“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,”
This phrase, misattributed to Voltaire, has largely come to dominate—and confuse—our understanding of the importance of free speech in a free society. That misunderstanding seems to be at the heart of the very lukewarm response elicited by the exposure of “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history” unearthed through discovery in Missouri v. Biden now before the Supreme Court.
The trouble with this framing of free speech is that it focuses on hateful speech, framing the imperative to defend the utterance of hateful speech as a form of polite, reciprocal tolerance, necessary for the smooth functioning of a liberal society. If ever there were a framing that caused one to miss the forest for the trees, this is it.
The primacy free speech enjoys here in the US has nothing whatever to do with some dewy-eyed ideal of tolerance. Rather, it owes its primacy to pragmatism. Freedom of speech is the best tool we have to ascertain the truth of any given matter. Like a sculptor transforming a shapeless piece of marble into a work of art, free and open debate chisels away at the falsehoods and misapprehensions in which the truth lays embedded. Restrict debate, and the gradual emergence of that truth will be delayed or deformed, with the result imperfect at times to the point of monstrosity.
The reason we must “defend to the death” the right to utter “intolerable speech,” is that failure to do so results in the swift and certain condemnation as “intolerable” all speech that diminishes the power or legitimacy of those in power. More succinctly, we must defend the pariah’s right to speak or everyone who crosses the regime, conveniently becomes a pariah. You either do as the ACLU did in 1978, defend the Nazi’s right to speak, or you have an explosion of government-designated “Nazis.” You may perhaps have noticed an exponential rise in the prevalence of “Nazis” and an ever-expanding panoply of -ists since our country’s commitment to free speech faltered? Yeah, me too.
No matter the political leanings or the content of the criticism, all those who have dared to critique the diktats of those in power for the last several years have been swiftly moved outside the pale, designated often times literal Nazis. It is this that explains the awesome scope of the censorship exposed in Missouri v. Biden, now before the Supreme Court.
We’re experiencing an information total war, resulting in blanket shutdown of any and all debate on each and every topic the government would prefer not to discuss. The cost to truth from this censorship carpet-bombing has been enormous. Lacking the refinement that comes from criticism and debate, the policies issuing from this informational hellscape are brutal and barbaric.
This information total war has been largely successful. Regime critics have been swiftly censored, defamed, and marginalized. The result is that most of the population continues to believe that the criticisms of government policies and actions over the past several years were levied by a bunch of cranks whose objections were largely based on gut level assumptions, political affiliation, or knee-jerk reactions. That many of those criticisms and warnings ended up being accurate is attributed to dumb luck. Thus, the public has little sympathy for the targets of government censorship, precisely because of the success of the censorship, and its complement, the propaganda generated to fill the vacuum left by the disappearance of truth. However, the public itself is harmed in myriad ways by this censorship, and not in any abstract fashion.
First and foremost, this censorship regime has harmed the public because the suppression of dissenting views resulted in the creation and deployment of a `whole` host of truly awful policies. Certain of its omniscience the government repeatedly censored, defamed and marginalized those who raised objections to its policies. Contrary to the propaganda narrative used to justify its censorship, the arguments against various strands of the government policies were based on sound reason, science, and data, the opponents often highly credentialed in the relevant field.
How many people know that one of the first critics of our maximalist approach to COVID was one of the most well-respected, frequently-cited scientists in the world, Stanford’s John Ioannidis? Or that his criticisms mirrored the guidance of the US’s actual extant pandemic plans?
How many people know that even from the very first, the opposition to masking was in fact based on its known futility, citing research from the CDC itself, published in May of 2020 (and recently vindicated by another systemic review by Cochrane)? Or that the most vocal opposition came from industrial hygienists (1, 2, 3) and others whose explicit job is to create specifications for safe work environments, including PPE?
How many people know that the opposition to the hysteria around hospital capacity was based on acknowledgement by hospital executives that 30 percent of COVID patients were in the hospital with COVID, versus for COVID? Or that this inflationary mis-characterization was incentivized by government payouts? Or that they were using HHS’s own data showing hospital capacity to have been no issue whatsoever in the US except in extremely localized areas and for extremely short periods—and hence easily remediable.
How many people know that the opposition to vaccine mandates, beyond being based on the obvious, and perfectly reasonable objection that there was no long-term data on their safety, was also based on published research showing no relationship between vaccination rates and disease transmission?
The answer to all of these questions is, far too few. The sole reason for this widespread ignorance is government censorship. We have censorship to thank for the creation and implementation of divisive, harmful, and unjust policies. Lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports all find their origins in the truth-starved, debate-deprived offices of our behemoth bureaucracies. Their continuance well after their futility was demonstrated empirically, and the harms they would cause already beginning to manifest can likewise be attributed to the same benighted bedfellows.
In addition to being harmed by the content of these censorship-protected policies, the public was further harmed by the division they created. Because these policies were propped up by censoring dissent and defaming dissenters, the debate was no such thing. Instead, framing it in Manichean terms of good and evil, the censors cast large groups of the population as enemies of the people, effectively engaging in a government-executed hate crime targeting tens of millions of people.
This censorship-fueled division didn’t just tear the country apart, it cut straight through the center of families, yielding countless divorces, and many millions of families estranging loved ones–all due to government-promoted lies. The polarization that has so demoralized us was a feature, not a bug, of the policies implemented by our politicians and bureaucrats.
Through the pervasive action of this wide-ranging government censorship/propaganda effort, vast swathes of the American people have been and continue to be weaponized against their fellow Americans. The faith these people had in institutions has been perverted to serve the institutions, not the people. This credulity-weaponization encompasses not just Joe Schmoe on the street, but extends all the way to the Supreme Court, where in oral arguments last year, several justices made claims whose easily verifiable falseness would have made them blush, if they weren’t so wholly taken in by the censorship and propaganda operations of the broader US government.
By acting as the witting or unwitting dupes of this vast censorship/propaganda operation, the credibility of virtually every civic institution in the US has been eroded possibly to the point of no return. Those whose credibility can be salvaged will be decades in the doing. Unfortunately, many, if not most, of our institutions and their denizens remain the censor’s reliable handmaidens, now seeming to hope the censors might somehow hide the gushing efflux of their credibility.
Among the harms that have been visited upon the American people through this censorship operation, vaccine injuries must also be counted. Our government not only censored questions and concerns, it acted as the marketing department for the vaccine manufacturers. However, there was one very important difference—if the manufacturers had been doing their own marketing, each ad would have had the long list of potential side effects and counter-indications that is required of all other pharmaceuticals. These risks were simply not communicated, except at the time of injection in the form of a long list of contra-indicated conditions.
However, if at that time one were to realize that one had one of the contra-indicated conditions, in many parts of the country, one would still have had no choice but to get the shot. Doctors who granted medical exemptions were threatened by the state to such a degree as to make exemptions virtually inaccessible, regardless of a doctor’s medical judgement. Vaccine mandates made getting the shot a requirement for engagement in public life and countenanced no exceptions.
This coercion effectively nullified informed consent for the entire American public, and thus, any adverse reaction ought to be considered fair game for redress. But it is the young and those who had already had COVID who present a picture of unalloyed harm. For these groups, the vaccines provided no benefit—only risk. Thus, every single adverse event incurred in these groups must be viewed as direct, personal harms caused by a government-sponsored censorship operation. That this particular strain of censorship benefited private companies at the same time that it harmed the American people adds grievous injury to the ongoing insult.
It is particularly demoralizing to realize that the polarization deliberately fomented by our government seems likely to protect its perpetrators from accountability. Everywhere, we see polls and articles about how fatigued people are by politics. And yet we have no other recourse to address this vast “censorship leviathan.” It is now the go-to tool with which our government effects policy.
The only way to change it is to remove from power those people who support this censorship regime and to dismantle the regime’s complex apparatus. Ultimately, government censorship reduces our society to just two groups of people: the censors and the censored. While it remains in place, the ranks of the censored will be ever-expanding as the censors require ever more censorship to ensure people continue to disbelieve their lying eyes.
All research at a Fort Detrick laboratory that handles high-level disease-causing material, such as Ebola, is on hold indefinitely after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found the organization failed to meet biosafety standards.
No infectious pathogens, or disease-causing material, have been found outside authorized areas at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases
The reasons for the shut down is questionable:
According to the Code of Federal Regulations, which also lists required training, records and biosafety plans, Federal Select Agents Program registration can be suspended to protect public health and safety.It is not clear if this is why the USAMRIID registration was suspended
However, the reasons they shut down the lab ranged from workers not getting recertified to the wastewater decontamination system that failed to meet the required safety standards:
The suspension was due to multiple causes, including failure to follow local procedures and a lack of periodic recertification training for workers in the biocontainment laboratories, according to Vander Linden. The wastewater decontamination system also failed to meet standards set by the Federal Select Agent Program
Shortly after, on January 30th, 2020, the coronavirus pandemic was announced. I am not saying that Covid-19 began in Ft. Dietrick, but it is worth reexamining what really happened that compelled CDC officials to order the shutdown of the lab over employees not getting recertified or problems with managing the wastewater decontamination system.
On March 13th, 2020, The New York Times headlined with ‘China Spins Tale That the U.S. Army Started the Coronavirus Epidemic’ which was based on China’s “conspiracy theories”, and that it was the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) based in Fort Detrick, Maryland who released Covid-19, “After criticizing American officials for politicizing the pandemic, Chinese officials and news outlets have floated unfounded theories that the United States was the source of the virus.”
Chinese authorities were referring to an article published from The New York Times on August 5th, 2019 ‘Deadly Germ Research Is Shut Down at Army Lab Over Safety Concerns’that claimed why the US military lab was shut down and had cancelled all research concerning lethal microbes “Safety concerns at a prominent military germ lab have led the government to shut down research involving dangerous microbes like the Ebola virus.” The spokesperson from the US Army, Ms. Vander Linden declared that “Research is currently on hold.” However, The NY Times had some positive news I suppose, “But there has been no threat to public health, no injuries to employees and no leaks of dangerous material outside the laboratory” But no more information from that point on, “In the statement, the C.D.C. cited “national security reasons” as the rationale for not releasing information about its decision.” Very strange in my opinion.
Cui Bono: Russia Exposes Who Benefits from the US Military’s Bioweapons Program
However, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, the Chief of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Protection Troops of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation recently conducted an important briefing on the U.S. military biological activities and present danger it imposes to all of us. In fact, it is a warning to what the U.S. government is capable of and that is releasing another biological weapon, whether dangerous or not for its geopolitical agendas including the long-stated goals of depopulating the earth. As for the globalists, less people on the planet will be much easier to control. Release a bioweapon, discover a vaccine as the cure, and then scare or force people to take the so-called “vaccine” or what I like to call “experimental shots.” Besides the goals of depopulation, the political and corporate establishment and their Big Pharma cartels have created long-term patients from the injuries caused by the Covid-19 experimental shots which in their perspective, is good for business.
The next pandemic is the second phase of a long-term war against humanity as Kirillov laid out the US government’s stated goals which “are primarily aimed at studying potential agents of biological weapons — anthrax, tularemia, coronavirus, as well as pathogens of economically significant infections — pathogenic avian influenza and African swine fever” he continued“there is a clear trend: pathogens that fall within the Pentagon’s area of interest, such as COVID-19, avian influenza, African swine fever, subsequently become pandemic, and American pharmaceutical companies become the beneficiaries.”Kirillov also mentioned Event 201, an exercise conducted before the Covid-19 pandemic on October 18th, 2019, that “simulated the epidemic of a previously unknown coronavirus that, according to the scenario, was transmitted from bats to humans via a porcine organism, the intermediary virus carrier.” For Russian authorities “the development of the pandemic under this scenario, as well as the implementation of EcoHealth Alliance projects, raises questions about the possible intentional nature of COVID-19 and U.S. involvement in the incident.”
So, the US Military Creates a Problem, Big Pharma Creates the Solution
The question remains, was the US government behind the Covid-19 outbreak? It’s hard to say at this point, but one thing is for sure, Big Pharma executives from Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca and other biotech companies were licking their lips for the future profits that they were about to make on the vaccines they produced. The propaganda campaign to scare humanity into taking these so-called vaccines worked to an extent despite those who fell into the trap of getting the Covid-19 experimental shot. However, it was estimated that more than 2 billion people did not take the Covid-19 experimental shot, and that should give us hope to be more optimistic about any future virus currently being created by Western funded biolabs around the world including those in the Ukraine and elsewhere.
A platform created by the Center for Global Development and the United Nations Development Programme called Pandem-ic.com published an updated report on August 6, 2023, ‘Mapping our unvaccinated world’and said that “Globally, 2.2 billion people are completely unvaccinated. This is the global tally as of today based on the latest information available. It represents the total number of people who have yet to receive their first shot.” And Thank God! Make no mistake, this was and still is biological warfare and many people around the world fought back and resisted Western authorities and their institutions such as Big Pharma, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO).
There is hope and optimism regarding the next ‘planned-demic’ because the people have awakened to the fact that there is a cult of death and destruction called the ‘globalists’ who want to depopulate our planet. But a new resistance will rise once again and face the same enemies of humanity.
The worldwide resistance against the Covid-19 lockdowns, vaccine mandates, facemasks, and social distancing at the height of the pandemic was and still is, inspiring for us all. Although they were many people who resisted the medical establishment worldwide, I want to mention several countries, resistance groups, organizations and the people who have resisted the lies and they all should be recognized for it.
Big Pharma’s Major Problem: The Global Resistance
Kirillov said that when the US military works with dangerous pathogens “American pharmaceutical companies become the beneficiaries” which is a factual statement. Whatever the US government and Big Pharma are planning behind closed doors, they will fail. It’s just like that old saying, “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. The good news is that there is no trust in Big Pharma around the world, especially in most African countries. On March 9th, 2021, Afrobarometer, a pan-African, nonpartisan survey research network published ‘Who wants COVID-19 vaccination? In 5 West African countries, hesitancy is high, trust low’ based on a survey on five countries in Africa where they conducted face to face interviews on their views about Covid-19 vaccines:
This dispatch is based on data collected during the period October 2020-January 2021 in five West African countries: Benin, Liberia, Niger, Senegal, and Togo. In each country, Afrobarometer conducted face-to-face interviews in the language of the respondent’s choice with a nationally representative sample of 1,200 adult citizens that yields country-level results with a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points at a 95% confidence level
Here are the most important findings to consider in the Survey:
*In the five surveyed countries in West Africa, most citizens – 92% on average – say they are “somewhat well informed” or “very well informed” about the COVID-19 pandemic and efforts to combat it
*Only three in 10 respondents (31%) say they trust their government “somewhat” or “a lot” to ensure that any vaccine is safe before it is offered to citizens. Mistrust is particularly high in Senegal (83%) and Liberia (78%)
* Six in 10 citizens (60%), on average, say they are unlikely to try to get vaccinated, including 44% who consider it “highly unlikely.” Senegalese (79%) and Liberians (66%) are most likely to express a reluctance to take the vaccine
*Vaccine hesitancy/resistance skyrockets alongside doubts about the government’s ability to ensure that vaccines are safe. Those who fully trust their government on this score are five to 10 times as likely to want the vaccine as those who don’t trust it
*Large majorities in Niger (89%), Liberia (86%), and Senegal (71%) believe that prayer is more effective than a vaccine in preventing coronavirus infection. Views are more divided in Benin (41%) and Togo (40%)
*Poor respondents express a greater reluctance to get vaccinated than their better off counterparts.
“Except in Liberia, citizens with more formal education are not significantly more likely to want the vaccine than their less educated counterparts“
“Vaccine hesitancy is significantly stronger in cities than in rural areas in Benin, Togo, and Niger“
In another report published on November 24th, 2022, this time by the BBC ‘The vaccine hesitancy in North Africa’s Covid ‘black hole’ reported on Morocco’s population and their high-rate of vaccinations as to those in the Western Sahara who were not, “according to one international survey published in 2019 before the pandemic began, 80% of Moroccans trusted vaccines to be safe, among the highest rates in the world.” However, in the Western Sahara, it is a different story:
But that high level of trust may be far lower among the 600,000 people living in Western Sahara – a non-self-governing territory that is administered by Morocco. When it comes to the Covid-19 pandemic, Western Sahara is a black hole: no information exists. The area is a blank spot on the World Health Organization’s global map of Covid-19 cases and vaccines because Morocco refuses to publish data about how many Sahrawis have been vaccinated in this politically sensitive region
In the Western Sahara, the BBC interviewed a truck driver by the name of Hanzali who knows people who bought a vaccine certificate to avoid taking the vaccine, “even the people who took the vaccine took it not because they wanted to but because they were told to or had to” Hanzali continued “I’m not against the vaccine – I’m against the people who try to force me to get the vaccine.” There were unvaccinated Sahrawis who do not trust their politicians, they were the ones that pushed these vaccines on the Sahrawis, “several unvaccinated Sahrawis told the BBC that their hesitancy stems from the fact that Morocco’s politicians – not its doctors – have been at the forefront of the country’s vaccination campaign.” An unnamed student of media and technology in Laayoune told BBC “In my opinion the government used ‘corona’ for political purposes” he continued “In Casablanca and Rabat, there were lots of protests against the government – and here too [in Laayoune]. It’s because it comes from the government that people don’t agree.” The highlight of the story is that the unnamed student still refuses the vaccine, “three years into the pandemic, he says he still refuses to take the vaccine. His view is shared by others the BBC spoke to in the region.”
Africa: The Continent of Resistance
In a article by World Bank Blogs written by several authors including Neia Prata Muloongo Simuzingili, Zelalem Yilma Debebe, Fedja Pivodic and Ernest Massiah titled ‘What is driving COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Sub-Saharan Africa?’ on the reasons why so many Africans are rejecting Covid-19 vaccines:
In Africa, there are multiple drivers of vaccine hesitancy . Concerns about safety, side effects, and effectiveness are widespread—and observed among health workers in Zimbabwe, Ghana, South Africa, Kenya, Sudan, and Ethiopia. The Africa CDC survey noted that respondents viewed COVID-19 vaccines as less safe and effective than other vaccines, similar findings have been observed in Uganda, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Cameroon and South Africa. The suspension of AstraZeneca’s roll out in some European countries, the South African data on its effectiveness and the temporary suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in the United States to evaluate reports of blood clotting, affected confidence in COVID-19 vaccination. Ultimately, AstraZeneca’s vaccine was refused by several African countries
So why Africans reject Big Pharma’s experimental shots? Authorities blame the internet and social media for the “conspiracy theories” that spreads medical misinformation:
Access to social media has facilitated the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. In the Africa CDC study, people with high levels of hesitancy were more likely to use social media and be exposed to disinformation. Half of those surveyed in South Africa believed the virus was linked to 5G technology. In another South African study, approximately a third of those who would refuse the vaccine trusted social media as a primary source of information. A small study in Addis Ababa showed that hesitancy was 3.6 times higher among those who received their information from social media compared to those who relied on television and radio
The African people are awake to the fact that they don’t want to be guinea pigs in any form:
However, Tanzania has repeatedly struggled to counter misinformation and people’s reluctance to be vaccinated. To quell growing scepticism against COVID-19 vaccines, Tanzania’s Ministry of Health embarked on community mobilisation campaigns that included community influencers.
Community health workers, musicians and others have become part of the government-led communication strategy to share reliable information about the pandemic, dispel the tide of misinformation and boost the vaccine numbers
If the statistics are correct, with a population of 62 million, only half has been vaccinated, so over 30 million people did not. Many in Tanzania are not falling for the propaganda that Covid-19 experimental shots are safe and effective.
The legacy of John Magafuli will be that he opposed the dictates of Western institutions and Big Pharma. History will remember him as a hero for the Tanzanian people because since the Covid pandemic was announced, he warned the people about the dangers of Big Pharma and their Western institutions. John Magafuli will be remembered as a hero not only to the Tanzanian people and to continent of Africa, but to all of us around the world who oppose the globalist operators and their agenda of vaccinating the planet to either create a sick population that will benefit Big Pharma or just eliminate the “useless eaters” that are in their way of achieving their goals.
Forget Opposing an Illegal Occupation, the Palestinians are now Anti-Vaxx Conspiracy Theorists!
If any of us were Palestinian living in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, or other areas in and around Palestine, I would absolutely reject the Covid-19 vaccine for several reasons. First, would you take a vaccine from Western countries who have been supporting Israel unconditionally since 1948? How would you know if they are safe? Second, would you trust Western biotech corporations who produced a vaccine in under several months while most vaccines had acquired many years of studies and tests before they were approved?
Bottom line, Palestinians don’t want to be test subjects like the Israelis. “The CEO of Pfizer said he chose Israel to be the “one country” to demonstrate his company’s anti-COVID vaccine because he was “impressed, frankly, with the obsession of your prime minister” according to allisraelnews.com. “He called me 30 times. He would call me at 3 o’clock in the morning and he would ask me about the (coronavirus) variants, what data we have,” Bourla continued “and I would say, ‘Prime Minister, it’s 3 o’clock in the morning,’ and he would say, ‘No, no, don’t worry, just tell me.’ Or he would call me to ask about children, ‘I need to vaccinate the schools.’ Or about pregnant women.” Bourla said “he convinced me, frankly, that he would be on top of things” and that “we placed our bet with Israel and we are so happy because of the way that you executed the vaccination. And a year from the declaration of the pandemic by the WHO (World Health Organization) we were able today to issue a press release together with the Ministry of Health of your country about the results.” In a scientific report from 2022 based on the results from Big Pharma’s experimental shots on the 16–39-year-old population in Israel with factors associated between Covid-19 infection rates and those who received the Covid-19 vaccine are as follows:
Using a unique dataset from Israel National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) from 2019 to 2021, the study aims to evaluate the association between the volume of cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome EMS calls in the 16–39-year-old population with potential factors including COVID-19 infection and vaccination rates. An increase of over 25% was detected in both call types during January–May 2021
The report admits that there are legitimate concerns, “While not establishing causal relationships, the findings raise concerns regarding vaccine-induced undetected severe cardiovascular side-effects and underscore the already established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis, a frequent cause of unexpected cardiac arrest in young individuals.”
On July 23rd, 2021, Al Jazeera‘Reluctance and distrust define vaccine attitudes in Gaza’ reported on the mistrust of Covid-19 vaccines among Palestinians. “Suhair Zakkout, spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in the Gaza Strip, said its health sector has long faced major systemic issues” but concerns remain because a third of people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank refuse to get vaccinated with Covid-19 experimental shots:
The reluctance of people to get vaccinated, however, has raised concerns and prompted the ICRC – alongside the health ministry and the ministry of endowment and religious affairs – to launch a campaign aimed at increasing awareness about the positive effects of the shots
On June 15th, 2021, The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) found that “35% (37% in the West Bank and 32% in the Gaza Strip) say they and their families are not willing to take the vaccine when it becomes available to them.” One third of the Palestinian people will not take any Covid-19 experimental shot and that is a good thing.
Yemen’s Houthi Movement and the Resistance against Covid-19 Vaccines
Opinions on the coronavirus in Yemen are as divided as the country itself. While the south is awaiting the first vaccines, the north claims to have no need for immunization. What the two sides have in common is a health sector in shambles and a striking love for conspiracy theories
They say Yemen is divided between the Yemeni government in the south who are eagerly waiting for their first vaccines while the north which is controlled by the Houthi movement who has been fighting the Saudi coalition since March 26th, 2015, had declared, they don’t want them:
While countries across the world are racing to provide their citizens with the coronavirus vaccine, the Yemeni authorities remain confused and divided. The internationally recognized Yemeni government on the one hand is trying to gradually obtain the vaccine for free, while the Houthi movement (Ansar Allah) on the other hand categorically rejects the vaccine
Daraj mentioned the war and storage issues are some factors on why the Yemeni population has not been vaccinated, but residents who live in the north such as 31-year-old Ahmed Al-Washali who said that “We do not want vaccines, there is no corona in Yemen, we are fine” and that “It has not affected us. While other countries were imprisoned in their homes, and could not work, we lived normally and nothing happened.” Daraj reporters asked 52 people who live in Houthi territory about the Covid vaccine and here is the result:
Our team met with 53 people in areas under control of the Houthi movement, most of whom hold a university degree, are employed in the public or private sector and have an average age of 27 to 35.
We found that 42 out of 53 people refuse to receive the vaccine if it were available. Because they did not need it, most said, while 17 claimed the vaccine may be a “conspiracy” posing a threat to their health. Of the 9 people willing to receive the vaccine, 7 stipulated it should be free of charge. Two people said to have never heard about a vaccine against the virus
The results are inspiring to say the least. Western-backed organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) are not trusted at all:
Some people found the lack of a complete outbreak of the epidemic a reason to reject the vaccine and denounce the integrity of the WHO. A doctor in Taiz, who requested anonymity, said he supported the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement signed by thousands of scholars in the field of medicine and public health calling for an alternative approach to the Covid pandemic based on “focused protection” of those most at risk.
Despite the low rate of illiteracy compared to other governorates, in Taiz too resistance to vaccination remained high. And here too it was not just limited to religious people but included holders of university degrees and secular people. For 49-year-old teacher Jamil, for example, corona was “just an illusion”
In the city of Aden, the results were similar:
Things were not too different in Aden, as fear for the vaccine prevailed. In a poll conducted by our team among 121 residents in the city of Aden, over 84% refused to have the vaccine. The main reason was a lack of confidence in the authorities responsible for importing the vaccine and a fear for the conditions in which the vaccine would be cooled and stored. Even some health workers feared the vaccine in terms of safety and potential side effects
The Houthi movement and the people who support them are clearly awake to the fact that Western nations and their Big Pharma corporations are promoting dangerous Covid-19 experimental shots. They see the dangers.
The Houthi movement knows that these Covid-19 experimental shots are used as another weapon of war, a bioweapon that can used to depopulate their society. At least we know that in the next manufactured pandemic, the Houthi movement will continue to resist Western countries and Big Pharma just like they been resisting the Western-backed Yemeni government led by Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi and a coalition of military forces led by Saudi Arabia since 2014.
Vaccine Hesitancy in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean
A Brazilian study on vaccine hesitancy by Cardenos De Saude Publica (CSP), English translation ‘Reports in Public Health’ called ‘COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Latin America and Africa: a scoping review’said that several countries had a percentage of people who refused Covid-19 experimental shots for various reasons:
In the case of vaccination against COVID-19, studies conducted in African and Latin American countries showed that hesitancy was linked with religious beliefs, association between vaccination and surveillance of government authorities, lack of information about adverse events, vaccine safety and efficacy, and dissemination of fake news
Who were the main Latin American countries with high rates of hesitancy?
In Latin American countries, the highest vaccine hesitancy rate of 26.1% and the lowest 8.4% were reported in Brazil. In Ecuador, hesitancy ranged from 73% to 9%, depending on the vaccine efficacy. In Chile, 28% were hesitant and 23% refused the vaccine. Peru had 10.1% refusal and 19.5% hesitancy. In Venezuela, vaccine hesitancy was 28.75%
One point that the Brazilian study reflected on was the history of the Global North (Western Nations) which was the legacy of colonialism and the violence (military invasions, regime change and their depopulation schemes) which the people in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean remember from their histories with Western Imperial powers:
Underdeveloped countries were repeatedly used for tests with human beings, which today resulted in vaccine refusal due to the fear of being laboratory subjects. The power relationship between the Global North and the Global South, expressed in a past of coloniality and violence still alive in the memory of colonized countries, is reflected in the rejection of practices that supposedly come from the North. Then vaccines are seen by different groups as population control strategies in underdeveloped countries, as “western malevolence”, or as a method to extinguish undesirable groups
The people who refused Covid-19 vaccines in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean during the last pandemic will continue to resist Western nations and their Big Pharma scams because they know that there is an agenda in the next manufactured pandemic.
Vaccine Resistance in Western nations
Forbes magazine reported on March 8th, 2021, ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Is Worse In E.U. Than U.S.’claimed that the “but getting shots into the arms of European Union (E.U.) residents has proven to be much trickier. The U.S. is vaccinating at a faster pace than any member of the E.U., and three times the E.U. average” and that is in a way the good news. Polls suggest that the Europeans don’t trust Big Pharma as well since “only 36% of the surveyed Europeans strongly agree with the statement that vaccines are safe.” In fact, Europe has a history of resistance against Big Pharma’s AstraZeneca vaccine:
In Europe, even approved products that don’t necessarily have supply issues have faced stiff resistance. In France and Germany, for example, the approved AstraZeneca vaccine has an image problem, which means many are reluctant to take it, including healthcare workers on the front lines. Poor, inconsistent messaging has fueled the public’s confusion over the safety and efficacy of AstraZeneca’s vaccine. President Macron’s claim last month that the vaccine was “quasi-ineffective” for the elderly didn’t help matters. He has since reversed himself and is now pleading that people get vaccinated with whatever vaccine is available to them. But the damage was already done
The Europeans of both political movements, whether far-left or far-right, are usually anti-establishment so obviously, they don’t trust Big Pharma’s Covid-19 experimental shots as well:
Europe’s degree of Covid-19 vaccine aversion is perhaps surprising, but not if one views it in the context of fiercely anti-establishment politics on the far-left and far-right, and a particularly virulent anti-science sentiment that existed long before Covid-19 hit. To illustrate, the far-right Lega and leftist Five Star Movement in Italy have both incited fearmongering about vaccines. Likewise, far-right and far-left political leaders in France, such as Le Pen and Mélenchon, have stoked anti-vaccine attitudes
From Africa, the Middle East, Latin America to Europe and even in the United States where one-third of the population did not take the Covid-19 experimental shots for whatever reason, there will be another popular resistance against Big Pharma’s experimental shots and a possible future lockdown.
For the next manufactured pandemic, the globalists, and the Pentagon, including all their institutions including the elephant in the room, Big Pharma will face a resistance by people from all walks of life and they will fail because the 2 billion people around the world will continue to oppose Big Pharma’s Covid-19 experimental shots and that is something the globalists are not looking forward to.
Since 2021, a legal tussle has persisted between a single mother, Liyana Razali, and the Malaysian government. This is due to her statements concerning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for 12-17 year-olds. The government outlawed Razali’s statement for fear that the public would develop negative perceptions of the vaccine, which could jeopardize the vaccination program. She was allegedly subjected to police harassment, media defamation, and a 30-day detention at Ulu Kinta Mental Hospital. TrialSite is following the controversial issue of vaccinating children against COVID-19, as well as the medical community’s perspective on this topic.
Razali made her speech on September 28, 2021, in front of the Ministry of Higher Education. She said, “Here I would like, on behalf of today’s parents who are present at the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia … to express our solidarity with parents.” She went on to name three families whose children were experiencing side effects following COVID-19 vaccinations, or had passed away shortly after receiving the vaccines. She also referred to three other children who had died after being vaccinated: two students at Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Tasik Damai in Ipoh, and one teenager in Lahad Datu, Sabah.
As well as expressing solidarity, she called on listeners to report side effects through the proper channels. “Report it to the authorities,” she said. “Do not just post them on social media. Come forward, and send your information, and we will try to fight for your rights.”
Police Intervention and Possible Misinterpretation of Razali’s Speech in Mainstream Media
Five days later (October 3), Razali was called to the police station for questioning. They asked her, without having official paperwork, to appear at a magistrates court. When she was asked to appear at Ipoh Magistrates Court on November 30, 2021, they cancelled the court appointment.
Meanwhile, the news of the police looking for Razali was published in mainstream media, including her photograph and home address. The reports stated that she had made “false COVID vaccine claims,” and that her allegations that students had died after receiving the vaccine were untrue.
The police returned on May 20, 2022, with an arrest warrant from Putrajaya Magistrates Court. They took Razali to court, where she refused to enter a plea for lack of a verified criminal complaint against her. The deputy public prosecutor (DPP) proposed a 30-day observation in Ulu Kinta Mental Hospital, to which the magistrate agreed.
Lawyers’ attempts to get Razali out were rejected. The DPP took a long time in building a case against her, and the trial began on November 22, 2022.
Exception in Penal Code 505
Razali has been charged under Penal code 505 (b), which states, “Whoever makes, publishes, or circulates any statement, rumor, or report with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offense against the State or against the public tranquility.” This implies that the government is claiming that her words were intended to cause public distress, which might incite the public to rally against the state.
Razali’s lawyers petitioned the DPP to apply the exception to penal code 505 (b), which reads, “It does not amount to an offense within the meaning of this section, when the person making, publishing, or circulating any such statement, rumor, or report has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, rumor, or report is true and makes, publishes or circulates it without any such intent as aforesaid.”
Based on this exception, if Razali had reasonable grounds to believe her statement was true at the time she said it, her actions were not against the law. Her representation was rejected without reason, and the case was motioned to continue.
The Appearance of Seven Witnesses in Razali’s Case
After Razali’s speech, over a period of almost one year, the DPP arranged for a range of people to testify against her. Seven of them have since appeared in court to testify and under cross-examination they have admitted that their previous statements had been influenced rather than being their own stand.
Two Ministry of Health (MOH) workers participating in the vaccine rollout claimed that they had been ordered to write their reports. Two MOH doctors and Ipoh school’s headmaster said that they had filed reports with the police out of fear of jeopardizing the vaccination program. Fathers of the two deceased Ipoh children had been summoned and instructed to testify that their children had died before vaccination.
The witnesses helped to shed some light on Razali’s case and how the public had perceived her speech, and the failure to stand their ground for fear of the government.
Doctors’ Testimonies
The doctors who have so far testified have claimed that the COVID-19 vaccine’s side effects were not severe and included allergies, Bell’s palsy, and myocarditis.
At least one witness for the government, a medical doctor, also said that when seeking consent from parents or guardians, there was no need to spend time on obtaining fully informed consent because it was all too complex for most people to understand, so there was no point wasting time like this. These witnesses also stated, however, that once consent had been given, patients must be responsible for any negative effects.
Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, or death.
Several studies have further demonstrated the effectiveness of these vaccines. One such study is a Hong Kong population-based observational study conducted in 2022. Results from this study revealed that two doses of the CoronaVac or BNT162b2 vaccines offered protection against severe illness or death within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.
Another study previously reported by TrialSite on COVID-19 vaccines for teens 12-17 years old has been carried out and continues in various regions globally. Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines are indicated by the vaccine companies to be safe and effective at preventing severe infections for this age bracket.
Furthermore, in 2021, the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) resolved that the benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines far outweighed their risks.
The Risk of COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects
There is data from around the world showing safety warning signals following the COVID-19 vaccine (including severe disability and death). However, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) there are only a few cases of very rare adverse severe events, namely myocarditis and pericarditis, that have been reported so far. These conditions were mainly observed in younger men aged 16-24 years and occurred after the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Generally, the conditions appeared within a few days after vaccination. The WHO indicates that these injuries were mild and responsive to conservative treatment.
The Malaysian Ministry of Health (KKM) informed the media in January 2023 that over 94% of reported vaccine reactions to Pfizer-BioNTech’s Comirnaty had been mild, but that “a small number” amounting to 1,162 serious cases of effects such as anaphylaxis, acute facial paralysis, myocarditis, and intravenous thrombosis had been recorded. This followed more than one year of claims by KKM that there had been no serious post-vaccine injuries reported in Malaysia.
These figures are similar to those reported by the CDC for teen vaccine reactions, which found 91.6% of cases were nonserious, and only 8.4% were severe. Common side effects after vaccination include headaches, muscle or joint soreness, fever, nausea, and vomiting. The injected area may redden, swell, itch, or have some pain. Most people recover quickly from the side effects, including the rare myocarditis and pericarditis cases reported after vaccination, which are claimed to be not as severe as those caused by COVID-19 infection.
These claims have been contested by world-leading cardiologists, such as Dr. Peter McCullough in the U.S. and Dr. Aseem Malhotra from the UK, who cite research showing that identified myocarditis and pericarditis from the vaccines is more severe than COVID-19-induced cardiac effects. The CDC continues to investigate the long-term effects of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination.
In addition, results from randomized control trial data from Pfizer, released under a court order in the U.S., demonstrated that over 1228 deaths occurred after the administration of the Pfizer vaccine. Additionally, 42,086 individuals reported 158,893 adverse events within a 3-month period.
A study done in Thailand in mid-2022 showed that 3.5% of boys showed evidence of pericarditis or myocarditis after the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
Research from other countries, such as that done on 12th-grade South Korean students, has shown a low rate of serious adverse events and no vaccine-related deaths. Other studies that targeted Israeli adolescents 16-19 years old put the risk of myocarditis at 1.34 per 100,000 within twenty days after the first dose and 15.07 per 100,000 after the second dose. In the U.S., the rates were 12 cases per million people (12-39 years) who received the second dose of the mRNA vaccine.
However, in March 2023, the Israeli Ministry of Health covertly released a new study showing large numbers of deaths within 60 days of receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
In December 2021, health officials in Vietnam had to suspend the use of the Pfizer vaccine after the hospitalization of over 120 children following a group vaccination at school. Additionally, three children died from an overreaction to the vaccine in Bac Giang, a province near Hanoi, and Binh Phuoc, a province in the south.
The Case Continues
Despite the Malaysian Ministry of Health’s firm stance that the COVID-19 vaccines are perfectly safe, Razali is not the only person flagging potential adverse reactions. In the same week that Razali delivered her speech, a vaccination program in Malaysia’s Kajang prison resulted in 18 serious adverse events and two deaths in under 2,500 people. The prison director’s letter to the regulatory department and health office went viral after being leaked.
The health minister claimed that there were no deaths in Malaysia linked to the COVID-19 vaccine while confirming that 535 deaths reported as adverse events “were not directly linked to the vaccines” according to postmortem results. However, an autopsy of 40 people who died within two weeks of vaccination conducted at the University of Heidelberg in Germany showed that specific techniques and stains are required to detect the effect of the vaccine at a cellular level on postmortem. The head of the autopsy project, Peter Schirmacher, concluded that between 30 to 40% of the deaths his team examined had resulted from the vaccination, and might have been missed by regular postmortem protocols.
As with anyone accused of breaking the law, Razali deserves a fair hearing before a court of law to establish whether or not her public statements were in any way a violation of Penal code paragraph 505 (b), especially given the exception that is an integral part of that clause.
As research on COVID-19 vaccine administration to teens between 12-17 years continues, organizations urge parents or guardians to report serious cases for further assessment.
Bioterrorism expert and whistleblower alleges that CIA secretly collaborated in supporting unethical gain of function research that resulted in the manufacture of the COVID-19 virus, which was then leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Dr. Andrew G. Huff is an Iraq War veteran and infectious disease epidemiologist with a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota who, in September 2014, went to work for EcoHealth Alliance, an NGO that received over $118 million in grants from federal agencies whose mission was to protect the public from infectious diseases.
In a new book, The Truth About Wuhan: How I Uncovered the Biggest Lie in History (New York: Skyhorse Press, 2022), Huff claims that his boss at EcoHealth Alliance, Dr. Peter Daszak, was working with the CIA and that beginning in 2012, he oversaw the development of the biological agent known as SARS-CoV-2 that results in the disease COVID-19.
The development occurred through gain-of-function research funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).[1]
According to Huff, Dr. Daszak and Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 until his retirement in December 2022, along with other colleagues, “behaved like a pseudoscience mafia entrenched in the halls of the medical military industrial complex.”[2]
They not only engineered the COVID-19 pandemic but “criminally conspired to smear” anyone who did not support their narrative—including Huff who was subjected to a campaign of FBI surveillance and harassment that nearly resulted in his death.
Engineering a Deadly Virus—and a Vaccine to Allegedly Combat It
One of the first tasks that Dr. Huff undertook while working at EcoHealth Alliance was to review an NIH proposal titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,” written by Dr. Daszak with Zhengli Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and some other scientists.
The study had the support of “the grandfather of Gain-of-Function research,” Dr. Ralph Baric, a virologist at the University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Public Health, which ranks third in NIH funding. (According to Huff, “Fauci has been [the school’s] de facto Don for decades.”[3])
The proposal advocated for studying people in rural China who may have come into contact with bats that spread the Coronavirus among humans and to screen for the virus with the goal of being able to better predict Coronavirus transmission. It further aimed to develop new Coronavirus strains and perform experiments that would enhance the ability of bat coronavirus to infect human cells and laboratory animals using techniques of genetic engineering.[4]
This study fit the definition of Gain-of-Function research, whose aim is to “purposefully enhance the pathogenicity, infectivity, virulence, survivability or transmissibility of an infectious agent,” as Huff defines it, or put more simply, “make an infectious agent more dangerous.”[5]
On October 17, 2014, the Obama administration declared a moratorium on Gain-of-Function research related to influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) after an accident at the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Dr. Fauci subsequently outsourced the Gain-of-Function research to China’s Wuhan lab and licensed the lab to continue receiving U.S. government funding. The moratorium on Gain-of-Function research was lifted by the Trump administration in December 2017, and Dr. Fauci sent $3.7 million from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to restart the coronavirus bat project.
By trying to make bats capable of infecting human cells, Huff came to believe that his employer was involved not only in unethical Gain-of-Function but also bioweapons research. Its end result was “the creation of SARS-CoV-2,” which “causes the disease known as COVID-19.”[6]
According to Huff, the infectious agent SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine—which Huff characterizes as gene therapy—were co-developed under the same research program.[7]
Huff writes that EcoHealth Alliance used Dr. Baric’s work for testing experimental vaccines, treatments and therapeutics against the newly engineered SARS-CoV-2 strain years before COVID-19 was known to the public to determine which countermeasures would be most effective at mitigating the disease in humanized mice.[8]
EcoHealth Alliance Rebuttal
Upon publication of The Truth About Wuhan, EcoHealth Alliance issued a statement asserting that “Andrew Huff is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.” According to EcoHealth Alliance, the actual truth about Wuhan is:
1) Mr. Huff was employed by the EcoHealth Alliance from 2014 to 2016. However, reports that he worked at or with the Wuhan Institute of Virology during that time are untrue. He was assigned to a completely different project working on computer-based algorithms to assess emerging disease threats.
2) Mr. Huff alleges that EcoHealth Alliance was engaged in Gain-of-Function research to create SARS-CoV-2. This is not true.
3) Mr. Huff makes a number of other speculations and allegations about the nature of the collaboration between EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Given that he never worked at or with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, his assertions along these lines cannot be trusted.
4) Mr. Huff claims that SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology based on research conducted there on bat coronaviruses and, further, that this research was related to U.S. intelligence gathering efforts. This is not true.
The EcoHealth Alliance statement went on to quote from Dr. Francis Collins, then director of the NIH, who said in December 2021 that “analysis of published genomic data and other documents from the grantee demonstrate that the naturally occurring bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant are genetically far distant from SARS-CoV-2 and could not possibly have caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Any claims to the contrary are demonstrably false.”
The EcoHealth Alliance statement continued: “The scientific evidence to date indicates that the virus is likely the result of viral evolution in nature, potentially jumping directly to humans or through an unidentified intermediary animal host. Historically, many viruses have emerged from animals to cause epidemics and pandemics, including influenza, Ebola, Zika, West Nile fever, SARS, and more. Importantly, after an intensive investigation, agencies in the U.S Intelligence Community agreed that the virus was not developed as a biological weapon and most agencies assessed that SARS-CoV-2 most likely was not genetically engineered.”
Higher Hand?
A key qualifier in this latter statement is “most,” which leaves the possibility that some assessed otherwise. In a one page summary, the intelligence community, which was asked to assess the origins of COVID-19 by the Biden administration, made clear that it could not rule out the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) emerged from a laboratory.
Sampling by Chinese authorities of animals in Wuhan wet markets and in the wild significantly found not a single wild animal harboring the SARS-CoV-2 virus, with Wuhan being 1,000 miles away from the nearest wild bats that carry the type of SARS-related coronaviruses that caused the pandemic.
A small group of virologists queried by the NIH in February, 2020 told the NIH leadership that SARS-CoV-2 might have arisen from laboratory research, noting that the virus has “unusual features that virologists in the U.S. have been using in experiments for years–often with support from the NIH.”
These unusual features include a sequence of eight amino acids identical to those found in cells that line human airways, according to Columbia University Professors Jeffrey Sachs and Neil Harrison, indicating that the virus could have been genetically manufactured from humans in a laboratory.
Suspiciously, Huff discovered that someone edited the NIH proposal after it was submitted on April 15, 2014; he also observed heavy micromanagement of the project by USAID personnel, U.S. Embassy staff, and other employees of the State Department.[9]
A leading subcontractor was Metabiota, which was partially owned by Rosemont Seneca, a venture capital firm partially owned by Hunter Biden and the CIA’s venture capital firm In-Q-Tel, which invests in companies that make technology of national security interest.[10]
Huff concluded that EcoHeath Alliance was in the business of collecting intelligence on foreign laboratories and personnel while involved in the development of the Coronavirus. Dr. Daszak even told him that the CIA had approached him and was interested in “the places we’re working, the people that we are working with, and the data that we are collecting.”[11]
The CIA had in the past been involved in cultivating deadly viruses as bioweapons at the secret U.S. Army facility at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and history appeared to be repeating itself.
EcoHealth Alliance Executive Vice President William Karesh was linked directly to the top of the U.S. bio-defense establishment as a member of an Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR) blue-ribbon panel on bio-defense.[12]
Huff points out that, traditionally, bioweapons are released to demoralize, incapacitate or force the use of vast medical resources in treating the wounded, and this all could be a motive for the alleged leak of the coronavirus after its manufacture at the Wuhan lab.
According to Huff, Pfizer and Moderna could make billions of dollars from the vaccine, and the global economic and political elite could advance their idea of the “Great Reset” in which they would further empower large corporations in an environment where the public was too bewildered to fight back.
COVID as Global Coup d’État
The latter is the scenario advanced by Michel Chossudovsky in his new book, The Worldwide Corona Crisis:Global Coup D’état Against Humanity: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression (Montreal, Canada: Global Research Publishers, 2022).
An economist at the University of Ottawa, Chossudovsky is President and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG), which runs the website globalresearch.ca that has published important cutting edge articles challenging the official narrative about COVID-19.
According to Chossudovsky, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a de facto coup d’état by the billionaire class, which spread panic among the population so they would suspend rational judgment and sign away their civil liberties with the imposition of medically unnecessary lockdowns, distancing and masking requirements, and vaccine passports.
Chossudovsky writes that “the Coronavirus provides a pretext and justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire world into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair…Entire national economies have been placed in jeopardy, martial law was declared in some cases, and all aspects of love and life were banned.”
According to Chossudovsky, the manufactured fear campaign was very similar to those adopted by the ruling class to obtain public support for illegal overseas military interventions.
Like with war dissenters, those who opposed the lockdowns were publicly ostracized, fired from their jobs, banned from social media, or branded as psychopaths.
In France, a doctor and retired university professor who opposed the vaccines, Jean-Bernard Fourtillan was arrested and placed in solitary confinement and in the psychiatric hospital of Uzes. And in Maine, Dr. Meryl Nass had to undergo a psychological exam before she was allowed a hearing with the state’s medical board to challenge the removal of her medical license after forty years on spurious grounds.[13]
According to Chossudovsky, the evidence amply documented is that the mRNA vaccine has not curtailed the spread of COVID-19—a Harvard study looking at COVID-19 in 68 countries and 2,947 U.S. counties in August and September 2022 found that the countries and counties with the highest vaccination rates had higher rates of new COVID-19 cases per one million people.[14]
Other studies detailed how the mRNA vaccine has resulted in an upward trend in mortality and morbidity, with the highest excess of deaths above normal being experienced by teenagers. A European mortality monitoring organization reported shocking increases in deaths of children under 14 after the vaccine was introduced. According to data from EuroMOMO, excess deaths among children in Europe surged 554% in 2021 following the European Medicines Agency’s approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for children.[15]
A cheaper and more effective way of treating COVID-19 patients is with hydroxychloroquine, which Dr. Fauci made sure would not be widely distributed.
In July 2020, Dr. Marcus Zervos, the chief epidemiologist in the Henry Ford Medical System and a board certified infectious disease specialist, conducted a study that found that COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine within twenty-four hours of admission to the hospital reduced risk of death by about half.[16]
Nass also points to the effectiveness of Ivermectin, an off-patent drug from which Big Pharma could not make a profit. Dr. Fauci branded it as a “horse medicine,” even though two scientists who developed it, William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura, won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2015 for developing a therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites.[17]
Scare Tactics and Lies
The deceit by America’s scientific establishment was apparent in the fact that, according to Chossudovsky, a secret Pfizer report detailed that Pfizer, previously convicted of “fraudulent marketing” of another product, received more than 1,200 reports of deaths allegedly caused by its vaccine between mid-December 2020 and the end of February 2021.
There were also tens of thousands of reports of “adverse events,” including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.
According to Chossudovsky, a flawed Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test was established by national governments to generate fake data with a view to justifying excessive and socially repressive policy mandates.
The RT-PCR test produces a high volume of false positives, with the test having been set up to detect a small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus—not necessarily the COVID-19 one or any other specific viruses, according to Dr. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR technique, who said this about the tests before he died in August 2019.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that 94% of the deaths attributed to COVID-19 have co-morbidities, or deaths due to other causes. In only 6% of deaths was COVID-19 the only cause mentioned.
According to Chossudovsky, had the CDC used criteria in its Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting, COVID-19 fatalities would have been 90.2% lower than the officially reported totals.[18]
On March 11, 2020, when the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared a worldwide pandemic, the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 outside China was of the order of 44,279, with 1,440 deaths.
The use of scare tactics had been previewed during the phony H1N1 “swine flu” scare of 2009-2010—one of the “greatest medical scandals of the century,” according to Wolfgang Wodarg, then head of health at the European Council—where billions of vaccines were ordered by national governments but then destroyed.
Wodarg is currently involved with Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former Pfizer Vice President, in the campaign against the COVID-19 vaccines, whose rushed introduction without proper testing was criminally negligent in their view.[19]
The main drivers of governmental policy have been corporate foundations like the Rockefeller, Soros, Ford and Gates Foundations.[20]
Their goal was to a) boost the profits of pharmaceutical companies in which they had investments; b) establish more authoritarian forms of global governance and a digital tyranny; and c) advance the World Economic Forum (WEF)’s Great Reset, whose aim is to restructure the global economy in the interests of select corporate monopolies by effectively shutting down huge sectors of the pre-COVID economy and driving certain older enterprises into bankruptcy.[21]
A War and Not Health Response—With the Usual Gamut of Corruption and Lies
Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical executive, has exposed that the Pentagon, which controlled the COVID-19 program from the beginning, adopted shady contracting practices while shielding Big Pharma from liability.
The latter benefited from changes in informed consent rules under the Obama administration to carry out unethical human experimentation and introduce vaccines that were never properly tested or regulated—and which Latypova describes as bio-weapons that “behave like shrapnel in the body; causing recipient cells to inadvertently destroy themselves.”
Latypova explained that the U.S. National Security Council is responsible for COVID-19 policy. This department represents defense and intelligence, and has no health representation. Health and Human Services are managing information but not setting policy, and Latypova concludes that consecutive U.S. governments have therefore treated COVID-19 as a war response, not a health response, whilst deliberately deceiving the public.
The planning for this started as early as 2012, as evidenced by a “pandemic enterprise”, which she describes as a public-private partnership involving ten heads of federal agencies. Secret meetings have been held between these leaders to discuss pandemic countermeasures, and how to maintain utmost secrecy and confidentiality of discussions and plans. Latypova questions why an alleged health event needs to be kept secret from the public.
According to Latypova, the pharmaceutical industry and “investor world” have been taken over by the Pentagon and military intelligence agencies. “A lot of money [pretends] to be venture funds while actually being funded by CIA,” Latypova says.
More Suggestions of Foreknowledge
The discovery of a contract awarded by the U.S. Department of Defense to Labyrinth Global Health for “COVID-19 Research” in November 2019 has raised further suspicion about government foreknowledge of the novel coronavirus.
The contract was part of a larger project for a “Biological threat reduction program in Ukraine,” suggesting that elements in the U.S. Government was at the very least aware of the alleged virus before it spread through Wuhan, China in December 2019, or had a hand in its creation through lab based Gain-of-Function research, as Andrew G. Huff suggests.
How else would they have known the name of the novel coronavirus disease three months prior to the WHO officially naming it Covid-19 in February 2020. And it may also explain why Moderna and Fauci’s NIAID had a confidentiality agreement for an mRNA Coronavirus vaccine candidate in early December 2019, which was developed and jointly owned by Moderna and Fauci’s NIAID.
Coordinated Propaganda Effort
According to Dr. Robert W. Malone, an expert in bio-defense and vaccinology, the Gates Foundation—which was granted a non-exclusive license to the Moderna mRNA Covid-19 injection, and therefore profited from its use—paid more than $319 million to control the mainstream media narrative about COVID-19.
The Department of Health and Human Services and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) paid more than one billion to control the media narrative.[22]
In 2021, a Facebook whistleblower revealed that Facebook censors vaccine-related content based on a secret “vaccine hesitancy” algorithm, which determines whether and to what extent the content (even if completely accurate) could induce vaccine hesitancy in viewers.[24]
Dr. Malone believes that British intelligence assets have been involved in smearing medical professionals like him who question the dominant COVID-19 narrative on Wikipedia, and that the “five eyes” spy alliance (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and U.S.) has been exploited during the COVID-19 crisis to enable reciprocal domestic propaganda activities by participant states against the citizens of other member states that otherwise forbid their intelligence agencies from domestic propaganda activities.[25]
The coordinated propaganda effort and repressive political climate is reminiscent of the World War I era when the Wilson administration set up the Committee on Public Information (CPI) to sell U.S. military intervention in Europe at a time when anti-war dissenters were being spied upon, demonized and jailed.[26]
In his book, Lies My Gov’t Told Me, Dr. Malone emphasizes how the “cancel culture” encourages censorship as does the prevalence of tribal tendencies and a cognitive dissonance where people have trouble accepting viewpoints that differ from their entrenched beliefs and reject those willing to speak out against inconvenient truths.
These trends, are behind what amounts to a modern-day witch-hunt that threatens to stifle the advancement of scientific and medical knowledge and has given a criminal elite free reign to carry out nefarious social experiments that have altered human life as we know it.
Science for Hire
Dr. Malone and Michel Chossudovsky’s analysis is reinforced in a new documentary, Science for Hire, produced by WBAI radio host Gary Null, which exposes the corruption of America’s scientific elite.
Null concurs with Huff’s assessment that, in supporting Gain-of-Function research, Dr. Fauci and his colleagues were “fooling with mother nature;” creating super-viruses so that pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer could emerge as heroes for developing vaccines that made them billions of dollars in profits.
COVID-19, however, was more like a seasonal flu so hospital administrators had to manipulate data to give the impression of a mass pandemic that required everyone to be vaccinated. Hospice patients with terminal illnesses like end-stage renal failure and congestive heart failure were put on the COVID death list to pad the numbers.[27]
COVID-19 patients at the same time were sent home without treatment because of the reliance on vaccines that yielded unreported adverse health effects, such as a rise in myocarditis, blood clots, infertility, and heart attacks among healthy young people.
According to Null, Dr. Fauci was following the playbook of the HIV-AIDS pandemic in the 1980s where a fear campaign he presided over was followed up by the introduction of untested drugs such as AZT that wound up killing tens of thousands of gay men.
cientists who challenged the dominant paradigm were deprived of NIH funding that Fauci controlled, and marginalized with the advent of a “Medical McCarthyism” reflective of the societal slide toward corporate autocracy.
The only way to overcome the latter is to build a worldwide movement against Corona tyranny that outlaws Gain-of-Function research and would restore the integrity of science and real democracy through a socialist transformation.
Andrew G. Huff, The Truth About Wuhan: How I Uncovered the Biggest Lie in History (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2022), 190. ↑
Huff, The Truth About Wuhan, 177; Fred Guterl, “Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab With U.S. Dollars For Risky Coronovirus Research,”Newsweek, April 28, 2020. By identifying unknown viruses before they spilled into humans, or “finding them before they find us,” Shi Zhengli claimed that “researchers could hope to find an early-warning system. Columbia professors Jeffrey Sachs and Neil Harrison point out that “the precise nature of the experiments that were conducted [in Wuhan], including the full array of viruses collected from the field and the subsequent sequencing and manipulation of those viruses, remains unknown.” Sharon Lerner, “Jeffrey Sachs Presents Evidence of Possible Lab Origin of COVID-19,” The Intercept, May 19, 2022.
Huff, The Truth About Wuhan, 94. Dr. Richard Ebright, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers quoted as an expert in aNewsweek article on the topic, along with many other scientists, has been a vocal opponent of Gain-of-Function research because of the risk it presents of creating a pandemic through accidental release from a lab. Dr. Fauci, however, has expressed belief that “determining the molecular Achilles’ heel of these viruses can allow scientists to identify novel antiviral drug targets that could be used to prevent infection in those at risk or to better treat those who become infected,” and that “decades of experience tells us that disseminating information gained through biomedical research to legitimate scientists and health officials provides a critical foundation for generating appropriate countermeasures and, ultimately, protecting the public health.”
Huff, The Truth About Wuhan, 183. Huff believes that EcoHealth Alliance was engaged in irregular financial transactions regarding U.S. government grants, specifically time-card fraud. He observed what appeared to be double dipping on contracts, or material support, between government organizations and private donors (e.g., Skoll Foundation, Google Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Welcome Trust). ↑
On the latter case, see Dr. Robert Malone, “The Extraordinary Story of a Truth Warrior Persecuted for Advocating and Providing Life Saving Treatment,” in Lies My Gov’t Told Me: And the Better Future Coming (New York: Skyhorse, 2022), ch. 3. Nass is a former contributor to CovertAction Information Bulletin [predecessor to CovertAction Magazine] who documented the Southern Rhodesian government’s use of biological warfare against the Black population in modern Zimbabwe during its liberation war. ↑
See also Ed Dowd, with foreword by Robert Kennedy Jr. “Cause Unknown:” The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022 (New York: Skyhorse, 2023), which points out that during the third and fourth quarters of 2021, coinciding with a period of mass vaccination, death in people of working age (18–64) was 40 percent higher than it was before the pandemic, with the majority of deaths not attributed to COVID. ↑
Huff, The Truth About Wuhan, 152. See also Malone, “The Extraordinary Story of a Truth Warrior Persecuted for Advocating and Providing Life Saving Treatment,” in Lies My Gov’t Told Me, 70. ↑
Malone, Lies My Gov’t Told Me, 117. The drug has been made available to poor people around the globe for pennies per dose. ↑
See also Malone, Lies My Gov’t Told Me, which presents similar data, including a study which found that, even among hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were 90 years or older, nearly 90% survived. Most COVID deaths were of the very elderly—in Canada, the total was around 70%. In Italy, 100 percent of COVID deaths had another fatal condition whereas in South Korea as many as 99 percent of active COVID-19 cases in the general population did not require any medical treatment. A study of 3,300 inmates in U.S. state prisons found that 96% who tested positive for COVID-19 had no symptoms. See also Dr. Joseph Mercola and Ronnie Cummins, The Truth About COVID-19: Exposing the Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, and the New Normal, foreword by Robert Kennedy Jr. (White River Junction Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2021), 56 which emphasizes that many alleged COVID deaths died actually from medical errors, including in parts of New York that were designated as being at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. ↑
Dr. Yeadon initially raised concerns that the COVID-19 vaccine could cause fertility issues in young women. ↑
The Rockefeller and Ford Foundations have long and deep connections to the CIA. ↑
The plan is for the jobless to be placed on a universal basic income. Some have suggested that another goal is depopulation because of concern about overpopulation and a belief in an extreme Social Darwinian philosophy (“survival of the fittest”) and eugenics by Gates and others. ↑
Malone, Lies My Gov’t Told Me, 170. Facebook openly states that it blocks content “which public health experts have advised us could lead to COVID-19 vaccine rejection.” ↑
In 2020, CDC director Robert Redfield admitted that hospital incentives likely elevated hospitalization rates and death toll statistics around the U.S. In Mercola and Cummins, The Truth About COVID-19, 57. ↑
The COVID-19 pandemic saw the greatest acceleration of online censorship in the short history of the internet. In response, the field dedicated to upholding human rights online—the digital rights movement—remained near silent to this massive government and corporate over-reach. Worse, digital rights activists sometimes even collaborated with censors in the name of protecting the public from “disinformation.”
I’ve spent more than 20 years in digital rights, freedom of expression and open technology communities, and co-founded an organisation dedicated to these ideas: EngageMedia. Over the 17 years I ran Engage Media, we built a team that stretched across 10 countries, from India to Australia—one of the biggest digital rights organisations in the Asia-Pacific, hosting hundreds of workshops and large events, and leading multiple international networks. In short, I’m not a newbie or outsider in this field.
But during the pandemic, I watched the digital rights movement lose its voice as champions of online freedom of expression. Instead, they began to echo the positions of governments and companies with far from stellar records on human rights and corporate integrity. This recasting of governments and corporations as allies, rather than institutions to be held to account, has perverted the mission of digital rights and harmed public health.
The Digital Rights Movement
Digital Rights is an umbrella term that captures multiple concepts from “internet freedom” to “open technology” to “digital public policy.” Over the past several decades, it has become a major force in advocating for online rights and freedoms. Hundreds of universities, institutes, and non-profit organizations work in this arena on every corner of the planet. Whilst I know of no exact calculations, funding for the field is surely in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually—sourced from a mix of liberal foundations, governments, and Big Tech itself.
Core to this fundamentally left-leaning field was anti-censorship and a libertarian ethos. If the movement has a founding document, it is the 1996 Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, which begins:
Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.
We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.
Left-libertarianism and techno-utopianism dominated Internet culture in the 90s and 2000s, yet withered rapidly in the Trump era, as it was unable to move quickly enough to address issues of online discrimination and harassment. In response, a new wing took root that was less hippy, more helicopter parent.
Internet parentalism, with its emphasis on safety over freedom, addressed concerns about the dark side of the Internet, but it did so with top-down regulation and control. And just as the former left-libertarianism created an imperfect system, so has the current left-parentalism. This became quite clear during the pandemic. During COVID, general skepticism of authority was replaced by respect for authority. Once suspect governments and businesses were now to be shielded from critique.
Content moderation is key to the new left-parentalism, and the pandemic radically accelerated and solidified a new digital authoritarianism. It is worth revisiting Hillary Clinton’s seminal 2010 “internet freedom” speech, to see how far thinking has shifted:
Now, all societies recognise that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence… And hate speech that targets individuals on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is reprehensible… But these challenges must not become an excuse for governments to systematically violate the rights and privacy of those who use the internet for peaceful political purposes.
How different content moderation is today, where comments deemed “offensive” might be censored. In those days liberals even thought about balancing safety and freedom when dealing with terrorists, yet this was not the case with COVID. With Musk now taking over Twitter, the Internet-parentalism wing may be on its back-foot but it has made headway in altering culture, so much so that supporting the left-libertarian approach (or the 2010 Clintonian position) is now considered “right-wing.”
New Zealand Prime minister Jacinda Arden personifies the progressive authoritarian shift. In her recent UN speech she compared “disinformation” to “weapons of war,” expressing a deep frustration with those who stray from the “consensus” and emphasising strong government control for “disinformation.” The Arden approach is now the default setting in the digital rights field where government and corporate censorship have replaced debate and persuasion as the answer to “wrong” ideas. For example, Ardern gave the opening speech at the 2022 RightsCon, the biggest digital rights conference on the calendar (EngageMedia co-hosted the 2015 edition).
That government determines truth to protect citizens is a boom to authoritarians everywhere – from the Philippines, to Ethiopia, to Russia—while also limiting government and corporate accountability. To be clear, both Clinton’s and Ardern’s policy served the needs of power. The difference is that Clinton was largely in step with the previous 200 years of liberal theory, while Arden returns society to levels of government authority and control that people have struggled to overcome for centuries.
Growth and change of “anti-disinformation”
Disinformation was already an established sector prior to the pandemic. But it focused on top level malfeasance: for example, Myanmar military social media accounts promoting violence against the Rohingya or former Philippine President Duterte’s use of bots to attack dissidents. Advocacy took a mostly Clintonian approach to counter such state power—minimising overt censorship, while educating the public and notifying Big Tech of egregious incidents of disinformation (mostly by government).
The Trump election and Cambridge Analytica scandal changed these rules as many blamed social media greed and wilful ignorance for the election loss. Claims of Russian disinformation compounded these problems. Big Tech’s alleged lack of action put it at odds with its core, liberal constituencies. Anger and disillusionment allowed the speech control wing of the digital rights movement to ascend, shifting the movement’s mission from watching the powerful to policing the fringe.
Newer disinformation initiatives also sought to rebuild trust in Big Media, legacy organisations whose legitimacy crumbled for a variety of reasons: from supporting the Iraq war, to failing to predict Trump and Brexit. To recapture authority, elites made themselves the adults who discern the truth, as the rest of society cannot be trusted make competent decisions.
Anti-disinformation amid the pandemic
I went into the pandemic with a wide variety of doubts, but was among the majority in supporting government restrictions, though never on access to information. Banning discussion of a possible lab accident at the pandemic’s beginning triggered me to reevaluate. My own Australian government and the former CDC Director Robert Redfield both considered the lab-leak a plausible reason for how the pandemic started. Meanwhile, leading anti-disinformation organisations labelled it a conspiracy theory, and suggested that journalists not amplify it.
After the lab leak theory became mainstream, I saw no reconsideration of facts among the anti-disinformation and digital rights sectors, as any straying meant being called far-right. Unfortunately, silence only shields the powerful, and civil liberties and human rights groups went AWOL on their duties, or even swapped sides. Witness the ACLU advocating for the violation of bodily autonomy and in favour of widespread vaccine mandates.
Other few key examples of how pandemic censorship protected the powerful:
Vaccines were widely claimed to stop infection or transmission. A sterilising vaccine was the core rationale behind mandates and exclusionary passport systems. Yet, in a November 2020 article in Business Insider the Moderna COO disclosed the vaccine does not stop transmission, as was admitted by a senior Pfizer executive in October 2022 during an EU hearing. Despite that, suggesting the vaccine did not prevent transmission could get you banned from several platforms.
Natural immunity from prior infection was one of the many “conspiracies” although the CDC now considers it equal to vaccination, stating “it really makes the most sense to not differentiate”.
Questioning of lockdowns was once banned, yet it is now widely acknowledged that lockdowns resulted in serious harm including delays in childhood learning, lack of early treatment for serious illness, a rise in domestic abuse, as well as inflation and a massive transfer of wealth to the rich.
Across the board social media sought to disallow information that is “inconsistent with health authorities’ guidance”. But authorities are not all-knowing and this policy blew away previously held norms around open scientific debate and went against the crowd-sourcing ethos of progressives.
Why the conformity?
Some level of conformity is to be expected; however, it reached uncanny levels during the pandemic. Public relations campaigns hid how information controls have worked, as many aren’t even aware of policies and repeated “fact check” failures. PR campaigns also succeeded in associating those seeking to limit pandemic controls as being right-wing and therefore selfish, or worse, racist and misogynist—even as vaccine hesitancy was highest among communities of colour.
Second, the “anti-disinformation” and digital rights field maintains rigorous class solidarity and is overwhelmingly upper-middle and middle class. The upper and middle classes have a higher trust in institutions because they run those institutions and those institutions have worked for them. The field is also the ultimate laptop class, along with others working in tech. Work from home and other lockdown policies benefited them, even as it harmed others.
Third, digital rights melted into the “follow the science” movement. Populism dented the prestige of the expert and professional managerial class, while COVID energized their authority with “science” and gave them back power. Questioning “the science” and acknowledging mistakes means re-diminishing that power.
Finally, Big Tech has compromised the field with tens of millions of dollars (possibly hundreds) annually, yet this funding bias is rarely discussed. Imagine if Shell, BP, and ExxonMobil were core funders of the climate change movement. Added to this financial influence is a revolving door between Big Tech and those meant to hold it to account
Moving forward
Allegations of “disinformation” have become a tool to delegitimize opposition to orthodoxy and power, and have been weaponised to shield government and Big Pharma from scrutiny. Just as criticism of the automobile industry in the 60s and 70s led to improved car safety, today’s public fora must hold the powerful to account.
By aligning with Big Tech and Big Pharma, the “anti-disinformation” and digital rights sectors have neglected their responsibilities, and have come to serve power rather than people, contributing to a broader chilling effect.
To improve digital rights, we must:
Ensure funders, non-profits, journalists, and media organisations more clearly stand up for free speech and invite dissenting views;
Remain courageous while suffering the slings and arrows of nasty online criticism. And support those who speak out;
Highlight bullying that closes down conversation and benefits institutional interests;
Generate greater public awareness of government and corporate manipulation on social media;
Refuse Big Tech and Big Pharma funding for work that is meant to keep these same industries accountable;
Create more watchers to watch the “anti-disinformation” watchers;
Develop alternative media platforms so the conversation can’t be so easily controlled;
·Ensure regulation that protects free speech;
Break up Big Tech and Big Media to limit government and corporate control of public discourse and increase diversity of opinion.
Pandemic information controls and restrictions on free speech had real world consequences that contributed to poorer, not better, public health outcomes. By neglecting to address corporate and government pandemic censorship, the digital rights movement failed in its core mission of securing online freedom of expression.
For students of official propaganda, mind control, emotional coercion, and other insidious manipulation techniques, the rollout of the New Normal has been a bonanza. Never before have we been able to observe the application and effects of these powerful technologies in real-time on such a massive scale.
In a little over two and a half years, our collective “reality” has been radically revised. Our societies have been radically restructured. Millions (probably billions) of people have been systematically conditioned to believe a variety of patently ridiculous assertions, assertions based on absolutely nothing, repeatedly disproved by widely available evidence, but which have nevertheless attained the status of facts. An entire fictitious history has been written based on those baseless and ridiculous assertions. It will not be unwritten easily or quickly.
I am not going to waste your time debunking those assertions. They have been repeatedly, exhaustively debunked. You know what they are and you either believe them or you don’t. Either way, reviewing and debunking them again isn’t going to change a thing.
Instead, I want to focus on one particularly effective mind-control technology, one that has done a lot of heavy lifting throughout the implementation of the New Normal and is doing a lot of heavy-lifting currently. I want to do that because many people mistakenly believe that mind-control is either (a) a “conspiracy theory” or (b) something that can only be achieved with drugs, microwaves, surgery, torture, or some other invasive physical means. Of course, there is a vast and well-documented history of the use of such invasive physical technologies (see, e.g., the history of the CIA’s infamous MKULTRA program), but in many instances mind-control can be achieved through much less elaborate techniques.
One of the most basic and effective techniques that cults, totalitarian systems, and individuals with fascistic personalities use to disorient and control people’s minds is “gaslighting.” You’re probably familiar with the term. If not, here are a few definitions:
“the manipulation of another person into doubting their perceptions, experiences, or understanding of events.”American Psychological Association
“an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity.”Psychology Today
“a form of psychological manipulation in which the abuser attempts to sow self-doubt and confusion in their victim’s mind. Typically, gaslighters are seeking to gain power and control over the other person, by distorting reality and forcing them to question their own judgment and intuition.”Newport Institute
The main goal of gaslighting is to confuse, coerce, and emotionally manipulate your victim into abandoning their own perception of reality and accepting whatever new “reality” you impose on them. Ultimately, you want to completely destroy their ability to trust their own perception, emotions, reasoning, and memory of historical events, and render them utterly dependent on you to tell them what is real and what “really” happened, and so on, and how they should be feeling about it.
Anyone who has ever experienced gaslighting in the context of an abusive relationship, or a cult, or a totalitarian system, or who has worked in a battered women’s shelter, can tell you how powerful and destructive it is. In the most extreme cases, the victims of gaslighting are entirely stripped of their sense of self and surrender their individual autonomy completely. Among the best-known and most dramatic examples are the Patty Hearst case, Jim Jones’ People’s Temple, the Manson family, and various other cults, but, the truth is, gaslighting happens every day, out of the spotlight of the media, in countless personal and professional relationships.
Since the Spring of 2020, we have been subjected to official gaslighting on an unprecedented scale. In a sense, the “Apocalyptic Pandemic” PSYOP has been one big extended gaslighting campaign (comprising countless individual instances of gaslighting) inflicted on the masses throughout the world. The events of this past week were just another example.
Basically, what happened was, a Pfizer executive confirmed to the European Parliament last Monday that Pfizer did not know whether its Covid “vaccine” prevented transmission of the virus before it was promoted as doing exactly that and forced on the masses in December of 2020. People saw the video of the executive admitting this, or heard about it, and got upset.
The New Normal propaganda apparatus (i.e., the corporate media, health “experts,” et al.) responded to the story predictably. They ignored it, hoping it would just go away. When it didn’t, they rolled out the “fact-checkers” (i.e., gaslighters).
The Associated Press, Reuters, PolitiFact, and other official gaslighting outfits immediately published lengthy official “fact-checks” that would make a sophist blush. Read them and you will see what I mean. They are perfect examples of official gaslighting, crafted to distract you from the point and suck you into an argument over meaningless details and definitions. They sound exactly like Holocaust deniers pathetically asserting that there is no written proof that Hitler ordered the Final Solution … which, there isn’t, but it doesn’t fucking matter. Of course Hitler ordered the Final Solution, and of course they lied about the “vaccines.”
The Internet is swimming with evidence of their lies … tweets, videos, articles, and so on.
Which is what makes gaslighting so frustrating for people who believe they are engaged in an actual good-faith argument over facts and the truth. But that’s not how totalitarianism works. The New Normals, when they repeat whatever the authorities have instructed them to repeat today (e.g., “trust the Science,” “safe and effective,” “no one ever claimed they would prevent transmission”), could not care less whether it is actually true, or even if it makes the slightest sense.
These gaslighting “fact-checks” are not meant to convince them that anything is true or false. And they are certainly not meant to convince us. They are official scripts, talking points, and thought-terminating clichés for the New Normals to repeat, like cultists chanting mantras at you to shut off their minds and block out anything that contradicts or threatens the “reality” of the cult.
You can present them with the actual facts, and they will smile knowingly, and deny them to your face, and condescendingly mock you for not “seeing the truth.”
In order to effectively gaslight someone, you have be in a position of authority or wield some other form of power over them. They have to need something vital from you (i.e., sustenance, safety, financial security, community, career advancement, or just love). You can’t walk up to some random stranger on the street and start gaslighting them. They will laugh in your face.
The reason the New Normal authorities have been able to gaslight the masses so effectively is that most of the masses do need something from them … a job, food, shelter, money, security, status, their friends, a relationship, or whatever it is they’re not willing to risk by challenging those in power and their lies. Gaslighters, cultists, and power freaks, generally, know this. It is what they depend on, your unwillingness to live without whatever it is. They zero in on it and threaten you with the loss of it (sometimes consciously, sometimes just intuitively).
Gaslighting won’t work if you are willing to give up whatever the gaslighter is threatening to take from you (or stop giving you, as the case may be), but you have to be willing to actually lose it, because you will be punished for defending yourself, for not surrendering your autonomy and integrity, and conforming to the “reality” of the cult, or the abusive relationship, or the totalitarian system.
I have described the New Normal (i.e., our new “reality”) as pathologized-totalitarianism, and as a “a cult writ large, on a societal scale.” I used the “Covidian Cult” analogy because every totalitarian system essentially operates like a cult, the main difference being that, in totalitarian systems, the balance of power between the cult and the normal (i.e., dominant) society is completely inverted. The cult becomes the dominant (i.e., “normal”) society, and non-cult-members become its “deviants.”
We do not want to see ourselves as “deviants” (because we haven’t changed, the society has), and our instinct is to reject the label, but that is exactly what we are … deviants. People who deviate from the norm, a new norm, which we reject, and oppose, but which, despite that, is nonetheless the norm, and thus we are going to be regarded and dealt with like deviants.
I am such a deviant. I have a feeling you are too. Under the circumstances, it’s nothing to be ashamed of. On the contrary, we need to accept it, and embrace it. Above all, we need to get clear about it, about where we stand in this new “reality.”
We are heading toward New Normal Winter No. 3. They are already cranking up the official propaganda, jacking up the fabricated “cases,” talking about reintroducing mask-mandates, fomenting mass hatred of “the Unvaccinated,” and so on. People’s gas bills and doubling and tripling. The global-capitalist ruling classes are openly embracing neo-Nazis. There is talk of “limited” nuclear war. Fanaticism, fear, and hatred abound. The gaslighting of the masses is not abating. It is increasing. The suppression of dissent is intensifying. The demonization of non-conformity is intensifying. Lines are being drawn in the sand. You see it and feel it just like I do.
Get clear on what’s essential to you. Get clear about what you’re willing to lose. Stay deviant. Stay frosty. This isn’t over.
Among the more notorious advocates of authoritarian lockdown measures during the COVID‑19 pandemic has been Dr. Leana Wen, a medical doctor, former Baltimore health commissioner, contributing writer for the Washington Post, and CNN medical analyst.
She gained notoriety for explicitly advocating social punishment of unvaccinated people as a means of coercing them into getting vaccinated, even if they chose to remain unvaccinated because they had already acquired superior natural immunity. She based her position at the time on the false claim that the fCOVID‑19 vaccines would stop transmission of SARS‑CoV‑2, the coronavirus that causes the disease.
I discussed this in my article “The Official Ignorance of Natural Immunity to SARS‑CoV‑2”, which was the second installment of my multi-part series exposing how the “public health” and mainstream media establishments were systematically deceiving the public about natural immunity versus the effectiveness of vaccines to manufacture consent for the policy goal of achieving high vaccine uptake.
In that article, I documented how on March 12, 2021, Leana Wen declared on CNN that, for people who hadn’t been persuaded yet to accept vaccination, “we need to make it clear to them that the vaccine is the ticket back to pre-pandemic life.”
Dr. Wen expressed deep concern that, with states already having begun to drop lockdown measures and open society up, “the window to do that”—meaning to coerce people into getting vaccinated—“is really narrowing”. As she elucidated (emphasis added):
We have a very narrow window to tie reopening policy to vaccination status. Because otherwise if everything is reopened, then what’s the carrot going to be? How are we going to incentivize people to actually get the vaccine? So that’s why I think the CDC and the Biden administration needs to come out a lot bolder and say, “If you are vaccinated, you can do all these things. Here are all the freedoms that you have.” Because otherwise, people are going to go out and enjoy these freedoms anyway.
You can watch her advocate the systematic violation of individuals’ right to informed consent in the video embedded in this tweet of hers:
I’m very concerned that we won’t reach herd immunity in the US because of vaccine complacency—not anti-vax people but those who need to be incentivized & see what’s in it for them. We need to clearly message vaccination = ticket to pre-pandemic life. pic.twitter.com/9tXw9C3bP0
The premise of her argument that people should be coerced into getting vaccinated was the falsehood that the vaccines would prevent transmission. This misinformation was also propagated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
As I also document in that article, the message that the vaccines would prevent transmission was implicitly communicated to the public with the CDC’s declaration on March 8, 2021, that fully vaccinated people no longer needed to wear a mask or maintain social distancing in public or in private gatherings.
The message that natural immunity offered no protection against infection and transmission was also implicitly communicated by the CDC’s refusal to inform people who had already recovered from SARS‑CoV‑2 infection that they had acquired immunity and therefore were at far lower risk of becoming infected and transmitting the virus.
A New York Times headline celebrated the discrimination against unvaccinated people, including the naturally immune, with the headline “Let the Unmasked Gatherings Begin”! The article quoted CDC Director Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky telling the public that “a growing body of evidence” told us that fully vaccinated people could resume normal activities “at low risk to themselves”, saying nothing about people who’d already recovered from infection being able to do so.
Dr. Wen’s comment on March 12 advocating coerced vaccination was part of a criticism of the CDC’s policy update telling fully vaccinated people they no longer had to wear masks. Her concern was that unvaccinated people—including the naturally immune—would just act like they were vaccinated to be able to participate normally in society.
The CDC expanded its discrimination against other unvaccinated people on May 13, telling the public that once you’ve been fully vaccinated, “you can resume activities that you did prior to the pandemic.” The message to unvaccinated people with natural immunity, by contrast, was to “find a vaccine.”
In a Twitter post announcing the updated policy guidance, Walensky stated, “If you are fully vaccinated against #COVID19, you can now start doing things that you had stopped doing because of the pandemic. You can participate in indoor and outdoor activities – large or small – without wearing a mask or physically distancing.”
If you are fully vaccinated against #COVID19, you can now start doing things that you had stopped doing because of the pandemic. You can participate in indoor and outdoor activities – large or small – without wearing a mask or physically distancing. https://t.co/P6hzrFTbxwpic.twitter.com/AncZ6Wt5ci
— Mandy K. Cohen, MD, MPH (@CDCDirector) May 13, 2021
President Joseph R. Biden also took to Twitter to threaten, “The rule is now simple: get vaccinated or wear a mask until you do. The choice is yours.” That order went for naturally immune people, too.
The rule is now simple: get vaccinated or wear a mask until you do.
Neither the CDC nor Biden were extreme enough in their efforts to systematically violate the right of individuals to informed consent with policy measures to coerce people into getting vaccinated, in Dr. Wen’s view.
The extremity of Leana Wen’s authoritarian position extended to her views on the masking of children.
On Twitter on May 28, 2021, Wen advocated mandatory masking of unvaccinated children—including those with natural immunity—at summer camp.
BREAKING: New CDC guidance on summer camp guidance is out. 1) Most importantly, masking outdoors isn't required any more. 2) If everyone is vaccinated, no need for masks. 2) Masking indoors is "strongly encouraged"–which I think should be "required" if some are unvaccinated. https://t.co/MTZFax6GxR
The same day, she criticized the governor of Georgia for prohibiting schools from making mask use mandatory for children.
Georgia is PROHIBITING schools from requiring masks, even when unvaccinated remain at risk (and kids under 12 cannot yet be vaccinated). https://t.co/vKaza5gtth
On June 14, she made a display of her son Eli “practicing his mask-wearing” at home in anticipation of his first day of summer camp. (Note in the photo that the mask is not properly fitted, leaving large gaps at the side.)
Today is the first day of summer camp! Eli is practicing his mask-wearing (outdoors, masks aren't needed, but masks should still be required indoors for unvaccinated people around others not yet vaccinated.) pic.twitter.com/ujJSlzf8qT
On July 9, she praised the CDC for recommending mandatory masking of unvaccinated children. “I am really glad that they have said that masks are going to be required for unvaccinated children over the age of two”, she said, describing mandatory masking as “essential”.
My reaction to the CDC’s new guidelines on reopening schools: Glad they are requiring masks indoors for unvaccinated students & teachers and ramping up testing. However, this is another case where proof of vaccination is needed. Without it, mask mandates should stay in place. pic.twitter.com/xhoEEdur0D
But then, within four months since telling fully vaccinated people that they no longer needed to wear a mask, the CDC’s own data established that outbreaks could occur among fully vaccinated people. By the end of July 2021, it was already apparent that the emerging data were falsifying the repeatedly communicated message from the entire “public health” establishment that the vaccines would provide durable protection against infection and transmission.
That month, CDC researchers learned of a large outbreak in Massachusetts in which 74 percent of COVID‑19 cases were in fully vaccinated people. Furthermore, they observed that the amount of virus shed by vaccinated people was just as high as with the unvaccinated, implying equal contagiousness.
This finding prompted to CDC at the end of July to flip-flop and return to advising fully vaccinated people to start masking up once again.
Leana Wen took to the media to criticize the CDC again, this time for conveying what she felt was a confusing message by reversing its guidance. In a Washington Post article on July 29, Wen acknowledged the CDC’s “research showing that vaccinated people who become infected with the delta variant carry a similar amount of virus to those who are unvaccinated and infected”, which “suggests that vaccinated people could be carriers and therefore capable of spreading the coronavirus to family members”.
Her concern nevertheless remained “that the unvaccinated could be a danger” to her and her family. By her dizzying reasoning, it was only because of “unvaccinated” people that she, a fully vaccinated person, “could contract the coronavirus and bring it back to my vulnerable family members.”
On Twitter, she summarized her criticism by describing the CDC’s reversal as “confusing” and “muddled”, curiously arguing despite her acknowledgment of the data showing that fully vaccinated people were spreading the virus that indoor mask mandates were needed “not because the vaccinated are suddenly a problem, but because we don’t trust the unvaccinated to voluntarily do the right thing.”
She did not explain how it could logically be the case that only unvaccinated people posed that risk to her given that vaccination did not work to stop transmission.
While acknowledgment of cellular immunity, as distinct from the humoral immunity provided by antibodies, had been practically nonexistent in the public messaging of the “public health” establishment until then, suddenly, in August 2021, the CDC and other “authorities” appeared to discover that, even if someone’s antibody levels waned and failed to protect them against infection, they would still be protected against severe disease and death due to cellular immune responses!
Curiously, that never crossed their mind when the public message was that natural immunity must be weak and short-lived since antibodies were observed to rapidly wane from peak levels seen post-infection.
It also never crossed their minds to inform the public that this rapid decline is normal and expected after recovery from acute infection. As I cover in great detail in my series on the superiority of natural immunity, the claims of short-lived natural immunity, propagated by the CDC and others, were falsified by studies demonstrating natural immunity to be robust, broad, and durable, with the induction of immunological memory capable of rapidly churning out antibodies as necessary in the event of reexposure.
The public messaging shifted from telling everyone to get vaccinated as a selfless social duty to protect others by preventing the spread of the virus to telling everyone get vaccinated to protect themselves against severe disease.
On CNN on August, 2021, Walensky reassured that the data continued to indicate that being fully vaccinated was protective against severe illness and death from the then-predominant Delta variant of SARS‑CoV‑2. “But what they can’t do anymore”, Walensky said, “is prevent transmission.”
That was disingenuous. By saying “anymore”, she was implying that the loss of sterilizing immunity, meaning protection against infection and transmission (as distinct from protection against disease), was a function of the newly predominant Delta variant, but it was primarily a function of the vaccine and their inability to induce durable sterilizing immunity regardless of the variant.
Meanwhile, on major social media platforms, it remained prohibited to tell the truth. For example, Google continued its policy whereby YouTube videos saying that “that COVID-19 vaccines are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19” were subject to deletion and the users to deplatforming. (YouTube quietly dropped this and other prohibitions of truth-telling earlier this year.)
Leana Wen continued her advocacy of masking of children.
On August 10, she quoted a New York Times article saying, “If we send children to school without masks, we increased their risk of acquiring #covid19. Some could suffer illness or die. If we close schools, millions of children will suffer learning loss….” Her comment was, “Hence the solution: Keep schools open, with masking.”
"If we send children to school without masks, we increase their risk of acquiring #covid19. Some could suffer illness or die. If we close schools, millions of children will suffer learning loss…."
Six days later, she argued in favor of masking children in “all schools in this country”. On August 16, she argued on Twitter that “Masking in schools reduces #covid19 transmission” and suggested that parents whose children go to schools that “do not require masking” should organize to make mask-wearing “the norm”.
Masking in schools reduces #covid19 transmission. If schools do not require masking, parents should still mask kids—at least with a 3-ply surgical mask. Talk to other parents in the class to see if mask-wearing can be the norm. Insist on contact tracing & testing. @kaitlancollinspic.twitter.com/WI2fhBzeUU
On August 21, expressing agreement with a comment by former CDC director Dr. Tom Frieden, she said that it was “Exactly right” to equate being “anti-mask”—a euphemism inclusive of anyone opposed to mandatory masking of children—with being “anti-science” and “basically pro-virus and anti-child.”
"The politicians who are taking the side of anti-mask, anti-vaccine, anti-science are basically pro-virus and anti-child." @DrTomFrieden to @Acosta@CNN.
Fast forward to March 2020. By this time, Leana Wen had surrendered to the reality that the vaccines do not prevent transmission and that people needed to start getting back to living their lives normally anyway. On March 22, she said on Twitter, “For those who don’t agree that the vaccinated can return to pre-pandemic normal, I ask: What should we all do? Perpetual masking? Forever not dining out, avoiding large weddings & indoor gatherings, etc? Virtually everything has risk, and zero covid is not a viable strategy.”
For those who don’t agree that the vaccinated can return to pre-pandemic normal, I ask: What should we all do? Perpetual masking? Forever not dining out, avoiding large weddings & indoor gatherings, etc? Virtually everything has risk, and zero covid is not a viable strategy.
Now, recall that the CDC had been recommending that people wear cloth or surgical facemasks to protect themselves and others. The CDC had specifically told people not to wear an N95 mask in order to preserve them for health care workers. The CDC only stopped recommending the use of cloth masks in favor of surgical or N95 masks in January 2022.
Leana Wen bluntly alluded to the rationale for this change in a tweet on March 23, stating that “simple cloth masks are little more than facial decorations” and “have no place against extremely contagious variants”. People should “ideally” opt for an N95, instead, she suggested.
Yeah, you wear masks indoors until we're in the clear. It's… get this… a cheap piece of cloth, and it does a great job of keeping us safe.
This was not because “the science” on masks had “changed”. It was what many people were saying from the start. It was what many people on social media were banned for saying, just as many were banned for pointing out that the claims by “public health” officials that the vaccines would provide durable protection and stop transmission were unsupported by scientific evidence. To oppose the CDC’s recommendation for children in school to wear a cloth mask was “anti-science”, “pro-virus”, and “anti-child”, Wen had previously suggested.
Now she was admitting that simple cloth masks do practically nothing to protect the wearer or stop the wearer from spreading the virus to others. Her evolving position on mask use didn’t stop there. She also came around to acknowledging another truth that opponents of the policies she advocated were banned from saying on social media: that forcing children to wear masks can harm them.
On August 23, the Washington Post published an article by Wen under the headline: “I’m a doctor. Here’s why my kids won’t wear masks this school year.”
She stated, “It became clear that the goal I’d hoped for—containment of covid‑19—was not reachable. This coronavirus is here to stay.” Her “benefit-risk calculus” for her own children had changed. “I was willing to limit my children’s activities for a year or two but not for their entire childhood.”
That it was a mistake to singularly focus on avoiding COVID‑19 is precisely what many people censored on social media had been saying when speaking out in opposition to the policies that Leana Wen had previously advocated. It was the central message of The Great Barrington Declaration, whose scientifically credentialed authors experienced censorship for speaking out against the authoritarian lockdowns.
Wen listed a number of ostensible rationalizations for her change of view on the masking of her own children. It was the Omicron variant now, which was more contagious and caused milder illness. Most people, including most children, had already been infected with the coronavirus. Her children were now fully vaccinated.
She continued:
Now that they are full vaccinated, we do not plan to limit their activities, and—like most parents in their school—will not be masking them in the classroom.
I accept the risk that my kids will probably contract covid‑19 this school year, just as they could contract the flu, respiratory syncytial virus and other contagious diseases.
Then she disclosed another reason why she would no longer be forcing her own kids to wear a mask:
Masking has harmed our son’s language development, and limiting both kids’ extracurriculars and social interactions would negatively affect their childhood and hinder my and my husband’s ability to work.
While she had previously dismissed anyone who opposed the policies she advocated as not just “anti-mask” but “anti-science” and “anti-child”, she added: “To be clear, my family’s decision not to mask our kids should not be mislabeled as being antimask; we would never stigmatize other parents and caregivers for the difficult choices they must make.”
That, of course, was a bald-faced lie. She had in fact stigmatized other parents for the difficult choices they must make about what is in the best interests of their children’s health, calling them insulting names and advocating policies specifically to penalize them for making choices that were different from hers.
She closed by saying that her changed approach “reflects the evolution of the pandemic and the acknowledgment that avoiding covid-19 cannot be the singular metric of people’s overall health and well-being.”
That it was a mistake to singularly focus on avoiding COVID‑19 is precisely what many people censored on social media had been saying when speaking out in opposition to the policies that Leana Wen had previously advocated.
Yet here now we have this prominent advocate of mandatory masking of children in schools disclosing that her own child had been harmed from having to wear a mask all the time.
Both of my kids are starting school next week.
Now that they are fully vaccinated, we do not plan to limit their activities.
And — like most parents in their school — we will not be masking them in the classroom.
She disclosed additional details on Twitter. “In my case,” she shared on August 24, “I have the ‘before’ and ‘after’. After my son’s school went mask optional, there was a profound change in speech and social development after he (& nearly all of his class, including his teacher) took off masks.”
(Note that she observed this in reply to a comment criticizing that personal anecdotes do not establish causation, with the specific example cited of the belief of many parents that vaccination is what caused their child’s autism. Wen’s appropriate point about gaslighting equally applies to parents of autistic children who likewise saw the “before” and “after”.)
She added, “Yes, this is anecdote. But it feels like gaslighting when others are telling parents that we don’t know what’s causing problems for our kids, when we have seen it for ourselves. Recognizing that masks COULD have harm for SOME is all that a lot of parents are asking for.”
Thank you for sharing your story. In my case, I have the “before” and “after”. After my son’s school went mask optional, there was a profound change in speech and social development after he (& nearly all of his class, including his teacher) took off masks.
(Following up on the point about autism, note that then CDC Director Julie Gerberding admitted on CNN in 2008 that vaccination can cause encephalopathy manifesting as symptoms of autism. She was referring to the case of a girl named Hannah Poling, who had been developing normally but regressed into diagnosed autism after receiving nine vaccine doses at once at nineteen months of age. The long-time director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, Dr. Frank DeStefano, acknowledged in an interview in 2018 that “it’s a possibility” that vaccines could cause autism in genetically susceptible individuals, but that the problem is it’s “hard to predict who those children might be”, and research designed to identify underlying cofactors that place certain children at greater risk of vaccine injury is “very difficult to do”.)
The same day, former US Surgeon General Jerome Adams took to Twitter to deny that masks can harm children. “I’m saying, after 2 years and millions masked, show me the data that says it delays speech. Because I can’t find it.”
So to be clear, 1) your response to my concern that black people are woefully under vaccinated, which undermines YOUR own argument that we needn’t concern ourselves with adults getting sick because they have access to vaccines, is that that is merely a distraction?!
Of course, it is easy to say that evidence does not exist that forcing masks on children causes harm when policymakers forced masks on children in the absence of studies to determine the benefits versus risks.
In response to Adams, Wen retorted, “Those data don’t exist yet. Neither do data that school mask mandates (especially w/cloth masks), in a time of omicron, saves lives. That’s why where the US has landed—allowing individual choice—is sensible. Allow parents to decide what’s best for their kids, masks on or not.”
And 2) Once again you’re using a well worn arguing tactic here- “but the toddlers!” Most kids aren’t toddlers, and I’m certainly not arguing for masking them. I’m saying, after 2 years and millions masked, show me the data that says it delays speech. Because I can’t find it.
Of course, that forcing children to wear masks could harm some of them was precisely what many people she had previously dismissed as “anti-child” were saying from the start. It is among the concerns that social media companies prohibited people from expressing, citing the policy recommendations that Leana Wen advocated as the basis for their censorship.
To cite YouTube again as an example, the Google-owned video platform had long prohibited “Claims that wearing a mask is dangerous or causes negative physical health effects.” This is among the prohibitions that YouTube has since dropped from its community guidelines.
It is an encouraging sign that an extremist like Dr. Wen can come around to the view that risk-benefit assessments need to be individualized and mask use voluntary, and it is good to see her confronting Jerome Adams for trying to gaslight parents into disbelieving their own experiences and empirical evidence. It is just sad that her son, by her own account, became harmed by the very intervention she had so fervently argued should be forced upon school children.
An apology from Wen to other parents of children harmed by the policies she advocated has not, to my knowledge, been forthcoming. Her son has my sympathies.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Dr. Robert Malone discussed his defamation lawsuit against The Washington Post, why he thinks corporate media is “alarmed” and where he thinks Dr. Anthony Fauci will go after he retires from his government jobs in December.
The Washington Post: Where Democracy Dies in Darkness
Dr. Robert Malone, who helped develop the mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines, is seeking $50.35 million in compensatory and punitive damages from The Washington Post for alleged defamation.
Malone, an outspoken critic of COVID-19 vaccines and countermeasures, on Aug. 19 filed a lawsuit against the newspaper, owned by Jeff Bezos, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.
Malone’s defamation claims arise from a Jan. 24 article by The Washington Post — “A vaccine scientist’s discredited claims have bolstered a movement of misinformation.”
The article, published one day after the “Defeat the Mandates” rally in Washington, D.C., draws on Malone’s speech at the event.
Malone is demanding a jury trial.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Malone discussed the lawsuit, claims made about him by the mass media and also the establishment’s efforts to stifle so-called “conspiracy theories” and “misinformation.”
Malone also discussed developments around Monday’s announcement by Dr. Anthony Fauci that he will retire from his government positions in December.
Post took remarks from Malone’s ‘Defeat the Mandates’ speech ‘out of context’
Malone’s lawsuit describes him as “an internationally recognized scientist/physician and the original inventor of mRNA vaccination as a technology, DNA vaccination, and multiple non-viral DNA and RNA/mRNA platform delivery technologies.”
According to the complaint, he is “the leading contributor to the [mRNA] science exploited by Pfizer and other pharmaceutical corporations to create the alleged ‘vaccines’ for the novel coronavirus.”
The lawsuit alleges, “WaPo falsely accused Dr. Malone of fraud, disinformation, dishonesty, deception, lying to the American public, lack of integrity, immorality and ethical improprieties.”
“The gist of the article is that Dr. Malone is unfit to be a medical doctor and scientist [and] exposed Dr. Malone to public ridicule, scorn, and contempt, and severely prejudiced Dr. Malone in his employment,” the lawsuit states.
Malone told The Defender that while multiple mainstream media outlets have made defamatory statements against him, those published by The Washington Post were particularly egregious, resulting in the lawsuit.
“What we have done together with my attorney is, we went through and identified the most high-profile, egregious defamatory statements in the major press outlets,” said Malone, listing stories published by The New York Times, The Atlantic, Rolling Stone, and The Scientist, in addition to The Washington Post.
Malone sent cease-and-desist letters to the publications, which he said “were representational” of the defamatory claims made against him in the mainstream media.
According to Malone, all five outlets “denied that there was any merit to our defamation and cease-and-desist request, denied “any claims or liability” for anything they published about him and declined to take any action, such as retracting the articles in question or publishing corrections.
Out of these though, the story published by The Washington Post was the most extreme example of defamation, Malone said.
Malone told The Defender:
“In the case of The Washington Post, they had made these statements regarding what I had said on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and then also the usual ‘spreader of misinformation’ [claim].
“They directly used terms like ‘lying’ [and] statements about misinformation. That just made it so that particular case was the most clear and the most compelling. And that’s why we decided to go with that one as the initial case.”
Malone added:
“They never used the term ‘disinformation.’ It’s always ‘misinformation.’ They rarely, if ever, identify what that ‘misinformation’ constitutes … they just throw it out as a characterization.”
According to Malone, The Washington Post took his remarks “out of context” and then “refuted” them “with information that the CDC had recently published on their MMWR [Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report] page, which is not peer-reviewed.”
The newspaper twisted his remarks that “the vaccines are not working,” he said:
“What I clearly, unequivocally said is the vaccines are not working with Omicron. They are not preventing infection, replication and spread of this virus. I said nothing about death and disease, because I knew that was still controversial.
“What The Washington Post did was call me a liar, because the CDC had published just recently … that the vaccines were still effective at reducing death and disease from the virus.”
According to Malone, “There are many videos of the speech, so this can all be played out in court. The speech was very consciously written, knowing that I was likely to be attacked by ‘fact-checkers’ and others,” he said.
The lawsuit states that on June 7, Malone served The Washington Post “with written notice advising WaPo that the Statements in the Article were false and defamatory and demanding that the Statements be retracted and/or corrected and removed from the Internet,” which the newspaper refused to do.
Instead, according to the complaint, The Washington Post “chose to increase Dr. Malone’s damages by republishing the Article,” an action Malone, in his interview with The Defender, characterized as “adding even more fuel to the fire.”
The lawsuit quotes verbatim several specific instances of alleged defamation in The Washington Post article, including:
Malone’s claims have been “discredited” and his views constitute “misinformation.”
“Robert Malone stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial before thousands of anti-vaccine and anti-mandate demonstrators [and] repeated the falsehoods that have garnered him legions of followers.”
“‘Regarding the genetic COVID vaccines, the science is settled,’ [Malone] said in a 15-minute speech … ‘They are not working.’ The misinformation came two days after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released its first studies.”
Malone’s “claims and suggestions have been discredited … as not only wrong, but also dangerous.”
“There is a huge market for misinformation … The way he’s framed in the conspiracy-theory world is that he’s a courageous whistleblower rather than someone who is spreading misinformation — and it’s only enhancing his profile.”
“While Malone is a brilliant scientist who has a tremendous amount of experience and knowledge about vaccines, there is reason to be concerned about how his newfound stardom could be a public health risk.”
“There’s a risk we’re all facing when he’s not accurately representing the information.”
“On [the Joe Rogan Experience], he promoted an unfounded theory called ‘mass-formation psychosis,’ telling Rogan that a ‘third of the population [is] basically being hypnotized’ into believing what the mainstream media and Anthony S. Fauci report on the vaccine.”
“Malone has weaponized bad research.”
“With his increased profile in recent weeks, some are calling on him to take a step back and reflect on the damage his misinformation is causing.”
Based on these statements, the lawsuit argues that “the qualities WaPo disparaged — Dr. Malone’s honesty, veracity, integrity, competence, judgment, morals and ethics as a licensed medical doctor and scientist — are peculiarly valuable to Dr. Malone and are absolutely necessary in the practice and profession of any medical doctor and scientist.”
The lawsuit alleges The Washington Post “ascribes to Dr. Malone conduct, characteristics and conditions, including fraud, disinformation, misinformation, deception and dishonesty, that would adversely affect his fitness to be a medical professional and to conduct the business of a medical doctor.”
In doing so, the lawsuit reads, “WaPo was well-aware of Dr. Malone’s expertise and experience … intentionally ignored Dr. Malone’s credentials and stature, and chose to impugn his standing in the medical and scientific communities.”
Malone said The Washington Post’s intentions were evident to him from the first time they reached out to him, prior to publishing the article. Referring to Timothy Bella, who authored the piece, Malone told The Defender:
“[There was] something about the way this guy was approaching it and the fact that it was The Washington Post. I knew [it] was absolutely not going to be a friendly story.
“And so I said ‘no.’ I was very careful not to say ‘no’ in any way that would prejudice him. But I just said it wasn’t going to be possible.”
Malone referred to a prior experience being contacted by a reporter for The Atlantic before they ran a story about him, an experience that showed him how journalists from such media outlets often attempt to mislead individuals like him when first approaching them for an interview.
According to Malone:
“What they do is, they say. ‘I just want to be your friend and put out your story.’ They may say something to the effect that they acknowledge that I’ve been maligned in prior stories, and then they gain your confidence.
“It’s really a confidence game. We use the term ‘con artists’ … and many of these journalists, in my opinion, that seek to gain one’s confidence in this way really are con artists. That’s how they play it.”
According to Malone, Bella reached out to a colleague of his, who Malone infers is the same individual “that had made a negative comment in the Atlantic piece anonymously.”
The lawsuit addresses this, stating:
“WaPo blindly relied upon and republished statements of ‘sources’ that WaPo knew were unreliable, including sources known to be wildly biased and to have an ax to grind against Dr. Malone and who were intent on ruining his reputation.”
The lawsuit also describes how the newspaper’s president, Stephen Hills, “got in on the calumny” by tweeting, in reference to Malone, that “a vaccine scientist’s discredited claims have bolstered a movement of misinformation.”
You really can’t make this stuff up. Idiocoracy is here. A vaccine scientist’s discredited claims have bolstered a movement of misinformation https://t.co/ANBxv19ZWB
“Readers of the Article and followers of WaPo on Twitter immediately understood the [article’s] statements to convey the intended and endorsed defamatory gist and meaning: that Dr. Malone is a disreputable medical professional, that he should lose his license, that he is dishonest and dangerous, that he spreads lies and misinformation, and that he engages in fraud and disinformation.”
Such claims, “including [the article’s] direct and powerful accusations of ‘fraud’ and medical disinformation,” are considered “fighting words,” which are actionable under Virginia law, the suit argues.
The scope of potential damage to Malone’s reputation is also estimated in the lawsuit, which states that “in addition to publishing the Article in print and on its website, WaPo and its agents conspicuously published the Article to a third target audience — 19,703,612+ Twitter followers.”
In addition, the lawsuit states, “The Article was republished millions of times in Virginia [the state where the suit was filed], including by WaPo and its agents and followers, by Politico and its agents and by many others, most notably Democratic Party operatives.”
WaPo coordinated false narrative with Biden administration, lawsuit alleges
Claims of political motivation on the part of The Washington Post figure prominently in the lawsuit, which alleges:
“WaPo manufactured the story line and coordinated the false narrative with the Biden Administration and its agents and operatives with the specific purpose to target Dr. Malone.
“WaPo did not seek the truth or report it. Rather, WaPo betrayed the truth for the sake of its institutional bias and desire to support the political operations and machinations of the Biden Administration.”
In his interview, Malone highlighted the significance of this particular aspect of the lawsuit. He said:
“If this [lawsuit] is allowed to proceed … what we’re likely to see come out of discovery is further granularity about the interaction between The Washington Post and, by extension, a number of other corporate media outlets that are very aligned with the current administration and [its] political interests.
“If one can establish that these corporate media outlets were operating with directions and, in some cases, capitalization by the federal government, then we meet the criteria for those organizations acting as a surrogate for the federal government and … suppressing free speech on behalf of the government.”
This would carry constitutional implications, according to Malone:
“The federal government … cannot circumvent freedom of speech, First Amendment restrictions, by employing surrogates such as [the] corporate press or Big Tech.
“What we observe is the remarkable alignment over time between the positions taken particularly by the Biden administration, but also going back to the Trump administration.
“So it transcends left and right. This is not a left versus right issue. This is an administrative state issue.”
It’s also a part of a broader pattern, according to the lawsuit, which refers to “the sheer number and nature of the hit pieces published by WaPo since 2020.”
According to the complaint, “WaPo and its agents harbor an institutional hostility, hatred, extreme bias, spite and ill-will towards Dr. Malone and other medical professionals … who speak the inconvenient truth about COVID-19 and the so-called ‘vaccines.’”
Doubling down on its claims, The Washington Post reprinted aspects of the story on several occasions, according to the lawsuit, including on July 30, in an article that “falsely repeated that Dr. Malone ‘spread discredited information about coronavirus vaccines.’”
According to Malone, such republication — especially once a cease-and-desist letter has been served to the publication — “constitutes clear evidence of malice.”
Lawsuit: WaPo ‘acted with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth’
Malone’s lawsuit seeks $50 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages, recovery of legal costs, and prejudgment and postjudgment interest of 6% per annum beginning on Jan. 24, the date the article was published.
In seeking these damages, the lawsuit alleges The Washington Post “published the Statements with actual or constructive knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard for whether they were false,” adding the newspaper “acted with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth.”
The lawsuit further claims Malone suffered “injury to reputation (past and future), insult, pain and mental suffering (past and future),” in addition to “special damages, including lost income, career damage and impairment of future earnings capacity.”
Career damage includes “los[t] business and income, lost public appearances due to perceived reputational risk … and impact upon [Malone’s] prospects for career advancement.”
Malone told The Defender that The Washington Post article “is often cited by physicians when presented with data from their patients about the risks of the [COVID] vaccine, and comments where patients are asking their physicians to just listen to what Dr. Malone has been saying.”
“What they get back,” according to Malone, are claims that “Dr. Malone spreads misinformation, according to The Washington Post.”
As a result, Malone said, “The Washington Post article succeeded … in its intention, which was to delegitimize [me], at least for those that are wrapped up in this kind of groupthink world … to not have to account for the information that I have been sharing over the last year and a half.”
The lawsuit also cited defamatory postings made by Twitter users in response to The Washington Post article, claiming among other things that “Malone is an anti-vaxx disinfo diva” and calling for medical professionals like Malone to “start losing licenses.”
According to the lawsuit, “Read as a whole, the Statements represent an egregious attack on Dr. Malone’s character, experience, standing in the medical community, and the truth.
The lawsuit argues that “Dr. Malone’s mission is to ensure vaccine safety [and] his goal is to save lives,” and that he “discovered short-cuts, database issues, obfuscation and, frankly, lies told in the development of” the COVID-19 vaccines.
Malone said if he prevails, society stands to benefit more than he will personally:
“Am I ever going to have my reputation corrected by prevailing in a lawsuit against The Washington Post? It would be minor. I think the proper term is ‘Pyrrhic victory.’
“But in terms of the broader implications for our government and the American experiment, establishing that it’s not acceptable for the government to employ its intelligence agencies or surrogates in the media to suppress information … would be a huge step forward for the right of free speech for individuals and super important as we move into this new media environment where things are not centralized … and where alternative voices are going to become among the most important information streams.”
Corporate media ‘alarmed’ by loss of control over messaging
In his interview, Malone remarked on recent efforts by the United Nations and the World Economic Forum (WEF), and also social media platforms, to further restrict and police “conspiracy theories” and alleged “misinformation,” predicting that alternative voices will find themselves in a stronger position of prominence “in the next couple of years.”
He told The Defender:
“We are now moving into a time where there is a great hunger for accountability.
“I think the big underlying message here, as we look forward over the next two years, is going to be the slow erosion of the power of corporate, centralized corporate media and the emergence of a much more balkanized media landscape in which users select the information streams that they wish to subscribe to.
“It will be increasingly difficult to control the narrative in the way that it’s been done in the past because of this balkanization.”
Major institutions and media outlets are increasingly alarmed by this, according to Malone:
“I think that what we are not seeing [on the part of major media outlets and institutions] is a reaction to loss of message control.
“Damage to the WEF is damage to [French President] Emmanuel Macron, damage to [Canadian Prime Minister] Justin Trudeau and the prime minister of New Zealand and the leadership in Australia. So all of that has to be controlled and they have to recapture control of the storyline.
“You’re seeing a more global effort to recapture control of the messaging and the storyline by these global players that have been partially damaged.”
Malone highlighted the role of major investment funds like Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street, which due to their significant ownership stakes in multiple companies across many industries — ranging from the media to banks to pharmaceuticals — leads to a situation where they “all function as one company” due to their “common ownership.”
Citing an example of such attempted control of the narrative, Malone argued that Google’s search algorithms have recently altered the results of searches containing the term “mass formation psychosis,” which he famously expressed during his interview with Rogan.
Malone said the Rogan interview is itself now “very hard to find, even though it’s probably got well over 100 million views … you can’t find it on Google.”
He described such actions as “a concerted effort to deny the validity” of the “mass formation psychosis” hypothesis, and of himself and other scholars who have promoted it, including researcher Mattias Desmet.
Malone cited recent attacks against professor of health policy Dr. Leana Wen, a CNN analyst who, ironically, is also a frequent Washington Post contributor.
Wen, who previously supported stringent COVID-19 countermeasures and vaccine mandates, has come under fire from her peers for now supporting a more moderate approach.
Fauci resigning early to avoid ‘witch hunt’?
Malone also addressed Fauci’s announcement Monday that he will step down from his position in December, rather than at the end of the Biden administration, as he had previously claimed.
Malone suggested that with the high likelihood that the House of Representatives, in particular, may flip to Republican control following the midterm elections, there is a strong chance there will be “significant investigations in the House come January.”
According to Malone, “The common explanation is that Fauci got out of the job now so that he could avoid being called to testify by the new Congress in January.”
But Malone dismissed these claims. “He’s going to be called no matter what,” he said.
Instead, by announcing a December departure, Fauci seeks to achieve two benefits, according to Malone. One possible benefit is that his departure will help the Democrats, because “the polling [likely] shows that Tony Fauci is a major problem for the Democratic Party heading into the midterms.”
The other potential benefit, Malone said, is that “it will give him the opportunity to select his successor and get that successor confirmed prior to the new House and Senate being convened.”
A departure at that point could allow Fauci to entirely avoid providing Congressional testimony, according to Malone.
“I suspect he steps up,” Malone said, “The pathway is the World Health Organization, a senior position at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, or CEPI [the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations].” “These are the pathways” followed by former public health officials from the U.S. and other countries, he said.
What this would mean, Malone told The Defender, is that Fauci “might well resist U.S. Congressional subpoenas for his testimony on the grounds that he’s doing very important work on the world stage now and that he has no time to waste on Republican ‘witch hunts,’ or some sort of messaging like that.”
After the Crash 