enabling coroners to record “unascertained natural causes” as a cause of death diminishes the availability of information vital for basic research on public health and vaccine safety.
The timing of the amendment certainly stinks – the country is experiencing high excess mortality, particularly related to the booster shots. Reports of vaccine harm are through the roof, and a coronial inquest has just announced the second official death from the covid jab – Rory Nairn. A total of 177 deaths have been reported to CARM after the administration of the jab, but only eight remain under investigation.
An unofficial database of deaths following vaccination is recorded by New Zealand Doctors Speaking out with Science, which has tabled more than 500 deaths (total figures unavailable at this time) following vaccination that are considered to be worthy of further investigation (so far completely ignored by authorities).
The NZDSOS website says the database is the result of alarming lack of official response to the clear pattern of significant harm from the Pfizer injection program. “Children and adults of all ages continue to die and be injured in appalling numbers around the world and here at home.”
‘Died Suddenly’ reports from all over the world have spiked.
Changes to the Act look like another way to bury good pharmacovigilance, the due diligence we should expect from our government and regulators at all times when introducing new drugs, but particularly now when an inadequately tested novel gene therapy has been rolled out to the whole population.
PayPal this week de-platformed the British Free Speech Union, along with the personal account of Toby Young and the Daily Sceptic online news site. Young is in charge of both organisations.
The attacks on free and open discussion are becoming more and more widespread. Young is considered to be a ‘right wing’ or conservative commentator. But PayPal also de-platformed alternative news sites on the left earlier this year – Consortium News and Mintpress. It de-platformed UsForThem, a British parents activist group that speaks up again the negative impacts of lockdowns on children.
The common theme appears to be dissenting viewpoints.
When financial services like PayPal act in this way, the public ought to be concerned. It needs to be seen as a serious threat to public debate and the free and open exchange of differing views. Cancel culture means we can be fired for having the wrong opinion and now financial de-platforming, or de-banking, means another way of earning money can be removed.
PAY PAL – front and centre at WEF events.
Here they are at the WEF conference in Davos 2019, explaining they will do “whatever needs to be done” to keep banking institutions happy.
Recall that around ten years ago, Mastercard did the same to publisher Wikileaks foreshadowing the current trend. Julian Assange is now locked up with terrorists and violent murderers in high security Belmarsh Prison for exposing state crimes.
And earlier this year Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suspended the bank accounts of people supporting the trucker protests against vaccine mandates. An officer of the Ottawa Police Service is now facing discreditable conduct charges because she donated to the Freedom Convoy protest in February. If found guilty, Constable Kristina Neilson could be demoted or fired.
UK – When the Bank of England asked ministers to decide how programmable digital currency would be, it exposed that it would be, but to what extent?
Linking payments & access to your money, based on your political views & behaviour is inevitable, as demonstrated by Pay Pal. pic.twitter.com/KTXv2rR4zt
For people who haven’t yet engaged with the dangers of going fully cashless and the imminent advent of programmable Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), this would be a good time to get to grips with it.
If the global public is pushed onto these CBDCs, this kind of financial de-platforming is likely to become the norm, and is probably just the beginning of how it could be used to control both the behaviours and movements of people. We only have to look at the way the Chinese population is controlled using apparatus such as CBDCs and covid tracer apps, to see which way the wind is blowing.
The Reserve Bank of New Zealand is working on a CBDC now, as are most central banks. To give it credit, in its summary report from a consultation ran late last year, it noted the strong public concern about the privacy and governance implications of such a technology.
The Covid-19 jab roll-out may prove to be the greatest medical catastrophe in history but, as evidence of deaths and serious side effects gathers apace, the UK media is still resolutely turning a blind eye.
Rows of empty chairs stood testimony to the indifference as a senior physician presented his findings at a press conference in London today (Tuesday September 27th). Only GBNews and a Polish crew attended.
So where were Sky News, the BBC, ITV and all the national newspapers?
Dr Aseem Malhotra, a consultant cardiologist, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, President of the Public Health Collaboration and respected writer and lecturer, called for the suspension of all Covid jabs until data has been independently analysed.
He presented a 10,000-word paper, peer-reviewed and published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance, in which he concluded that these jabs are doing more harm than good in healthy people under 70.
His findings are based on real-world data and were reached in collaboration with scientists at Oxford, Stanford and Harvard Universities.
Had they bothered to attend, mainstream media journalists could have heard how pharmaceutical companies control their own drug trials, how they spend more on marketing than research and how they contribute funds to the very authorities that are supposed to regulate them, such as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency [MHRA] in the UK and the FDA in America.
They could have learned how scientific research around the world is paid for by drug companies, “biased research that is not reliable, of which doctors are not aware,” according to Dr Malhotra. “The greater the financial interests, the less likely that research findings will be true.”
They could have heard how unethical methodology was used to present a 95 per cent efficacy for the jabs, when the true figure for absolute risk reduction was 0.84 – meaning that these jabs are next to useless in preventing infection and transmission. Or how 14,000 more people died from heart problems in the UK in 2021 – the year of the roll-out, than in 2020. And 20,000 more than 2019, pre-Covid.
There was also a telling contribution from American pathologist Dr Ryan Cole, who presented a frankly harrowing series of post-mortem slides showing damage caused by the mRNA jab’s spike proteins, to the heart, liver, brain and blood vessels.
To be fair, the conference was live-streamed, so there may be follow-up stories tomorrow, but don’t hold your breath. A press release had been sent out 36 hours in advance, but a News Uncut colleague could find no evidence of take-up in today’s papers.
Meanwhile the Daily Mail devoted eight pages to Good Health and carried stories on NHS prescription mistakes ‘costing hundreds of lives’ a year, a jab that could help back pain and a cure for snoring, among others. But nothing on a jab that could be killing thousands.
Maybe doctors like Aseem Malhotra and Ryan Cole are wrong; maybe the rising number of excess deaths around the world are not caused by the jabs. But that’s not the point. The figures demand examination, investigation and debate.
It is a gross dereliction of duty by mainstream journalists not to look at the evidence on both sides and ask relevant questions.
If Malhotra, Cole and many others are right, many more people face injury and death. It will be too late for newspapers and TV newsrooms to say “I wish we’d done more.”
For more than two years many of us were out on the streets almost on a weekly basis protesting against lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates and passports, and other breaches of human rights.
Finally, the government backed off and there has been an appearance of a return to pre-covid ‘normality’. Most people were understandably desperate to turn away from the nightmare and get their lives back. Pretend it never happened, even.
In recent months it seemed almost hollow to march and shout. Against what, and who would listen? Even fewer than before?
Trouble is, we know too much now; we cannot unsee it.
We have learned about the very real end goals of those whose orchestrated mayhem drove us to the brink of a full-blown dystopian existence.
And we know that if they can carry off such a colossal and damaging con so easily once, then they can certainly do it again. Anytime. Especially when the mainstream media is ensuring that the masses are continually being held in a state of anxiety and uncertainty over inflation, war, climate, energy and other engineered fear narratives.
This is the same media which relentlessly pushed the narrative that, for the world to return to normal, everyone needed to take new, heaven-sent ‘safe and effective vaccines’.
Except, they did not stay ‘safe’. They became ‘acceptably safe’. Then we were told ‘the benefits outweighed the risks’. However, even the latter was not true – particularly for the young and healthy. Meanwhile, everyone continued to be coerced, threatened and guilt-tripped in to taking them. Over and over again. Even when it should have been glaringly obvious to the recipients that the injections were not doing what was written on the tin.
Now we have more than 2,000 officially-reported injection deaths in the UK alone, and hundreds of thousands of serious adverse effects – many life changing.
These kinds of figures are mirrored throughout the world’s many highly vaccinated countries. Similarly, there are terrifying excess death rates of 15-35% above average, which cannot be attributed to covid or other tenuous causes despite ridiculous attempts by the mainstream media and others to do so.
Despite the horrendous figures, the jabs’ possible role in all this has brought a deathly silence from governments, public health bodies and, most importantly, the mainstream media – our traditional watchdogs.
Apparently, there is no massive elephant in the room. There is nothing to see.
It is quite simple: if the establishment media conspires not talk about it – and how could it dare, even if it wanted to, in view of its culpability in countless harms against humanity – then there is not a problem as far as public perception is concerned.
And that is where we are, leaving us often feeling quite impotent individually as we witness the ‘mass formation psychosis’ described so accurately by Professor Mattias Desmet, author of ‘The Psychology of Totalitarianism’.
Except we are not helpless. And for the sake of our own spirit at least, we can never allow ourselves to truly think so.
As Professor Desmet has explained to alternative media sources in recent months, we can all do our bit to break the mass psychosis by being a presence against the narrative. It is not for us to try and win people over. It will not happen that way, he says, but we can help. Bit by bit, by our quiet and calm actions and words, we can play a subtle role in bringing enough people back towards a level of critical thinking to make a crucial difference.
Here in Scotland, we have started holding regular ‘vaccine vigils’ for the reported dead and injured: the many who simply do not exist as far as the mainstream media and medical system are concerned.
The vigils began less than a couple of months ago in Dunfermline at the end of a small freedom rally. A tireless activist, ‘Moira from Dundee’ as we all know her, had set up a display of laminated A4 pictures and stories of vaccine dead and injured.
Placed on park railings, the profiles had real impact. Here were real people, not just statistics.
A small group of us quickly recognised that Moira’s ‘Real not Rare’ campaign was the way forward.
We agreed we would back her in taking it on tour to a different town centre every Saturday.
Stirling followed Dunfermline, Falkirk followed Stirling, and then it was on to Glasgow.
As I write, the weekend there was Dundee. It is St Andrews this Saturday, followed by Glasgow (so we can also attend a freedom rally there the same day) and possibly Aberdeen. At St Andrews, we will aim to hold simultaneous vigils, for the first time, in different parts of the same town centre to maximise viewers.
We may soon split into Scottish east and west coast groups to double our impact and reduce travel costs.
We hope north and south groups will follow, but why should it stop there? With the help of alternative media, the idea could catch on throughout the UK.
Each vigil only takes a few people to set up, and we usually have a few others nearby handing out relevant leaflets and copies of the the Light paper.
It is evolving as we learn what works best. The A4 laminated cards have been replaced by A3 size for much greater impact. All the stories and pictures feature people whom they or their families have already publicly blamed covid injections.
What else have we learned? Chiefly to set up the cards and then stand well back to allow passers-by open space to wander into.
Candles are appropriate and solemn classical music (not too loud) can create a suitable atmosphere.
We have vowed to keep going, from town to town, week after week.
Why are we doing it? What are we hoping to achieve?
Well, firstly, to counter the ‘vaccines are safe and necessary narrative’ and to counter the ruthless mainstream media and tech censorship of dissenters who suggest otherwise or of those who simply pose reasonable questions such as ‘can we investigate why so many previously healthy people are dying?’
The public at large are increasingly aware that they and others keep catching covid despite being double and triple vaxxed. Many are also hearing stories of friends, relatives or neighbours who have been seriously unwell or worse after the shots.
And if the Real not Rare campaign makes just some of them stop and think a bit about their need for further injections, or why they were never fully informed of risks, then it is worthwhile.
And if it contributes in some way to enough people one day demanding, ‘what the hell is going on?’…. well, you know the answer to that: it will be ‘hallelujah’ time as the whole sinister house of cards collapses.
The vigils are a positive action. Not least of all, you are highlighting those who have been harmed but feel abandoned by governments and the medical system. Nobody wants to be regarded as ‘unfortunate but necessary collateral damage’. And, of course, there never was a necessity.
But, be warned, some of those affected do not want anything to do with those the media has cleverly branded ‘anti-vaxxers’. Despite what has happened to them. That, sadly, is how deep the media brainwashing has run.
Finally, those of us participating in the vigils are making our own defiant statement: we will not be silenced or shut down and the truth will out – however long it takes. Justice will be done.
Holding The Line 