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.
In Should we care about the cognitive dissonance of criminals? (Holding the Line, 19th September 2022) I argued that the pattern of one failed gamble after another by senior decision-makers in government was not a series of blunders but part of a mosaic of deliberate destruction. Since March 2020, ‘experts’ and senior civil servants have hoodwinked the public with bad science, dodgy data, specious arguments, industrial-scale censorship and wartime propaganda, as they continue to plunge the West into economic collapse and hurtle towards direct (as opposed to the current proxy) military confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. Never in the field of government incompetence have so many catastrophic policies been packaged and delivered so cackhandedly as to guarantee such widespread misery.
If the incompetence theory is not supportable, then there must be some method to the madness. The Ukraine conflict has precipitated a sanctions war with Russia in which the EU has cut itself off from Russian gas to teach Putin a lesson. Can we attribute the damage from this decision to stupendous incompetence or is there some evidence of psychopathy and, by implication, a method behind the madness?
So, what drove the West to draw two revolvers, take careful aim at both feet and pull both triggers with gay abandon? The Daily Scepticoffers two explanations which invoke the maxim frequently applied to assessment of government failure – don’t attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by incompetence. One explanation put forward by The Daily Sceptic is that our politicians are simply stupid – they weren’t “thinking through the consequences of their actions”. The other is that the sanctions were expected to be so effective that they would quickly bring the Russians to the negotiating table and then be used as leverage in negotiations to roll back whatever territorial gains the Russians may have made in what was presumed to be a short-lived military excursion.
The problem with these explanations is that they involve mind-reading. The Daily Sceptic imposes on itself a strict requirement for evidence to support a malign conspiracy. Fair enough. But why waive the requirement when arguing for benign causality? The explanations also ignore the overwhelming evidence that NATO wanted a proxy war with Russia and remains fully committed to drawing out the conflict regardless of the cost to either Ukraine or ordinary citizens in the West. How can we know this? Because NATO’s Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, said so:
“We must prepare for the fact that it could take years …We must not let up in supporting Ukraine, even if the costs are high, not only for military support but also because of rising energy and food prices.” [emphasis added]
That was NATO’s position in early April, repeated in June and again at the end of August. As far as political positions go these days, it’s remarkable for its consistency. Nor are these the words of a warring party that believes it has miscalculated. In his own words, NATO’s chief has stated that the suffering of millions is not a ‘mistake’; it’s baked into the plan. If NATO allies miscalculated the length of the war and therefore its cost to Western citizens, then they are now doubling down on their error, and to hell with the flattening of Ukraine or fuel poverty across the West.
Repeatedly doubling down on errors isn’t necessarily psychopathic per se, but it is psychopathic if you’re well aware that doubling down is inconsequential to you but harmful to everyone around you. And here we see an unequivocal statement from NATO’s chief that rising energy and food prices, which must necessarily impoverish a huge number of people in the West, must not be allowed to interfere with NATO’s proxy war against Russia. The kindest thing you can say about his stance is that it’s psychopathic in nature.
Proxy wars are, by definition, dirty wars: NATO doesn’t have sufficient justification for direct conflict with Russia so it’s using Ukraine as cannon fodder to inflict damage on Russia.
The huge cost to ordinary citizens is totally unjustified because this is not a war of self-defence. Gambling with people’s lives by fanning the flames of a conflict that could have been averted by negotiations, the terms of which were both well understood and reasonable for both sides, is sickening enough. But the determination of leaders, who aren’t going to suffer the consequences of their decision, to commit their electorates to hardship in the name of an unnecessary proxy war ought to be regarded as criminal.
As bad as soaring energy bills and food prices are for those already on the margins, these consequences don’t properly convey the full potential horror of the energy squeeze that NATO allies have chosen to inflict on the populace. To get a sense of the terrifying implications, listen to this conversation between Dr Jordan Peterson and Michael Yon. Yon is America’s most experienced combat correspondent, having travelled and lived over half of his life abroad in more than 80 countries. He is a self-taught scholar of war and famine.
Yon theorises, not implausibly, that we are heading towards a global famine, in no small part due to the disruption to the supply of Ukrainian wheat and fertilizer. Peterson cites estimates of 150 million people coming under food pressure this winter. This could place a mass migration pressure on Europe that would dwarf anything that has come before it. Peterson summarised the relationship between energy prices and poverty:
“I’m going to lay down a proposition here … if you are a friend to the poor, the oppressed and the hungry, the number one thing you want to do is drive the energy prices as low as they can possibly be on every front … That bloody well includes coal, petroleum and natural gas and we could add nuclear to that. And if you want to throw in renewables for the tiny percentage they account for, you could do that too. But because energy is equivalent to work and because work is equivalent to food and shelter, if you make energy expensive you starve the poor and you don’t have to starve them very much before they become desperate, and things fall apart.”
Of course, the globalist utopians are doing precisely the opposite, with the Canadian Finance minister “quasi-demonically”, as Peterson bluntly put it, actually celebrating the high cost of fuel.
How do you solve a problem like urea … and skyrocketing energy bills?
Not only will the price of food skyrocket, but the conflict will exacerbate already existing supply chain disruptions caused by the global shutdown of the economy through lockdowns. This will create shortages that in turn drive up prices even further.
Now, the article is useful for its presentation of these facts. However, The Conversation is founded and funded by universities which are fully bought and paid-for peddlers of the Net Zero agenda, itself a well-oiled vehicle of global corporatism. So, what are the solutions proposed by the wise academic authors of The Conversation’s article? They half-heartedly moot the idea of “an immediate government intervention to the market” but write it off as highly unlikely because “government budgets are severely stretched after COVID, leaving little room for direct monetary support”. After hastily abandoning any serious consideration of this short-term pain mitigation strategy – why fuss over all this disgusting pain and suffering in the here-and-now? – the authors swiftly gaze into the future for their medium-term strategy:
“to transform our food system, using more green energy [and] … encouraging more sustainable diets, which contain fewer grain fed animal products”.
No surprises here. Absolutely nothing can be done about the suffering that has already begun, but at least we can hope for a better world in the future!
What’s really surprising are the remarkable similarities between this thin gruel from the world of academia and another source of commentary that I thought would be grounded in real-world pragmatism. The Daily Sceptic, positioned on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, is no less ridiculous in its display of scant consideration for maintaining a decent quality of life for those on the margins – the majority of the planet. It’s crucial to understand the starting point on which the pillar of its simple proposition is predicated – the root cause of the crisis is scarcity, and “Europe will simply have to use less gas.”
They reject Truss’s proposal to cap energy prices at £2,500 per annum for the next two years. Recall that the academics also rejected immediate government intervention in the market, and they both have similar reasons – it’s fiscally unsound. The Daily Sceptic can’t stomach the idea of the taxpayer having to foot the estimated £170 billion bill for a bailout of consumers, which they eschew as a form of unwanted pain-sharing – they helpfully point out that consumers and taxpayers are one and the same thing. No kidding? And they’re not in favour of burdening younger Britons, who will end up footing the bill for the older ones. This is a specious argument because all taxation – whether it’s for the £179 billion lifetime cost of Tridentnuclear defence or energy price caps to bail out the poor from the decisions of warmongers – is predicated on the young working age population shouldering the burden of that taxation. That’s what the state pension is predicated on too. So, what’s their solution:
“…leave the energy market intact, while providing financial support to households and businesses. This way, there’d still be a strong incentive to economise.” [emphasis added].
Allow me to paraphrase. Just let the price wander as far north as the totally fair and unrigged market will permit it to, and if people can’t pay the price, then they can’t expect to warm their houses or cook food – that’s your “incentive to economise”. Recall, we will “simply have to use less gas.” To be fair to our Daily Sceptic pals, they did suggest “providing financial support to households and businesses”, but this only indicates confusion on their part – isn’t that fiscal support and isn’t that what a price cap would do? The answer is, not quite, because you have to read between the lines to understand what they’re really saying.
“Providing support” is code for setting up a hellishly difficult scheme that will require the resilience and fortitude of a well-fed academic, bureaucrat or well-to-do entrepreneur to get to grips with, and that in itself will ration the ‘support’ down to an amount that our Daily Sceptic pals can live with. But the implication seems to be that the poorest and most needy should just do the decent thing and quietly die.
These two approaches from opposite ends of the cultural and economic spectrum actually share a lot more similarities than differences:
They both reject immediate fiscal intervention aimed at alleviating pain to consumers and small businesses on the margins.
They both implicitly accept that restoring normal gas supplies by brokering a peace settlement is a non-starter.
They both implicitly accept the lie that there is “less gas”. The total global supply of gas has not decreased. Russia has simply re-routed it because the EU sanctioned itself from Russian gas in the hopes that it would hurt Russia more than it hurt the EU. The gas is definitely there if you want it.
Are The Daily Sceptic and woke academia two sides of the same coin? Discuss!
Seeing as both sides have offered simple one-sentence solutions to this colossal problem, I feel perfectly entitled to throw my own pragmatic and shoot-from-the-hip offering into the mix. I’m pretty sure it would be backed by most builders, plumbers and farmers because, as Jordan Peterson says, “they have a sense about how the world works that’s practical … that the pin-headed academic globalists lack entirely and are often incredibly jealous of”. And, I would add, they can see through this entire energy scam partly because it will affect them more than the Zoomocracy but also because they aren’t morons whose IQs have been drained by years of staring at meaningless PowerPoint slides and spreadsheets. So, here’s my 10p’s worth: what if NATO were to negotiate for peace, end the war and turn the spigots on the gas pipes back on? In a half-sane and semi-principled world, that’s what would happen. But it won’t, for reasons I will speculate on shortly.
You see, the omission of this option by both The Daily Sceptic and woke academia blinds you to the fact that there is another obvious choice that can be made – peace negotiations and ending the conflict. To be clear, ranking the choices from best to worst:
End the war and resume normal supply and prices.
Carry on with the war and introduce price caps.
Carry on with the war and invite consumers to be “incentivised” by the market.
One final point to make about the effect of this global energy shock: it’s just another wealth transfer in the long list since time immemorial. Covid lockdowns alone sucked $5.1 trillion into the coffers of 2,755 billionaires, taking their total net worth from $8 trillion to $13.1 trillion, a 64% increase. While Big Pharma and Big Tech made out like bandits, the global shutdown meant that demand for oil tanked and Big Oil sullenly stood by wondering when they would get to play catch-up. The cost to the taxpayer of the price cap is estimated to be £170 billion, but with or without the price cap, that money is going into Big Oil’s pockets. And it’s all thanks to Ukraine, which has miraculously come to the rescue of the impoverished oil oligarchs who are now making up for lost time and money.
In addition, as Big Oil rings the till from obscene energy prices, more small businesses will go under and their patronage will be transferred to corporate behemoths. So, you get yet more wealth consolidation by the corporate oligarchy. When energy rationing becomes a fact of life, I somehow can’t imagine the lights going out in Amazon warehouses. The thing to keep in mind is that these sorts of crises simply would not happen if they were inimical to the interests of the global conglomerates that call the shots.
Many people naïvely assume that the hardship and suffering of ordinary voters couldn’t possibly be an integral part of a political strategy because political leaders are supposed to do their best to maximise the welfare of the people that vote them into power. To the extent that suffering happens, it must surely be a ‘mistake’, right? Well, the NATO chief has made it clear that European and UK elites want war and that your suffering is baked into that objective. Peace is in fact the furthest thing from their minds as the NATO chief warns you to be prepared to hunker down for years. If you’ve been thinking that ‘blunder’ after ‘blunder’ since March 2020 has all been a series of terrible mistakes, don’t you think it’s time to reconsider this naïve stance?
What’s really going on and who are the winners and losers?
If we take Stoltenberg at his word and accept that NATO’s strategy is to prolong the Ukraine conflict regardless of the pain inflicted on European electorates, then we must go a step further and question what the end goal of NATO’s sadistic strategy is. Remember that Russia posed no threat to Western security before the invasion of Ukraine. On the contrary, it was Russia’s security that was threatened by NATO’s encirclement of Russia through its insistence on extending NATO membership to Ukraine. Crossing that red line was the trigger for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and NATO knew full well that those were the stakes.
Does NATO believe it could win a proxy war against Russia? If, in Stoltenberg’s words, “it could take years”, what does winning mean at the end of years of blood-letting and hardship? In broad terms, it must mean that more pain is inflicted on Russia than is borne by NATO as a bloc. But this is precisely where we encounter a problem. Neither NATO nor any Western leader has articulated what a relative ‘win’ actually means – what benefit will accrue to NATO states in the wake of all this suffering to be endured through the death and destruction of war, fuel poverty, food shortages and possible blowback from the pressure of migration caused by global famine? What’s more, given the comparative scorecard to date – heavy losses borne by EU, UK and US taxpayers in military support and economic impoverishment (and we haven’t even begun to see the worst of that) compared with the relative absence of any significant cost to the Russian economy thus far – why are NATO and Western leaders doubling down on behalf of their beleaguered citizens?
The situation is patently hopeless for the West, and any rational actor would now be looking to cut their losses while working out how to save face in the process. Unless of course the losses listed are deemed to be a price worth paying for achieving the real objective of the whole Ukraine war charade. That’s the only way to make any sense of the apparent madness – to find some ‘method’ in it. If ‘winning’ against Russia is not the goal (it hasn’t even been defined), then what is? As I’ve speculated in a recent piece, the West’s debt ponzi scheme was entering its final death throes in the autumn of 2019. Everything that has followed, including covid, is a controlled demolition of the existing financial order combined with an attempt to impose a sinister social order that will ensure impunity for mismanagement forever.
The global financial oligarchy’s mouthpiece and policy coordinator, the World Economic Forum (WEF), has informed us in no uncertain terms that a Great Reset began in March 2020 and that it is quite proud of the role its “penetrated cabinets” in governments across the West and beyond have been playing in helping it to ‘build back better’. Lockdowns, mass coerced ‘vaccination’, fuel poverty, food shortages, replacing real meat with fake meat, brainwashing us to accept a diet of bugs and exotic Brazilian tarantulas, even putting cannibalism on the table – this is all really just a more sophisticated version of the Shock-and-Awe treatment that was meted out to Iraqi citizens during the invasion of 2003. But the aim is the same – you are being broken and brought to heel. This time they’re playing for keeps. They want to make sure there’s no going back and 2030 is the deadline they’ve set for the reset to be substantially irreversible. The endgame is neo-feudalism; a top-down technocratic dystopia run by AI, digital ID, QR codes and a global oligarchy writing the rule book.
The strategy of laying the blame for economic collapse at the feet of Russia and the Ukraine conflict is not without its risks. Chaos is being created in the belief that it can be controlled, but as the conflict escalates following the recent successful Kharkov offensive by Ukrainian forces, the war will increasingly take on a life of its own. Will escalations spiral out of control? Undeterred by this incalculable risk and operating under the maxim to never let a good crisis go to waste, the masters of the universe intend to use the fog of war to press ahead with garnering more power for elites. And another long Cold War has much utility in providing a further pretext for tighter social and monetary controls over the population; for resetting the currency and tethering new shiny digital coins to digital ID’s that can track and trace you like livestock.
But it should be plainly clear that all the key actors driving events right now – NATO, the global oligarchy and Russia – are getting exactly what they want out of this energy squeeze catalysed by the Ukraine conflict. Russia stops Ukraine from entering the NATO alliance. The West knew this entry couldn’t happen, but it was a useful pretext for goading Russia into invading. Russia’s economy is holding up well, and Putin now enjoys an approval rating of over 80%. The military industrial complex and Big Oil are making a killing. NATO gets Cold War II to enhance its raison d’être and funding. Western elites get to use Cold War II, economic collapse, climate hysteria and virus hysteria to rule by permanent state of emergency. Governments in the West get to use the energy crisis and economic collapse to reset the broken financial system while simultaneously throttling democracy.
I despair at commentators who see Russia and China as knights in shining armour riding in to forestall the Great Reset. China has huge problems. It has built up a real estate ponzi scheme whose implosion is threatening to derail its banking system. The continuing brutal lockdowns there are probably being used to stifle a mass run on its banks. Whatever the real reason for them, you can’t possibly think the CCP believes in the efficacy of lockdowns as an NPI any more than the West’s WEF puppets? China is in deep trouble and so might relish a standoff over Taiwan as much as the West does. War is always a good distraction from gross economic mismanagement.
It’s looking increasingly as though both the Western and BRICS blocs are pursuing parallel Great Resets. The Ukraine war heralded a fracturing of the global reset into a race in which both believe that they must have their populations in the grip of totalitarian control to maintain an uneasy equilibrium. Cold War II is the perfect alibi for both blocs to get what they want, with each perceiving that a relative loss of control over its population will concede power to the other bloc. I welcome a multipolar world because, in theory, it ought to decentralise power but I’m under no illusions about the beneficence of Russia and China. A Great Reset arms race could simply give humanity two nooses to choose from – NATO or BRICS.
So far, they’re all winning except us – NATO, global oligarchs and their puppets in government want us to travel less, eat less, wear more jumpers to stay warm, get more toxic ‘vaccines’ during the annual ‘pandemics’, show a QR code to leave the front door and censor our thoughts and words to conform to the official narrative. What do we get in return? The privilege of eating bugs and fake meat. Bon appetit!
On 8th September, PayPal cancelled its service to Left Lockdown Sceptics (LLS) citing the “nature of [its] activities”. In a similar move on 15th September, it shut down the accounts of The Daily Sceptic (DS), the Free Speech Union (FSU) and the personal account of Toby Young, founder of both.
This is nothing new but, in targeting the Free Speech Union, it’s a step change and a clear statement by a key financial services player of its intent to expand its role in the censorship of dissent from the prevailing official narrative. In protesting PayPal’s censorship move, Toby Young has analysed its policy of disallowing services to users engaged in “activities that promote hate, violence or racial intolerance” and concluded that there is no way he could possibly be in breach of this policy. Of course, neither LLS, DS, FSU nor Toby Young are guilty of the stated sins, the policing of which is well outside the bailiwick of a financial service provider. Their sin is to express disagreement with, to varying degrees, the official lockdown, ‘vaccine’, climate change and other orthodoxies, the policing of which should also be well outside the remit of a financial service provider.
Toby Young explained to GB News that he asked PayPal to set out exactly how he or his organisations had violated its rules. This is a futile request whose intended effect is to extract an act of supplication to reinforce PayPal’s humiliating display of brute force. PayPal is not an exemplar of democracy and nor is it operating in a democracy any longer, so it doesn’t think that it is obliged to explain its actions. Nor does it need to waste time and money on a Kafkaesque trial in which you are subjected to prolonged humiliation that will inevitably end in your head being placed on the chopping block.
The argument that a private corporation is free to provide services on whatever opaque anti-free speech terms it sees fit simply because it’s private doesn’t hold up to scrutiny on social ethics, legal grounds, or plain common decency. It especially doesn’t wash because financial services are a form of public utility. Banking, an essential service, is now governed by the whims of sociopaths who provide their services on condition that the public subserviently follows arbitrary rules designed to put duct-tape over our mouths.
They provide a service that we rely on to put bread on the table, so they wield enormous power – power that’s being abused with impunity to censure us for engaging in legal speech that threatens The System they manage and protect. And like all imbecilic bullies who think they are beyond challenge, they relish adding insult to injury by quipping that this thuggery is part of their “mission of building an economy that works for everyone.”
PayPal’s move is a precursor to the totalitarian endgame – total control of every single individual through the enforced provision of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) linked to Digital IDs. At the moment, it is engaging in an inefficient form of censorship whereby it must waste resources to identify numerous organisations and individuals who offend The System’s sensitivities to the prevailing orthodoxy and then flick the service switch off for each offender. So the race is on for the The System to drag us all into a CBDC hell managed by artificial intelligence with an efficiency the previous century’s Nazis could only have dreamt of.
I deliberately refer to ‘The System’ and not PayPal because it should be clear to all of us that this action is not quirky behaviour limited to a few authoritarians occupying Board seats at PayPal. PayPal is merely an extension of the entire system being rolled out. Financial services behemoths are above the law, more so now than ever before. PayPal’s extrajudicial financial services sword is swung all around the globe. For example, there are 5.4 million Palestinians cut off from PayPal who would like the same opportunities to transact as are afforded to Israeli settlers. PayPal operates in Israeli settlements which are considered illegal under international law so its preferential treatment of illegal settlers over Palestinians is The System casting its powerful and illegitimate political vote.
I posted two tweets – one in support of LLS and one in support of The Daily Sceptic. In each tweet I stated that I had closed my PayPal account and encouraged those who value free speech to do the same. However, my support for Toby Young does not prevent me from airing my disagreement with a position he appears to have taken which suggests that the founder of the Free Speech Union might not wholeheartedly support free speech. It’s an important point, since how can we win the battle for free speech if those who claim to value it make statements that appear to suggest they are content for it to be parcelled out to some but not others?
Toby Young spoke publicly to several media outlets about this assault on free speech. In an interview he did with Mark Dolan of GB News, the free speech debate starts to go slightly awry when Mark Dolan compliments Toby on his publication’s thoroughness in always citing government approved data or peer reviewed science. To which Toby responds:
“That’s right. It’s not a conspiracy theory website. We bend over backwards not to publish any misinformation or disinformation. But as you know Mark, if you say something … that challenges progressive orthodoxy, it’s often described as a conspiracy theory or misinformation or disinformation because those have become euphemisms for ‘an opinion I disagree with.’ But you’re right we always cite sources; we link to the papers … we’re being treated as though we’re Alex Jones. Paypal has just redrawn the Overton Window.”
Mark Dolan wraps up the interview by emphasising Toby’s credentials as a former editor of the Spectator – one of the oldest political periodicals in the world. The message coming through loud and clear from this part of the exchange is that Toby has been a good scholar, not some rag tag “conspiracy theorist”. Why didn’t PayPal give him any marks for sticking to the old-school rule book in trying his best to be right? This really shouldn’t be happening to him. Well yes, clearly it shouldn’t, but not for the reasons they’re strongly hinting at – his status and his eschewing of ‘conspiracy theory’.
A free speech purist would also not seek to defend themselves by denying that they were peddling ‘misinformation or disinformation’. There can never be a universally accepted definition of ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ for the simple reason that these terms are defined by those in power seeking to silence opposition. A defence of free speech under the banner of avoiding ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ is actually a defence of some degree of censorship.
Small point on a misapplied analogy: totalitarians don’t need to climb through resized Overton Windows to get you. As far as they’re concerned, they own you and the house. They can smash through the front door, or they can just take the whole house if needs be.
Again, in an interview he did with Laura Dodsworth, Toby implies that the de-platforming of “other websites” had washed over him until it happened to him – a strange stance for the founder of the Free Speech Union to take:
“I have to admit, I was shocked. I’ve heard of other websites and individuals being de-platformed by PayPal, but the Daily Sceptic is, I thought, a lot more mainstream than them…”
Again, of course he is underserving of censorship but not for the reasons he’s hinting at – being respectably ‘mainstream’.
Toby makes another odd comment implying that he’s playing by some unspoken rules and is therefore undeserving of bad treatment. In reference to the demonetisation of some ‘left wing’ sites for their opposition to the war in Ukraine, he speculates on whether DS has been cancelled for similar reasons. If so, he complains:
“Seems a bit harsh, given that we’ve also published several articles defending Ukraine and its war effort and debunking some of the criticisms of the current Ukrainian regime.”
In other words, DS has been quite clever in playing a double game by both attacking and defending the war. He seems to be asking why he hasn’t been bullet-proofed against censorship for this artful approach. Putting aside the fact that there is really no way to defend the utter depravity of NATO’s position in this conflict, it’s not clear why he thinks his dual-play editorial line on the war deserves preferential treatment from the totalitarian censorship machine. In dealing with totalitarianism, the clue’s in the name – you’re either totally in line or you’re out of line.
The key point I’m trying to hammer home is that, in the battle between censorship and free speech, these arguments shouldn’t matter, so why play this odd game of pleading for clemency from unlawful censorship on the grounds that your material is somehow more respectable than the other guff that’s getting censored? This totally misses the fundamental point about free speech – being right, however that might be defined, is not supposed to be the ticket to free speech. The conclusion I can’t help reaching is that Toby thinks censorship is not something that should happen to him because he’s doing all the right things in playing by some unspoken rulebook.
Within the limits permitted by law, unless free speech fully incorporates the right of everyone to be wrong, it isn’t free speech. There are two main reasons for this. First, almost no debate terminates at a truth that remains immutable for all time. We edge closer to truth by discovering that yesterday’s assumptions were wrong. That’s why the essence of real science is about coming up with a hypothesis and then trying to disprove it. Second, the definition of right and wrong – ‘misinformation’ – is determined by whoever wields the most power at that time and in accordance with their capricious whims.
We’ve seen this played out in the totalitarianism of covid with its constantly shifting definitions and goalposts, not to mention the wholesale abuse of science to produce industrial-scale disinformation and misinformation while dishonestly pleading for the need to curb it.
As for Toby asserting that DS is “a lot more mainstream”, this might be a deliberate attempt to conflate mainstream with popular on the grounds that what is popular ought to be exempt from censorship. We all know that DS is not mainstream and being popular doesn’t grant you the ability to run the totalitarian censorship gauntlet and come out unscathed. A key take-home should be that tonight you may go to bed a proud radical mainstreamer but in the morning you may wake up to see the New Normal Reich dangling a guillotine above your head because you haven’t kept up with changing rules.
If Toby is genuinely surprised by this, then it might be because he hasn’t figured out how to reconcile his desire to be back in the mainstream fold with his new status as a member of the anti-totalitarian resistance movement. That’s because he may not yet be able to acknowledge that we are actually hurtling towards full-blown totalitarianism. And that’s because his establishment credentials require him to reflexively dismiss that prospect as ‘conspiracy’.
PayPal has clearly demonstrated that any resistance to The System is not just heretical – it is an insurgency to be met with brute force. This ought to be a key realisation for Toby Young in the wake of his run-in with The System. PayPal’s censorship by demonetisation is as old as covid, but it feels like it’s only just become important because it’s happened to someone ‘important’. Toby has MPs who will speak up for him, and that’s very welcome. Bringing the matter to Parliament’s attention is long overdue. But free speech is properly protected only if we all have the right to be wrong. And like all human rights, the ultimate test of our sincerity is to apply it to those we dislike or disparage and not just those we believe are deserving of it. Would Toby Young defend the ‘conspiracy theorists’ he so often derides? If not, then the founder of the Free Speech Union doesn’t really understand free speech.
The strangling of Professor Christopher Exley’s work on aluminium toxicity is emblematic of how scientific institutions have been captured by private interests – at the expense of the public.
This is a story about how a British university stifled ground-breaking public interest science, ostensibly to satisfy powerful interests – and save their own bacon.
As far as the general public is concerned universities, those hallowed halls, remain places where academics can pursue knowledge unhindered. But many universities and higher education institutions are compromised by the interests of their funders and an increasingly narrow and corporate view of science.
Professor Christopher Exley, the world’s pre-eminent expert on aluminium and a fellow of the Royal Society of Biology – a recognition few scientists achieve – last year lost research funding for his longstanding work on aluminium toxicity in diseases like Alzheimer’s and autism, and its role as an adjuvant in vaccines.
It took place through a series of politically motivated moves that ultimately ended with his funding being completely cut off.
Aluminium is toxic
If you take the time to listen to one of Exley’s many lectures you will learn that aluminium is ubiquitous. It is everywhere in the environment, and it is highly toxic to human beings.
In the 1980s Exley was doing research into why fish were dying in acidified lakes and rivers. He came to understand they were dying of aluminium toxicity. Aluminium, previously locked up in rocks and clays or recycled in the environment by silicic acid, through the process of acidification due to acid rain, had become bioavailable and entered into biological life cycles.
Today, we ingest aluminium through processed foods, drink it in water, cook in aluminium pots and pans (many pans are now made of anodised aluminium). It is found in baby formula, cosmetics and is a key ingredient in many vaccines.
The important public health implications of Exley’s work
“Without aluminium, there would be no Alzheimer’s,” he says in his book, Imagine you are an Aluminium Atom.
A few years later, in 2020, Exley’s group published their seminal paper comparing aluminium content in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis and autism in Nature’s Scientific Reports.
The team had developed a protocol to measure the aluminium content of brains, which had shown that the brains of people with Alzheimer’s, autism and multiple sclerosis had elevated levels of aluminium. Importantly, access to the samples from a brain bank used in the research had been funded by charitable donations rather than more traditional funding sources.
Answering questions from The Looking Glass, Exley says that by the time this paper was published the focus of their research had already turned to aluminium adjuvants and vaccines, a field of study they had pursued for many years.
A 2021 paper measured the aluminium content of 13 infant vaccines and compared it with the manufacturer’s data. Only three vaccines contained the amount of aluminium indicated by the manufacturer, while six contained a statistically significant greater quantity, and four a statistically significant lower quantity.
Exley’s work is ground breaking, and has obvious implications for public health. He and his team were the last research group left in Britain studying the impact of toxic exposure to aluminium, a field of study that just twenty years earlier was active.
Aluminium research quietly suffocated
Exley explains that in the early 1990s the aluminium industry stepped up its efforts to influence government, charities and various industries to make it increasingly difficult for scientists to obtain funding to do research into aluminium toxicity.
“Hence, group by group moved their attention from aluminium to other areas where funding was available. I have said this many times but I did not become a scientist for science’s sake. I took up science to solve the paradox of aluminium and human life.
“I was undeterred and worked harder and harder to win research funding from as wide a funding base as possible. I doubt that any scientist has worked as hard as I did in keeping research funding coming to my lab,” he says.
While Exley had been able to be conclusive about the connection between Alzheimer’s and aluminium toxicity, sadly his work was scuppered before he was able be as conclusive about the link between aluminium toxicity and autism, and nor could he continue his work on aluminium in vaccines.
A less-than-luke-warm response
Autism and Alzheimer’s rates continue to climb decade after decade.
In 2021, the Centres for Disease Control reported that approximately 1 in 44 children age eight, in the US is diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, according to 2018 data. An increase from the one in 54 number reported in 2020 and an enormous increase from the first known US autism prevalence study in 1970, that established a rate of less than 1 in 10,000.
Despite the rising incidence of these diseases, his research on Alzheimer’s and autism had elicited nothing but silence from the major charities dedicated to these diseases. And the university he worked for, Keele, appeared only to tolerate him, he says, never promoting his findings or issuing press releases.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Exley had also been saddled with the label of anti-vaxxer. The slur was pinned on him by internet trolls immediately following the publication of research on aluminium in brain tissue in autism in 2017, he says.
“Scrutiny of the paper in question and all of our published works provides no support for this label. Though, in truth, I do not understand why one cannot be against vaccination in the same way as one might oppose anything else. Anti-vaxxer seems akin to being labelled an atheist in a predominantly Christian world.”
Exley says he is agnostic, in the tradition of one of his science heroes, TH Huxley – reluctant to claim certainty about things he cannot know or demonstrate. And yet, inconveniently, he has demonstrated that elevated levels of aluminium are found in the brains of people who died with autism.
“Exposure to aluminium through a vaccine is, in comparison to diet, an acute exposure and an infant’s physiology will respond differently to exposure to a high concentration of aluminium over a very short time period. The latter, acute versus chronic exposure, while not yet being taken into account in infant vaccination programmes, must now be considered to help to ensure that future vaccination schedules are safe,” the paper concludes.
Can science be ‘anti-vaccine’?
Exley’s work broadly examined the impact of aluminium on human biology, and was certainly not limited to exposure via vaccines, but his work was attracting negative attention. Later it became clear the attention was unwanted as far as the university was concerned.
Through a series of bizzare and drawn out interactions with the university administration, and what eventually became clear was an attack on his funding sources, Exley’s longstanding position at Keele began to unravel.
Exley told The Looking Glass that during his last few years at Keele, on more than one occasion senior management attempted “spuriously-founded disciplinary action” against him.
“Only my use of world-class and expensive employment lawyers protected me from being ousted. Needless to say these events did have a negative impact upon my health but I did not give in, at least not while I had the funding to continue to do good science.
“I am sure that if I had remained at Keele as a lame duck professor they would have continued to hunt me down until I left.“
But he was not pushed out – in the end, Exley resigned. Without the ability to continue his research, he had no enthusiasm to stick around.
“For over twenty years, I had the full and unconditional support of the University,” Exley wrote in his tell-all leaving statement.
So, what happened?
The beginning of the end
In 2016 the university set up a simplified portal for Exley’s team to receive donations, which he says worked well for a couple of years.
But in 2018, senior management began to interfere. Excuses were made that the online portal was unsuitable and an alternative system should be set up.
Exley had been very successful at attracting independent and unsolicited funding for his research from traditional sources as well as from the public and philanthropists. He had brought in about £6 million over his 30 year term at Keele, most of it from traditional funders (corporate, government and large charities).
This was unusual, at least at Keele, he says.
“You need a profile to be able to obtain funding from, for example, philanthropic services, and you need to be prepared to work extremely hard in bringing in sponsors. For example, being prepared to travel the world giving talks in a wide variety of situations.”
The role of the media
In 2019, the Guardian published an article scrutinising his funding via Keele’s online funding portal and drawing attention to his work on aluminium in vaccines and their potential link to autism. The article was clearly aimed at discrediting his work and casting doubt on the validity of its funding.
Exley told The Looking Glass he believes that someone from Keele almost certainly initiated the Guardian article and provided the financial information. He made numerous enquiries through his lawyers to the university asking for evidence of the reporter’s FOI request, but this has not been forthcoming.
“The Guardian is clearly an arm of a ‘greater’ body and is not averse to telling lies. Other mainstream media in the UK, such as the Times, are no better. Since 2016 I have only received negative publicity about our research. This was not always the case.”
What triggered the change was probably the publication of this paper on the toxicity of aluminium adjuvants in clinically approved vaccines, he says.
At the end of 2019 a new portal was set up, now managed by the alumni office. This worked for around six months. But donors once again contacted Exley, this time to say his name did not appear in the drop down menu on the donations portal.
“Senior management at Keele seemed determined to make donations towards my research as difficult as possible for potential donors. This included refusing to inform me when a donation had been made.
“I had to rely upon donors contacting me to inform me that they had made a donation. However, donations continued to be received and this unconditional support of our research by individual donors was only brought to an end in February 2021 when Keele’s senior management acted to prevent all donations to my group,’’ his says in his leaving statement.
The Guardian article had led to internal discussion among senior management at Keele that labelled Exley an anti-vaxxer, despite an email dated 25 February to Exley stating they took a neutral view:
“As you are aware, from time to time, concerns have been raised by both our external and internal communities, as a result of press stories, about research undertaken at the University by you and its use to question vaccine safety in a manner which may undermine public health initiatives. On this we make no judgment.“
The research group’s website, which compiled all of its research and housed the funding portal, was suspended. Funding would only be permitted from industry or government sources, prohibiting him from receiving funding from philanthropists, charities and personal donations, a rule that applied only to Exley.
Robert Kennedy and the politicisation of vaccine safety science
In 2021 this new rule led to a US$15,000 donation from Robert F. Kennedy being rejected by Keele. Robert F. Kennedy is the founder Children’s Health Defense, an organisation working to shed light on vaccine injury and corruption in the pharmaceutical industry and its regulators.
“Exley’s research efforts have documented grave toxic effects of aluminum exposures on human health. Towards the end of last year, I learned that future research in Dr Exley’s laboratory was in jeopardy if he was unable to raise further research funding. Fearing that his critical research would wither, I sent a personal check for $15,000 to Exley via Keele.
“I never expected that my donation would be rejected. I’ve never heard of any university returning a donation from a private individual with no corporate conflicts. Keele’s decision to return my donation was therefore somewhat baffling. I am an environmental and public health advocate and attorney who has spent years successfully suing the world’s biggest polluters and pharmaceutical companies in the public interest.”
The rejection of Kennedy’s 2021 donation triggered another article in the Guardian by the same reporter, Patrick Greenfield, with the headline ‘Keele University accepting funds for researcher who shared vaccine misinformation’.
It contained this statement from Keele: “The university emphatically supports public health vaccination programmes and recognises the importance that current vaccines play in protecting health both in the UK and globally.”
Exley told The Looking Glass that a clue to whoever may have pulled the strings at Keele came from a letter written to Kennedy by Keele, explaining why his donation was being turned down.
“Mention is made of major funding partners. The obvious ones are the NHS – no more than an adjunct to the global pharmaceutical industry – Astra Zeneca who have a considerable presence on campus, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”
An internal email between two university administrators that Exley was able to get hold of also indicated the university was trying to stay on the right side of another major funder.
“I think it is clear that the decision is in the best interests of the charity: accepting donations solicited by an individual supporting anti-vaccine misinformation risks a £9m research income per annum from NIHR being lost. The Guardian headline is spot on: Keele facilitates money flowing to a prominent anti-vaccine academic,” the email said.
The chief executive of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), a government agency which funds research into health and social care is Chris Whitty, who was also the chief medical advisor to the British government at the height of the covid response.
Following The Science
In the last decade ‘following the science’ has come to be something of a mantra in public discourse. A naïve public might suppose that would mean Exley’s findings would end up being reflected in public health policy, or that the public would at a minimum be made aware of the risks and sources of aluminium exposures. But Exley’s work has been largely ignored.
“There was no science-based backlash, no one refuted our findings. However, the internet trolls seem to have the support of search engines such as Google and so their attacks on our work are always on the first page of any search.”
His work has also involved figuring out how to rid the body of the toxin, with rather startling results. Could it be that the solution is as simple as consuming mineral water rich in silicic acid? That and avoiding it to begin with?
Exley says the aluminium lobby goes largely unacknowledged, unlike big pharma, big ag and big tech, but is arguably the most powerful of all.
“It is a silent ‘big brother’ that while rarely commenting at all on aluminium toxicity in humans is always there to support the myriad industries that depend upon its product.”
The science stands
Credulous members of the public who uncritically accept reporting in the Guardian or any other legacy media outlet, is likely to perceive Exley as a charlatan. That is the point of such stories.
But despite his employer’s capitulation to powerful industry forces, Exley wasn’t openly ostracised by the scientific community
“Our research, over 200 peer-reviewed papers, is accepted as sound and, for example, led to an invitation to be a fellow of the Royal Society of Biology. It is probably true to say that my fellow scientists have not rushed to support me at this time but they have not been at the forefront of any criticism either.
“I might add that a letter was sent to the vice chancellor at Keele signed by over 100 scientists asking for the reinstatement of myself and my funding at Keele. It was ignored. Other eminent scientists have written to the VC as individuals and received no reply.”
The public remains largely unaware of the dynamics gripping science institutions (and science reporting), that it is controlled by money and that certain narratives are promoted, often through far reaching, sophisticated public relations campaigns that have included capturing media.
There is in fact, a long history of censoring inconvenient science and defaming those who insist on doing it. Biochemist Árpád Pusztai, gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield and geneticist Gilles Eric Séralini are just three others who come to mind. All of them had highly successful careers before reputational smear campaigns, media hit pieces and institutional pressure was brought to bear on them.
The degree to which money has sullied the waters of public interest science is also evidenced by the fact that most funding is now channeled towards applied science, with commercial imperatives. Science like Exley’s that explores environmental and human toxicity does not generally lead to lucrative patents.
I asked him how this broken system might be fixed.
“Science cannot flourish when funding comes from industry, government and major charities all of which have significant vested interests and cannot be trusted. Perhaps institutions supported solely by philanthropy could bring back some of the integrity that has been lost.”
Exley is now retired, although should a willing philanthropist emerge, he says he would resume his research.
In a recent piece for The Daily Sceptic, Dr David McGrogan, Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School, explains why he believes there will never be a reckoning for lockdown. Before I attempt to unpick the pillars of his argument, which are simple and – on the face of it – powerful, let me first summarise them.
According to Professor McGrogan, the phenomenon impeding a reckoning for lockdown is cognitive dissonance. For the purposes of his analysis, he defines this as the intense psychological discomfort caused by the conflict in the individual’s mind between the overestimation of one’s intellectual capacity and real-world evidence that has a nasty habit of reminding us that we are not as smart as we think we are. The mental gymnastics that we engage in to deny the shortcomings in our critical faculties will be what fuels a societal avoidance of coming to terms with the failure of lockdowns.
Society will thus be the victim of its own wholesale psychological conspiracy of denial involving everyone from the decision-makers in public office unable to admit that they are “not half as clever as they purport to be”, to the “hoi polloi” (McGrogan’s choice of words, not mine) unable to admit “that they were gullible and foolish, and in a moment of crisis simply decided to follow the herd.” The primary manifestation of this denial in the vast majority of people will be forgetfulness. McGrogan cites as evidence a “collective amnesia” about lockdowns even as its effects (such as skyrocketing inflation) are now plainly evident. He also cites the scant mention of covid now in daily life – a memory-holing of the entire event.
The upshot of it all is that far too few will even admit to themselves, let alone anyone else, “that they made a mistake in 2020”. [emphasis added]
It’s a thought-provoking piece that got me asking a number of questions:
Were lockdowns criminally negligent?
If we want a reckoning, why should we even care about the cognitive dissonance of those who were responsible for criminally negligent lockdowns?
Why do we need anyone to admit that they made a mistake? Assuming the reckoning we are after is one grounded in law and justice – frankly anything less will not do – I am puzzled that a professor of law would argue implicitly that a confession of guilt is a prerequisite for such reckoning.
Is cognitive dissonance really at play in both elite decision-making circles and the public at large?
Were lockdowns criminally negligent, as opposed to a ‘mistake’?
If we agree that lockdowns were criminally negligent, then the reckoning we want is a legal one. A truth and reconciliation commission would be fine and dandy for the perpetrators, but woefully inadequate for those whose lives have been destroyed in myriad cruel ways. It’s important to knock any doubts on the head about whether criminal negligence was involved considering the lie being pedalled by the likes of Grant Shapps that “there was of course no instruction manual for dealing with the first pandemic of modern times”.
We know that there most definitely was an instruction manual because the Government had a pandemic preparedness plan. The Government’s own plan on lockdown mirrored the WHO’s October 2019 plan, which not only ruled out societal lockdowns but actually listed the quarantining of exposed individuals as “not recommended in any circumstances”. What’s more, a Parliamentary report that ended up being a whitewash of lockdowns admitted that:
“…as of October 2019, the Johns Hopkins Global Health Security Index, the most comprehensive global study into pandemic preparedness, had the UK and the US as the best prepared in the world.” [emphasis added]
That plan eschewed lockdowns because there was no scientific evidence for them in dealing with the spread of respiratory viruses.
Sweden had a similar plan. The difference between Sweden and the UK was that Sweden recognised that if you’ve planned for a disaster, then you should implement the plan when you think the disaster is unfolding. As far as criminal negligence is concerned, the taxpayer does not pay its civil servants to plan for disasters only to then recklessly abandon the plan when confronted by the disaster event. Why bother to plan? The only justification for abandoning a plan for rare disasters is if the plan has been tried and proven not to work.
The thing which makes the abandonment of a scientifically sound plan all the more appalling is that its alternative was not subjected to even the most cursory cost-benefit analysis. Of course, had a cost-benefit analysis been done before throwing caution to the wind, it would have highlighted in stark terms what lockdown meant – severe damage to our social and economic fabric in all the ways that are now unfolding, far outweighing any claimed benefit.
So public health officials were duty-bound to follow sound established principles governing respiratory illness pandemics, but they chose instead to trash their own rule book. And the Government was duty-bound to weigh up whether its shotgun course of action would yield a net benefit to society, but Government bureaucrats didn’t even get as far as scribbling on the back of a cigarette packet. Had they done so, the scribbles would have shown a bright red deficit symbolising the innocents to be killed by lockdowns and lives to be destroyed for years to come.
And that’s the only plausible reason for not doing a cost-benefit analysis. If you’ve decided to bankrupt the nation and ruin lives in pursuit of a political aim, it’s probably best not to prepare calculations setting out in minute detail the devastating brutality of your actions. If you’re subsequently put in the dock, it would be bad enough that you hadn’t bothered to weigh up the pros and cons of your actions, but it would be suicidal to have done the analysis and still opted to press the destruct button. With an eyes-wide-open cost-benefit analysis, the jury would have clear evidence of psychopathy as opposed to the slightly lesser evil of recklessness. Either way, criminal negligence is writ large over the entire fiasco.
Are the elite rule-makers really suffering from cognitive dissonance and does it matter?
Cognitive dissonance has two strands to it: the sincere belief that one is right in the chosen course of action and the subsequent emergence of evidence that jars with that sincerely held belief. The first bit never happened and therefore nor could the second. I’ve written at length about why every single pillar of the Covid narrative from lockdowns, masking and testing to mass vaccination was nothing short of voodoo garbage. The point I made in that argument was that the Government, using its medical bureaucrats as cover, acted in opposition to truths they either publicly stated or demonstrably knew. They knew there was no scientific basis for lockdowns, but they decreed them anyway. They knew masks didn’t work, but they decreed them with no new evidence for a u-turn. They knew that the jabs didn’t prevent transmission and infection, but they coerced the entire country into taking them and they mandated them for care workers. They knew there was absolutely no rational basis on a simple risk/benefit assessment for advising covid jabs for children, but they did it anyway.
The science was politicised by scientists like Whitty and Vallance at the behest of their masters. The politicians and bureaucrats who analysed and understood all the information about covid did not believe in the medical efficacy of the policies they enforced. There is a world of difference between advocating for a position that you sincerely, albeit erroneously, believe in, versus advocating corrupt policies that you know have no rational or scientific basis. Confirmation of the latter was provided by the Cabinet Office 2020 Christmas party scandal.
The only kernel to grasp from that fiasco is that they never believed in the restrictions and rules they made for the “hoi polloi” and that’s why they didn’t follow them. They knew that the threat from the virus was exaggerated and that all the restrictions, including lockdowns, had no impact on that threat, exaggerated or not. They acted in accordance with thisbelief, and not a belief that lockdowns were the right thing to do. The point is: there is no cognitive dissonance there because cognitive dissonance describes the conflict that arises when a sincerely held belief clashes with contradictory evidence for holding that belief. All we have here is outright dishonesty. In short, the experts were never ‘wrong’; they were always lying. Big difference.
A brilliant investigative report by German journalist Paul Schreyer shows that the 2020 lockdowns were the culmination of 20 years of pandemic simulation wargaming involving collaborations between the most prestigious medical scientific institutions, the mainstream media, senior military and defence officials and, crucially, government intelligence agencies. The base assumptions used in all event simulations were that management of all ‘pandemics’ would entail a severe curtailment of civil liberties and media psyops to condition the public into accepting this as necessary. The only exit strategy envisaged was vaccination combined with bio-surveillance tracking technology.
In the light of this compelling narrative, it’s not hard to view lockdowns as an instrument of deep state strategies to use pandemics as vehicles for fulfilling population control agendas, and that senior government officials and influential academics (think here of modellers producing vastly inflated casualty estimates for no-lockdown scenarios) who were deeply embedded in this ideology were simply acting on years, if not decades, of priming. Contrary to being a panic reaction, lockdown can be seen as a consequence of years of careful preparation.
Why is it so hard for some to accept that politicians not only prevaricate but outright lie? A successful reckoning for lockdown entails criminal proceedings to show that those on whom the public relies to enact ethical, evidence-based public health policies that pass the do-no-harm test were criminally negligent in rolling out policies that they knew were not evidence-based and would cause great harm – harm that they callously did not think needed to be assessed before they pulled the trigger. Criminals are convicted on the evidence put before the court, not on whether they confess to the crime. If there is evidence of criminal negligence, then we don’t need the alleged criminals to admit that they made a mistake.
Is the public suffering from cognitive dissonance?
Undoubtedly some members of the public are realising that they fell for the lockdown lie and are now engaged in avoiding the psychological discomfort of coming to terms with being deceived. Using Professor McGrogan’s definition, they are “hold[ing] two mutually contradictory ideas in [their] minds.” The psychological discomfort arises when the individual is forced to confront the contradiction between the overestimation of their intellectual resources and real-world evidence that contradicts this self-flattering position. The important thing to recognise is that there is still a degree of rationality involved here, which means we have to acknowledge that, even if the thinking was erroneous, there is some thinking involved in entertaining a theory, subsequently rejecting it and then coming to terms with the error.
However, the problem I have in looking at Joe Public as a bloc is that there is much evidence that a huge swathe of the public was not doing any thinking at all and still isn’t. Contrary to the idea that they are wrestling with contradiction, they aren’t wrestling with anything at all. Mattias Desmet’s compelling theory of mass formation points to a state of hypnosis in which the public not only refused to engage mentally with the absurdity of lockdowns but that the more absurd the measures, the more likely they were to go along with them. This is not cognitive dissonance.
Professor McGrogan says the public has forgotten lockdowns and that covid has been ‘memory-holed’. I’m not so sure. It’s tempting to see the near-absence of masking in summer as evidence that covid madness is behind us, but it’s possible that a great many people have been conditioned into accepting that this is a seasonal ritual – masks in winter, bare faces in summer. Can we be sure that a similar regimen won’t be applied for targeted lockdowns? The fact that people aren’t talking about covid anymore doesn’t necessarily signify a conscious or even unconscious rejection of the covid theatre. It could signify a subconscious internalising of the theatre – a sort of Pavlovian conditioning in which all that is required is a dog-whistle about ‘rising cases’ and another ‘deadly wave’ combined with the changing of the seasons to cause the crowd to gravitate towards masking and lockdowns.
Lockdowns were just the first tool in the ongoing war on humanity.
The minority who were spared from the orgiastic stupidity of mass formation knew lockdowns couldn’t contain a virus. Now, we don’t know if we’ll ever be able to accurately quantify the devastation that lockdowns have caused to people’s lives. As if that wasn’t bad enough, we also have to accept that the lockdown fire will smoulder for years to come. One thing we can be sure of is that no future government will voluntarily quantify the damage to physical and mental health, businesses, access to healthcare and education, and so much more – this is because virtually all the useful idiots (aka MPs) on both sides of the aisle voted for the calamity. It will be up to us to force them to come to terms with what they did.
As destructive as they are, lockdowns are just part of the unfolding train smash. Useless and dehumanising masks are still a ubiquitous feature of life in many countries and could still make a comeback in the UK this winter. Despite the covid injection horror show growing grimmer by the day, those behind the wheel of the ‘vaccine’ juggernaut still have their foot flat down on the accelerator. To appreciate the value now placed on human life by the Big Pharma and Government ‘health’ regulatory nexus, simply reflect on the fact that the next generation of covid boosters being dished out to millions has not been tested on humans – all it took to approve the rollout was 8 mice.
Meanwhile, the Russia/Ukraine manufactured energy crisis is set to plunge people across the West into fuel poverty and could cause many to die of cold this winter. Constantly playing in the background is the funereal music of the Net Zero scam in which the only outcomes that can be guaranteed are an indeterminate period of impoverishment for the bulk of humanity and cushy jobs for the same class of genius modellers who predicted covid would reduce all the major cities of the world to morgues if they didn’t lock down. One word – Sweden.
Rather than theorise about the ‘psychological discomfort’ of the psychopaths doing all this, let’s acknowledge the psychological discomfort of facing up to the fact that all of these past, present and future blast craters are actually part of a mosaic of deliberate destruction. It’s vital to correctly interpret this consistent pattern of one failed reckless gamble after another. Repeatedly doubling down on the errors isn’t necessarily psychopathic per se, but it is psychopathic if you’re well aware that doubling down is inconsequential to you but harmful to everyone around you. The masters of the universe have decided that the old world has outlived its usefulness to them, and their solution is to put humanity through a mincer in the deluded expectation that something tamed and completely controllable will emerge at the other end.
Rather than shrug our shoulders in resignation at the presumed cognitive dissonance of the masters of the universe, let’s ask ourselves how much psychological discomfort we might be experiencing as we realise how little regard those masters of the universe must have for us; for their fellow human beings at the sharp end of their inhumane policies.
The perpetrators of lockdowns, and all that has followed, are not experiencing cognitive dissonance. Paradoxically, those who deny the real reason for the perpetrators’ denials of wrongdoing might be the ones plagued by cognitive dissonance. Why? Because they refuse to come to terms with the stark truth pointed out by Mark Crispin Miller: the lockdown perpetrators are free to keep killing us as long as we keep thinking that they couldn’t be that evil; that they’re only suffering from cognitive dissonance.
There is a very simple binary choice ahead of us: either the perpetrators of lockdowns and other covid crimes serve jail time, or democracy in the West, such as it was, is dead. The Blair and Bush regimes were not put in the dock for the Iraq invasion war crime. Emboldened by the scale of that impunity, elites have brought us to the point where they are confident that they can lock us up in our homes and take away our sovereignty over our bodies, with impunity. Are we really prepared to find out where the arc of impunity ends, or do we end it now by restoring justice?
The second in a regular series courtesy of the estimable New Zealand 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.
Listen to the always excellent sociologist Jodie Bruning talk covid, governance, science and its relationship to policy, institutional power and the public good in an interview with Rick Munn on TNT radio.
The Privacy Commission (OPC) and the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) launched an investigation into police conduct after RNZ reported that police were illegally photographing Māori youth. The report states that there is a “widespread practice” of police taking photos of people in public with little cause, sometimes for simply looking “suspicious” or “out of place.”
The Dutch city of Haarlem is set to become the first in the world to ban meat advertising in public, with the aim of getting people to eat less meat to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The rule will come into force from 2024. This week Auckland Mayoral candidate Efeso Collins was asked whether he would consider doing the same. Collins said that while it was an interesting idea it wasn’t something he was thinking about and his focus was currently on transport emissions. Listen here.
Five eyes spies gathered in Queenstown this week, Andrew Little, Minister for the Government Communications Security Bureau and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, confirmed. “As the public would expect, New Zealand’s national security and intelligence officials meet with their Five Eyes counterparts as part of their regular engagement. There are some engagements happening at official level in New Zealand at the moment,” he said. He said it was not in the country’s national security interests to provide further details.
The US Department for Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, on the anniversary of 9/11 said the new enemy was the individual, not foreign terrorists. “We are seeing an emerging threat over the last several years of the domestic violent extremist,” he said. “The individual here in the United States radicalised to violence by a foreign terrorist ideology, but also an ideology of hate, anti-government sentiment, false narratives propagated on online platforms, even personal grievances.” Who isn’t a terrorist under this definition? The Looking Glass has written about this extensively. See here and here and here and here.
A creepy new add for New York Presbyterian Hospital appears to be attempting to normalise myocarditis in children, one of the most common injuries resulting from the covid jab.
Government scraps traffic light system
Never say people power doesn’t work! The end of the traffic light system, including medical mandates and masking requirements, was announced and we are now told by the Prime Minister that “we just need to respect people’s individual choices”.
We can all pause to appreciate the massive hypocrisy of the Prime Minister, who smugly confirmed she was imposing two sets of rights on the citizens of New Zealand when she introduced vaccine passes to segregate the clean from the unclean last year.
This is a complete turnaround from the heavily coerced social engineering that has been going on under the covid protection framework. But while this is something to be celebrated, the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act is still in place, and just this week the Epidemic Preparedness Notice 2020 was renewed for a further three months until 20 October.
It first came into effect in March 2020, and is one of the ways in which powers under the Health Act were activated, and is a prerequisite for making Covid-19 orders under Covid-19 Public Health Response Act. It activates a range of statutory powers and consequences, including the ability to adjourn voting.
Under the principal notice, the Prime Minister declared that she was satisfied that the effects of the outbreak of Covid-19 were likely to disrupt or continue to disrupt essential governmental and business activity in New Zealand significantly.
Where is reference to public health, one wonders?
So, we are not off the hook yet. The Prime Minister is keeping her emergency powers in the back pocket, just in case, it appears. Not that anyone could have predicted that …
Mandates for nurses and health care workers effectively still in place
Despite government mandates dropping, Te Whatu Ora, the newly created health authority, is in the process of putting an internal mandate for workers in place, timed to come into effect exactly as the Government mandates expire.
Activist groups Nurses for Freedom and the NZ Nurses Collective put a statement out on Thursday saying they were concerned that once again the public have been mislead with respect to the cessation of health mandates.
Spokeswoman Deborah Cunliffe said despite systemic under-staffing, gaps in access to timely services and the continued risk to the public this brings, public health workers are still subject to vaccination requirements and may not be allowed back to work.
Te Whatu Ora Capital Coast, Hutt Valley and Wairarapa amongst others, have been quick to confirm that all new contracts will require two primary doses of the covid vaccine and at least one booster, citing health and safety legislation. Te Whatu Ora (Health NZ) is currently working on a draft national policy expected to be completed by 26 September to coincide with the end of the mandates.
This means that about 1,500 unvaccinated doctors, nurses, midwives and other public healthcare workers are still potentially subject to discrimination. Workers in the private healthcare sector are also in limbo.
Cunliffe said international and independent ‘gold standard’ evidence is needed to prove unvaccinated healthcare workers are a greater risk to vulnerable populations as compared to vaccinated workers.
“This is especially relevant considering the real and known risk that exists from reduced health service provision, an overstretched workforce and waning vaccine efficacy.
“It is clear our patients and the public want us back. Preventing us from doing so adds to the general perception that dropping the mandates is purely about votes and has never been about science, health or transparency,” she said.
Read an account of one nurses horrific experience of the mandates here.
Ardern said was “getting a bit of advice on that”.
Bridges then pressed her on what its scope might be. “Will it look at Minister’s decisions, your decisions? Will it look at vaccine rollout, you know, the Reserve Bank and the money printing that went on and the inequality that was created? Will all of those things be canvassed by an inquiry?
Ardern said she wanted to “keep learning for the future” but that she couldn’t answer specific questions at this point.
Denmark bans covid vaccines for under-50s
Denmark previously halted covid jabs for the under-18s but this week moved to widen the age range to the under-50s.
The Danish Health Authority says “the purpose of vaccination is not to prevent infection with covid-19 and people under age 50 are therefore currently not being offered booster vaccinations.”
Their explanation for the ban is that due to widespread immunity and low risk from covid, the benefits from vaccination are too low. Now, only those considered in high-risk groups or those who work with people in high-risk groups under 50 will be allowed to get it. Otherwise, they are banned.
As we saw last week with the UK’s decision to ban the covid jab for under-12s, however, the authorities are not coming out to explicitly state this or provide an explanation. If something is banned, it implies that it’s harmful. But the public are not hearing this from authorities.
One can only assume there is obfuscation at play. VAERS data shows that covid-19 injections are the most dangerous ‘vaccines’ ever produced. ‘Died suddenly’ notices are through the roof globally. Excess death has spiked in highly vaccinated countries, including New Zealand. How long before they are removed from the market and how many people will have been maimed or killed by then?
International medical crisis declared by consortium of doctors and scientists
Over 400 doctors, scientists and professionals from more than 34 countries this morning declared an international medical crisis due to “diseases and death associated with the ‘covid-19 vaccines’ ”.
“We, the medical doctors and scientists from all over the world, declare that there is an international medical crisis due to the diseases and deaths co-related to the administration of products known as “Covid-19 vaccines”.
“We are currently witnessing an excess in mortality in those countries where the majority of the population has received the so called “Covid-19 vaccines”. To date, this excess mortality has neither been sufficiently investigated nor studied by national and international health institutions.
“The large number of sudden deaths in previously healthy young people who were inoculated with these “vaccines”, is particularly worrying, as is the high incidence of miscarriages and perinatal deaths which have not been investigated.,” it begins.
The signatories are demanding that regulatory agencies and related health institutions globally, as well as international bodies like WHO, EMA, FDA, UK-MHRA, respond to a series of demands, starting with halting covid vaccination programmes. Read more here.
Psychiatrist Emmanuel Garcia takes physicians to task for abandoning medical ethics
US-born, New Zealand-based psychiatrist Emmanuel Garcia, has taken Kiwi medical professionals to task in an op-ed published in Global Research. Garcia was one of dozens of physicians who refused to parrot government covid narratives in 2020. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 as a result after working in the public sector since 2006.
He ponders how differently things may have gone in New Zealand if medical professionals had collectively spoken out against government overreach.
“Yes, I understand, they would have come under attack by a corrupt Medical Council (under the thumb of the Federation of State Medical Boards) and Ministry of Health; yes, they would have had their licences to practice suspended; yes, they would have been fired from their jobs for exercising common sense and their right to choose what to allow into their bodies – at least initially.
“But imagine if they simply stood up en masse for what was right. Would a totalitarian Government have dared to persecute us all? Would even a quisling organisation like the Medical Council have tried to investigate thousands instead of the dozens of doctors who spoke out? Would the Prime Minister of New Zealand have insisted on a sweetheart deal with a disreputable and unscrupulous pharmaceutical outfit like Pfizer and suppressed inexpensive and effective treatments for a trumped-up illness? Would the government have had the audacity NOT to mandate autopsies for those who died after having received the jab, and NOT to account for and fully investigate adverse events? Would, in fact, this entire manufactured nightmare scenario have been allowed to unfold as it has, with its concomitant destruction of livelihoods, businesses, and societal fabric?”
US President Joe Biden unleashes biotech regime on Americans: are humans just computers to be hacked?
The Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy states that: “For biotechnology and biomanufacturing to help us achieve our societal goals, the United States needs to invest in foundational scientific capabilities. We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers; unlock the power of biological data, including through computing tools and artificial intelligence; and advance the science of scale‑up production while reducing the obstacles for commercialization so that innovative technologies and products can reach markets faster.”
This insane order seeks to vastly expand the failed gene modifying public health strategy of the last two years, and makes no reference to the Nuremberg Code which outlaws medical experiments on humans without informed consent.
As Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada, Anthony Hall notes in a critique of the order, “The Biden administration simply looked the other way as Pfizer and other companies well known for their criminal records pushed ahead a totally experimental process of genetic modification through mRNA injections. The current custodians of the White House have no intention, it seems, of initiating much-needed federal investigations and studies to understand what went wrong and who is responsible?” he said.
I wrote an article for UK Column a year ago which accused legacy media newspaper proprietors of being criminally negligent for allowing covid disinformation and fear-based propaganda in their titles.
Since that time, levels of hatred have increased against journalists who operate in this industry that I myself have been part of for a quarter of a century.
In this second anonymous whistleblower account of what it is like to work in UK newspapers during the covid era, I hope to direct some of that hatred away from the journalists and to refocus it on the newspaper industry chiefs who serve Big Pharma before truth.
Censorship? What censorship?
Nearly all of the journalists I know are completely unaware of global censorship; they are often new in their roles and are thrust into a working world of increasingly aggressive public relations officers.
One community reporter, whom I class as a friend, listened to my concerns about tech giants censoring scientists and health professionals who went against World Health Organisation guidelines for the alleged pandemic. This reporter’s wages are paid for by Facebook, so I was expecting they would be aware of this, but they responded with: “Oh, I didn’t know.”
As an example of this, I had one editor ask me to upload directly onto our newspaper website an NHS press release urging pregnant women to take the covid injection, as it was “safe and effective”. This same editor was too fearful to return to the office early this year, even though others were coming back in, so I genuinely believe the editor thought the press release was nothing more than legitimate public health advice.
In sum, the entire backbone has been ripped out of the news industry – and that happened more than a decade ago.
And we are dealing with clueless individuals who work within it, many of them programmed to be “woke” by their “trusted” news sources like the BBC and the Guardian. But do they deserve our hate and scorn?
At the time of writing my last whistleblower account, I was angry, frustrated and scared about where the world was heading and how my industry was pushing it there. I hated my colleagues for their ignorance and their blind faith in authority.
But after another year of continuing to take pay cheques from what I still believe is the PR unit for globalist billionaires, I have become sorry for these foot soldiers who have caused so much harm by failing to challenge authority. And I fear for them as well.
It won’t be long before a British journalist is physically hurt (if it hasn’t happened already) for their role in what has happened in the covid era, and I have experienced some of this public hatred towards journalists myself.
During a recent public meeting highlighting the documented life-changing harm and death caused by the Pfizer covid injections, I had some audience members turn on me, shouting that I was a disgrace and that I should quit my job when I announced that I worked in the mainstream media.
If it had not been for a senior local politician, who knows me, speaking up for my integrity, I would have had to have made a sharp exit for my own safety.
The mainstream news has become one of the country’s most hated professions during the last two years, especially among those who have either recently learned or already knew not to trust authority on global issues.
Having now returned to the office on a sporadic basis, I have had the chance to speak face-to-face with colleagues for the first time in more than a year – and it has dawned on me how ignorant they are. They are not stupid, they are not controlled opposition, they are not just being told what to write, they are just completely unaware of any counter-narratives about covid.
They are under a spell, a spell of remarkable simplicity that has just two elements – censorship and propaganda – which brings about the end product of fear.
Most of my colleagues are fairly low down in the editorial structure of the global mainstream behemoth, but they represent a microcosm of what is happening further along the corridors of power. This hierarchical consideration goes some way to explain the absolute ignorance among those reporting the news.
There is a handful of my colleagues who are aware that the human race is being railroaded into a new world order controlled by technocrats. A few others are starting to realise that politicians have no problems lying to us about the most important global issues.
This second group, although aware of something bad happening around them, recoil at the thought of a global plan to enslave humanity. When discussing covid, especially, they make it clear they do not subscribe to conspiracy theories and are not conspiracy theorists.
These comments are made because they are fearful their reputations could be harmed by discussing covid through the lens of holding authority to account, following the money, and asking who benefits. I have noticed that mainstream media managers are far more fearful of being branded a “conspiracy theorist” than a reporter. And I know of one reporter who was branded the “office conspiracy theorist” for writing an article detailing a woman’s covid injection harm.
Some of my colleagues I also count as friends, and many of them I still have not seen since our offices were shut down across the country more than two years ago.
But recently we have been returning to our desks – which we have to book online beforehand – and this has allowed me to be able to speak to some of them and to look them in the eye as I hear their thoughts about what has been going on.
It has been a shocking experience, and disheartening. The propaganda pumped out by the Government, and regurgitated by the national newspapers and television news networks, has done a good job of scaring them – to such an extent that real psychological trauma has been caused to some of them. Several colleagues have admitted to me they are “pro-vax” and are worried about any “messaging” that could reduce covid injection uptake. Another just felt it was their “civic duty” to receive all their injections, and thought no more about it. One colleague even messaged me to urge me to be injected, as they were so worried for my wellbeing.
Some months later, I provided that colleague with evidence from the Office for National Statistics of the increased levels of death among those who did get injected, and I urged them not to continue taking any covid boosters offered. I received no response.
Cloud of unknowing
More shocking examples of ignorance came from a colleague who told me how fortunate it was that a reporter we worked with had been triple injected, as they had become seriously ill with covid. No connection between the injections and becoming ill was made.
This same colleague had written an opinion piece some months earlier, pleading with people to continue taking their covid injections, despite referencing a report of a woman dying in agony from blood clots – after being injected – which featured in that same day’s newspaper. Is this cognitive dissonance? Mass formation? I don’t pretend to know, but it is isolating and lonely to be working among these people who are so programmed by the television news. And they certainly do not like be challenged about their beliefs. I have done it, and have been victimised for it.
One seasoned reporter who prided themselves on knowing the ways of the world was talking to me about the alleged pandemic. I asked them what they knew about midazolam, and they replied they had never heard of it.
This censorship in the legacy media has left my colleagues and former colleagues blissfully unaware of covid counter-narratives. Some truly believe in Bill Gates as a charitable benefactor for humanity and Chris Whitty as a responsible scientist looking to help guide the UK out of troubled waters.
They are living in a different reality to myself and do not want to dip their toes in the information streams of those who disagree with them so fundamentally. As one colleague recently told me, they only get their information on global affairs from the mainstream media. I told her I didn’t get any of my information on global affairs from the mainstream media.
The conversation ended there. We were both so wrapped up in our own worlds that to even engage in debate with someone who thought so differently would be too uncomfortable.
These types of people who build their understanding of the world from the television, radio and mainstream newspapers do not just work in the mainstream media. They exist in health, education, politics, councils, entertainment, sport, church, you name it. Whatever the sector of employment, there are people who trust those with the loudest microphones.
But in the mainstream news, there are more of these people; a lot more. Careers in this industry depend on consuming other mainstream outlets: especially so at a local level, where “news sense” is guided by what the national news is saying.
So here I am, a journalist of 25 years who has worked only in the mainstream news arena. I have been unable to wake up the vast majority of colleagues and have withdrawn into my shell, apart from occasional spats with them over e-mail or, on rare occasions, in person.
I know what is going on in the world and they don’t. I have been restricted from writing about what I know about, or even to ask questions of authority that my editor does not want asked.
I am not giving up, though; I am not walking away. I am staying at my post, as I know things are very likely to get worse; and when things get worse, more of my colleagues will start waking up, and I’ll be here to guide them and point them towards official documents that they will know nothing about, since the national newspapers and the broadcast news have chosen to ignore them. Ask a journalist about what they know about PCR test cycle rates or a SPI-B Government document recommending the use fear-based propaganda in the media to turn civilians against each other, and you will just get a blank stare.
A friend consoled me recently that the way to bring down an edifice of unchecked control that operates under the power of censorship and propaganda is to set just one mouse gnawing away at the foundations.
Eventually, that one mouse becomes two, and then four, then eight, and so on. That is how we get out of this mess, from the bottom of whatever corporate pyramid we operate in. There is no point in hoping for change from above: as I can tell you with absolute certainty, and experience, it is not coming. Journalists whom I work with, trust, and respect, and have known for years are just as clueless about covid now as they were at the start of 2020.
Don’t hate them; feel sorry for them. They are victims in all this.
I concluded my last UK Column article with a plea: a plea to those who made the editorial decisions, to allow for debate. That plea was never answered, but I make another plea now, to the reporters, to those venturing out of the office to speak to those in authority, building contacts and getting the stories. (And above all else, keep an open mind.) My plea is this:
Please, please, do not be afraid of asking difficult questions, and make it your business to seek out information that is being censored and then to decide for yourself whether that information has any validity.
The fight against tyranny has to come from the bottom, not the top. Don’t wait for a knight in shining armour; there isn’t one coming. It is up to you – the coalface journalist – to get out there and hold authority to account. And then, perhaps, our industry will become less hated than it is today; it could even become a profession again.
‘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.
Wowsers, there are a lot of updates this week – I could have gone on and on.
NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS) is continuing to draw attention to the new trend of sudden deaths in people of all ages, and the country’s rising all-cause mortality. The trend is now seen in all heavily vaccinated countries. Statistics taken from StatzNZ and visualised at the Human Mortality Database, show that New Zealand’s excess mortality trend has been consistently above the average throughout 2022.
New bi-valent covid mRNA boosters have been approved for use in a number of countries after being tested on only eight mice. There won’t be any liability for the vaccinators, manufacturers or regulators, who approved it under emergency authorisation. Canada, the European Union and Switzerland approved them all on the same day, but they are also approved in the US and UK. The booster will have been given to millions of people by the time Moderna’s trial on 512 people is completed.
In California, a bill that would have allowed children ages 15 and older to be vaccinated without parental consent was defeated by community activists. The bill originally targeted children as young as 12. In New Zealand, the Government already gave kids 12 and up the right to get vaccinated without parental consent, using the Gillick competency test, but did so quietly and with little media attention. Such laws increasingly put parental rights at risk.
The Ministry of Education has published guidance for educators about relationships and sexuality education, which targets children as young as year 1.
“Relationships and sexuality education cannot be left to chance in schools. When this education begins from early childhood and builds consistently, year after year, it prepares young people for navigating a range of relationships throughout their childhood, teen years, and adult life,” it states.
The document codifies ‘woke’ values and ensures school aged children will be steeped in gender ideology from day one. This includes requiring the formal use of preferred pronouns and removing biological sex from sports divisions. Whatever happened to just letting kids be kids? Is this social engineering without parental consent?
Protesting could get you in trouble at work
A man who took part at a recent Freedom and Rights coalition protest in Wellington is now under review from his employer, Whānau Ora Community Clinic. The man presided as a ‘judge’ in a mock trial of the Government over its jab mandates. Despite the right to protest in New Zealand, it appears exercising basic civil liberties is now beginning to result in concerning consequences.
Political interference in journalism
The saga of Australian journalist Avi Yemini has continued to unfold. Leaked Interpol documents show there is now no doubt the decision to bar him from New Zealand was a political one.
He was intending to report on the Freedom and Right’s Coalition protest last week and growing anti-government sentiment. Interpol Wellington approached Australian counterparts to dig for dirt on Yemini, ostensibly to legitimise a decision to bar him from entering the country.
A round of finger pointing ensued, with the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and NZ Police both blaming Immigration, which blames Interpol, which accuses the Police. Yemini is fighting the decision in court and has plans to return and pursue his reporting in future.
“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures,” the declaration states.
It questions the ‘rubbish in, rubbish out’ nature of climate modelling as a basis for climate policy.
Could the right to travel come under threat?
Flying freely may soon be a thing of the past. A clear narrative is emerging that questions whether people should travel internationally due to climate change. One Otago University academic is questioning whether Kiwis should be taking trans-Tasman trips.
UK conservative pundit Katie Hopkins made the salient observation that airlines and airports are now working to reduce flight numbers and predicts that in the next five-to-10-years, people will have lost the right and ability to freely travel, with climate change being used as the excuse.
U-turn on mRNA for pregnant and lactating women, after millions have taken it
Section 4 of the recently updated Public Assessment Report states that no studies for toxicokinetic, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, prenatal and postnatal development, general toxicity studies, or studies in which offspring are further evaluated have been done. Why?
Because the World Health Organisation said this was fine in 2005.
“The absence of reproductive toxicity data is a reflection of the speed of development to first identify and select covid-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 for clinical testing and its rapid development to meet the ongoing urgent health need … it is considered that sufficient reassurance of safe use of the vaccine in pregnant women cannot be provided at the present time … Women who are breastfeeding should also not be vaccinated. These judgements reflect the absence of data at the present time and do not reflect a specific finding of concern.”
New Zealand’s Ministry of Health continues to recommend the covid injection for pregnant women.
New Zealand’s covid-19 website still states that the Pfizer injection can be taken at any stage during pregnancy.
“The vaccine protects you as you are far less likely to fall seriously ill, and can also protect your baby. Evidence shows that babies can get antibodies through the placenta.”
US journalist and author Naomi Wolf has reported widely on the Pfizer data dump that the FDA wanted to keep under wraps for 75 years. In this gut wrenching report on her Substack in May, Wolf wrote:
“The Volunteers have drilled deep into the Pfizer documents’ reports about pregnancy and found that the assurance that the vaccine is ‘safe and effective’ for pregnant women, was based on a study of 44 French rats, followed for 42 days (the scientists who ran the study are shareholders or employees of BioNTech). [https://dailyclout.io/covid-19-vaccines-pregnancy-risky-business/]
“The Volunteers found that while pregnant women were excluded from the internal studies, and thus from the EUA on which basis all pregnant women were assured the vaccine was ‘safe and effective’, nonetheless about 270 women got pregnant during the study. More than 230 of them were lost somehow to history. But of the 36 pregnant women whose outcomes were followed – 28 lost their babies.
“The Volunteers found that a baby died after nursing from a vaccinated lactating mother, and was found to have had an inflamed liver. Many babies nursing from vaccinated mothers showed agitation, gastrointestinal distress, and failure to thrive (to grow), and were inconsolable.”
It’s a harrowing read. But read it we must. Because Pfizer and the regulators knew this stuff before they recommended it to the entire world.
Government throws vaccinator under the bus for death of Rory Nairn
The Ministry of Health is placing the blame for the death of a 26-year-old man from the vaccine, on the vaccinator. Rory Nairn was affected by myocarditis after his first jab. Guidance from the MOH to medical professionals about the safety signal came out in August, and an urgent update was sent directly from former Director General of Health Ashley Bloomfield in December.
“We need to ensure that consumers are well informed of this rare side effect and know when to seek help. We also want to ensure that the health system is poised to diagnose and clinically manage consumers with this condition appropriately,” it said.
It outlined the most common symptomatology: * Chest heaviness, discomfort, tightness or pain * Difficulty breathing, shortness of breath * Feeling dizzy, light-headed or faint * Racing or fluttering heart, or a feeling of ‘skipped beats
There was no media attention.
In fact, the messaging about the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis was kept very low key from the outset. In late June last year, journalists were alerted to two studies showing inflammation of the heart muscle could develop within days of mRNA injections. It went unreported.
The Government has consistently told the public the jab is ‘safe and effective’, and has not at any point given the pubic the opportunity for true informed consent. Instead, it gagged doctors, preventing them from sharing the real risks of the jab with patients. Many of them have lost their license for speaking up.
The MOH continues to advise that the benefits of the jab outweigh the risk, and maintains these are rare side effects. I personally know three people with post jab myocarditis. What is the statistical probability of that?
Labour infiltrates local government with ‘independent’ candidates, while LGNZ scares voters with ‘extremist’ propaganda
Election meddling is now overtly taking place, as LGNZ, the body that represents the interests of local government, warns voters about who not to vote for.
A campaign has been launched to identify people standing for local body elections who might be ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘extremists’. It identified 170 ‘candidates of concern’ and said many were trying to hide their extreme views, whatever that means.
And yet, Labour is informally providing campaign support to independent candidates all around the country, as long as they vote with the party line. This means these ‘independent’ candidates are not able to represent the will of their constituents if it deviates from Labour party policy – scandalous.
LGNZ also signed an agreement with Labour to promote Three Waters, worth $2.2 million. This change in direction away from representing local councils to becoming an agent for Labour, has raised alarm bells. Read an excellent expose here.
And as for those ‘extremists’, listen to Alia Bland from Voice for Freedom speak to Rodney Hide on The Platform recently. They discuss how the group’s encouragement for freedom minded individuals to run in council elections was misreported in the legacy media.
They were accused of trying to hide their association to candidates and make the country ‘ungovernable’. But nobody is being asked to run on a VFF ticket or run on VFF ‘policies’. Bland gives a good explanation of what was meant by the term ‘ungovernable’ in the interview.
“They are bandying that around like it’s some sort of awful thing … but it’s basically about looking at how dependent we’ve all become and seeking to change that. It’s about looking at the overreach of the Government and working on ways that we can become more resilient, so that we are not vulnerable to the next mandate or government law that seeks to remove our freedom in one way or another.”
The media coverage on this issue is particularly Orwellian, because it is working overtime to scare people about grassroots candidates who care about basic rights and freedoms (extremists), while the Labour party is actually infiltrating local government with bought-off candidates – a true subversion of democracy.
In the UK, Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures claim that the proportion of unvaccinated people in the adult population is a mere 8%. However, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) figures show the proportion of unvaccinated adults to be around 20%. That’s a large discrepancy, and it matters because any understatement of the unvaccinated population has the effect of overstating the mortality and illness stats in that group when compared with the vaccinated. And that, in turn, has fuelled reckless statements by government officials, amplified in the media, about ‘pandemics of the unvaccinated’. We now know the opposite to be true.
Unsurprisingly, the 8% claim is the accepted figure for all propagators of the official narrative. With its unfavourable distorting effect on the statistics for the unvaccinated, it sharpens the blade wielded by the Covidian cult to hack away at those who have decided to opt out of the global mRNA experiment. The UK’s chief propagandist, the BBC, ran with the 8% figure in its promotion of a TV programme aired in July about ‘the unvaccinated’ — those miscreants who have been causing the puritanical inquisitors at the Beeb to rend their garments in anguish.
Fronted by Professor Hannah Fry, this hit piece disguised as ‘documentary’ was premised on the BBC inviting seven unvaccinated adults to a hotel to condescendingly “help them see the light”, as a programme reviewer put it.
To understand the BBC’s trademark blend of professional-managerial-class arrogance and stupidity you only have to read one sentence about the programme from its Science Commissioning editor, no less:
“With Covid infections on the rise again, there couldn’t be a more important time to examine the reasons why so many are still not getting the vaccine.” – Tom Coveney, BBC Commissioning Editor, Science.
Does Mr Coveney detect no irony in covid infections being on the rise in a highly vaccinated population? Has he not unwittingly hinted at the utter uselessness of the ‘vaccine’ and therefore answered his own question? Is the Commissioning Editor of Science unaware that the covid ‘vaccines’ do not prevent infection or that the vaccine trials were not designed to find out if they would prevent transmission, a fundamental endpoint for any vaccine? Might this minor detail represent but one of many factors that contributed to the decision of ‘so many’ to give these ‘vaccines’ a wide berth?
Is Mr Coveney aware that there is a mountain of evidence that ‘vaccines’ are not just useless, but predispose you to getting covid, with rates of infection highest in the triple vaccinated who are dutifully following Government and BBC advice to get boosted? That’s before we take account of the evidence that these ‘vaccines’ increase the risk of conditions such as heart damage (see also here and here). Why would I subject myself to BBC re-education when a group of doctors in the UK have concluded that the “latest data [on potential heart damage in young people] brings the decision to continue with this [covid vaccine] program into the more serious realm of malfeasance”?
Why would I do anything other than laugh scornfully at BBC brainwashing when there is now compelling evidence from research in the US and Sweden confirming what I instinctively knew from a cursory risk-benefit analysis before the ‘vaccines’ were rolled out – that the ‘vaccines’ are more likely to put you in hospital with a serious adverse event than keep you out of hospital by protecting you from Covid?
How do you get to be a commissioning editor of science at the august BBC and remain blissfully ignorant of these salient facts? I actually don’t have the slightest problem with Mr Coveney swimming gleefully in his cesspool of ignorance. All I ask is that the Gollums at the BBC refrain from crawling out of the dark cave they have made for themselves with the express purpose of dragging me into it to satisfy their need for false safety in numbers. In the same way that I respect the pious BBC cult’s right to enthusiastically offer up their bodies to pharmaceutical experimentation to further the cause of The Science™ and profits, I wish they would quietly respect my right not to.
Again, I want to stress that I don’t object to Mr Coveney’s and Ms Fry’s ignorance about the dangers of the covid ‘vaccines’. To be human is to be ignorant about something or other. But I do object to the most dangerous form of ignorance displayed by the BBC – that which insists that others must join in, by force if necessary.
In any event, while trying to “gently educate” the great unvaxxed, the BBC has inadvertently revealed the true proportion of unvaccinated to be at least 20%. Professor Fenton explains how the BBC was hoist with its own petard.
In the propaganda hit-piece, the BBC’s Hannah Fry boasts of having “commissioned the largest UK-wide survey since the vaccine roll-out including over 2,500 people of which more than 600 are unvaccinated”. Whoops, let’s just rewind that … yep, 24% unvaccinated. And this is the UK adult population, not the total population, which would return a much higher percentage of unvaccinated. Okay, so maybe the survey is not representative of the UK adult population. Professor Fenton kicked the tyres on this by looking at the dataset published on the website of the company that conducted the survey. (The survey itself was carried out between 27 April and 2 May 2022.) And it turns out the survey demographics are very much in line with the national demographic profile reflected in the ONS data. Moreover, the precise survey numbers are 664 unvaccinated out of a sample total of 2,570 – 26% unvaccinated.
It gets even more interesting because the survey results get adjusted to bring the demographic composition into line with the national ONS demographic profile. This is not problematic because the survey demographic is already very well aligned to the ONS national profile. So, adjustments to the survey results for things like age, sex and social grouping don’t end up having a material effect on the result of the survey demographic composition. All good so far.
Here’s where we enter the grey zone. In the final cut of the survey report numbers, the one figure from the sample that should have been left untouched – the total unvaccinated number of 664 – gets whacked down to 216 (8% of the total sample of 2,570) in order to align it with the ONS estimated percentage of 8%. This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, the survey sample is highly representative of the UK demographic. This suggests that the unvaccinated survey result of 664 is a reliable proxy for estimating the proportion of unvaccinated people in the wider population. Secondly, the ONS number is contested, not least because it conflicts with other UK government data, namely that from the UKHSA, which reflects a proportion of 20% unvaccinated.
So, it looks as though the survey sample has acted as an audit of the dubious ONS 8% unvaccinated proportion, with the result that the ONS figure has been found wanting. The question then is: why would the BBC just scrub out the 26% unvaccinated figure from its survey sample and pretend it never happened? The answer of course is that The Science™ (or more precisely, The Statistics™) is simply a means to a political end. Other inconvenient survey components also get mysteriously scaled down in the production of the final cut for the report. For example, the actual number of people who reported either never having been vaccinated or having decided to never get another dose is 825, or 32% of the total. That number is mysteriously halved in the weighting process.
Professor Fenton’s conclusion:
“I think that we can now safely conclude that the ONS claim of 8% of UK adult population of unvaccinated is a massive underestimate. I’m pretty sure now that it is at least 20%. What this means is that all of the analyses which claims effectiveness and safety of the vaccine based on the ONS estimates of the proportion of unvaccinated to vaccinated are biased. They are massively overestimating the covid rate and the fatality rate of the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated.” [emphasis added]
Science, statistics, propaganda and technocracy
For me, one key take-home from Professor Fenton’s exposé of the BBC’s latest propaganda stunt is that science and statistics are simply tools. Like all tools they are subject to good-faith use and bad-faith abuse. A hammer in the hands of a reliable builder will dependably drive nails into floorboards. But hammers are also used by thieves to smash car windows. The BBC is a propaganda machine, and a statistic placed anywhere in a BBC narrative is guilty until proven innocent.
Vaccinated versus unvaccinated statistics have been wielded as a tool in an information war where the unvaccinated have been comprehensively dehumanised as a tiny minority of deviant ignoramuses and scapegoated as a threat to society greater than Al Qaeda and Isis. Statistics have been abused in bad faith to gaslight the unvaccinated into believing that they are part of a triflingly small band of idiots, trifling enough that no-one would miss them if the majority decided to dispense with them. At the height of the spittle-flecked fury directed at the unvaxxed, the message of Fleet Street Fox and other hateful demagogues was clear – it would be wise for the unvaccinated to wave a white flag in the battle to retain sovereignty over their bodies. And, paradoxically, science under the banner of progressivism was enlisted for this hate campaign.
It is quite conceivable that a society in thrall to a data-driven technocracy could dispense with 25% of its population on the grounds that this ‘backward’ segment refuses to bow to the diktats of biomedical technocracy and is therefore impeding society’s Great Leap Forward to technocratic utopia. It’s been done before, and we don’t appear to have learned many lessons.
From a moral standpoint, it doesn’t matter how small a group is in any determination, science-based or otherwise, to commit crimes against it. If killing is wrong, then a single murder cannot be swept under the rug on the grounds that one is a small number. We know this to be true because that’s how our criminal justice system works. And yet perversely, if the crowd goes mad as it did recently, killing or severe marginalisation of huge numbers could be overlooked as a mere expediency on the journey to AI/technocratic/biomedical utopia.
It is this perversity that has in fact come to characterise the atrocities committed under the pretence of saving lives. Whether through destructive lockdowns, a global mountain of vaccine injuries and deaths or through the concerted efforts of the mass media to dehumanise and marginalise huge numbers of unvaccinated people, the Western world now seems hell-bent on resurrecting Stalin as its lodestar. For it was Stalin who pointed out that one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic. Not only does there seem to be a direct relationship between the enormity of crimes and the tolerance for them, but the science, or more accurately the art, of statistics has been recruited to launder these crimes.
The West has replaced God with Science as the moral determinant of all things good and pure. But science is a slave to human ideology, and the ideology of technocracy is gaining ascendancy. This is the idea that the entire universe, including humanity itself, is mechanistic and should be ruthlessly controlled by data-augmented technology. Thus, statistical rules can be written to decree that if a group of troublesome people comprising less than [insert an arbitrary percentage that the public will accept as trifling … like … oh, I don’t know, 8%], then that group can be dispensed with for the greater good of the remaining [insert the percentage of the majority in the ‘right’]. There’s just one small problem for the technocratic ideologues suffering from narcissistic control-freakery – neither nature nor humanity are machines to be controlled, and to treat them as such is opening the door to our destruction.
There is another important message from Professor Fenton’s debunking of the BBC’s claims and the message is this: to those who stood firm and refused to be swept up in the madness of the crowd – you are not alone; the crowd is not everybody.