The Pledge of Allegiance

This post is not political. I mean, it’s not about supporting one political party or another. 

The pledge of allegiance is recited by every child in the United States of America, every day at school. Each morning over the school’s public address system, a student leads the day’s pledge of allegiance:

I pledge allegiance

to the flag

of the United States of America,

and to the Republic,

for which it stands,

one nation, 

under God,


with liberty,

and justice,

for all 

As mentioned, recited every day, in every classroom, in every school, by each student:

“…standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart” 

“Under God” was inserted in 1954, into the version adopted as standard in 1942. There is some controversy about a religious insertion into the pledge, but that’s not the point of this post. Other than the line “under God”, the pledge, of allegiance is not controversial in the United States. It’s opposed by almost no one. Politically, among voters for Democrats and voters for Republicans the pledge is made without objection, or let us say, without “hesitancy”. There is no correlation between political party affiliation and pledge hesitancy (or objection).

Of course, having just written that, it’s clear that what was true in my experience as a kid in the 70s and 80s, may be in fact less true now. Dis-unity is ever more present now. Interest in and acceptance of the other declines, and in increasingly extreme form: tolerance of the existence of the other seems to approach a lower limit (zero). 

Perhaps this is a function of mass media, or the changes in it over time. It no longer resembles what I read, and watched, in former decades. The entire operational model of mass media today, is predicated on disunity. The entire framework of journalism 

-- or, of "journalisming", as coined (apparently) by Matt Taibbi on June 3, 2021, here: -- 

is predicated (yes) only on political team affiliation.

Politics today is not, …it has nothing to do with principles, ideas, structures, nor argument between competing ideas and structures, in a mutual search either for compromise, or better, for synthesis and transformation of ideas. Synthesis comes from shared and challenged arguments, and from reflection that follows that generates improved ideas and structure. 

This is possible where competitors share an interest either in what’s true, or in better representations (true is not enough; things need to be both true, and well representative of reality). Something like that. It’s what we sort of grew up believing in.

It’s hard to recognize anything like that today. Instead we’re served something that looks a lot more like fandom:

I'm a Dallas Cowboys fan. So any time the New York Giants move the football, that's bad for me. There is no value (for me) in anything the New York Giants do. And vice versa for Giants fans: everything good for the Cowboys is bad for the Giants.  

That’s the logic of sport. And of “journalisming” (the link is to the same Matt Taibbi article).

Politics? Not so much.

C o v i d 

I’m from the US and lived there 50 years. I live in Sweden now. Not for “political” reasons. People I know in Sweden are taking Covid injections. Increasingly, more and more. No doubt, they all have good intentions. They believe they’re doing it to protect their own health and the health of others. 

Let me get straight to the point: I have a doubt about the facts. Not about closely held beliefs and individual good intentions. I have a doubt about the facts.

Personally I’ve been interested since about 1980 in the use of language in media, the rhetoric — “the messaging”, as Bill Gates refers to it often, throughout 2020/2021 — of Covid. I’ve watched media performances most of my life by habit, a habit I formed early, of reading every word on every page of the daily newspaper and the national news magazines (as a kid we had subscriptions to 4 of them always), and watching countless hours of tv news commentary, together with continuous doses of public radio, in the US.

The message is: 

they really want you to get these injections

Who’s “they”?


Covid restrictions have been mild compared to much of the rest of the world. There has been no mask mandate the entire time. Only starting in December 2020 masks were “suggested”, only on trains, and only during morning and evening busy hours (commute times). Schools never closed. Shops and restaurants have been open the whole time. Some tables are taped over to reduce seating. For the most part, if you don’t watch Swedish TV, or listen to people who do, you can imagine that nothing is happening. Almost.

What about the data?

Just facts. Data from official source (scb), Table by Tommy Lennhamn:

Sweden, ranking deadliest years since 2002, mortality in 10 year age bins:

1 is deadliest. 19 is least deadly

2020 seems not the right year for raising alarm. It’s at or near least deadliest year in 7 out of 10 age bins, and on the sunny side of the half way point in 2 out of 10 age bins. It’s deadly in only one bin (age 90+).

While some say,

OK, but we should do everything we can.

others say:

So you’re saying you want the elderly to die?!

Well, um, no. But I am saying:

I don’t believe there is, or ever will be, a vaccine that makes the elderly immortal.

I’m also saying that I have a question: 

if we should all be “locked down”, masked, and injected with pharmaceutical products because of extraordinary respiratory disease in 2020, then in which years, past and future, should we notbe “locked down”, masked, and injected with pharmaceutical products?

Another way of looking at this question for Sweden is a look at mortality rate for Sweden, each year since 1900:

The graph above shows mortality rate in Sweden, yearly since 1900. Data is from Comprehensive data analysis is done by Tommy Lennhamn, in his post, here.

I drew a red line across the graph at the level of 2020’s mortality rate. As you can see, 114 of the previous 120 years are above the red line (deadlier). 2020 was the 7th least deadly year in the last 120 years. 

That being the case:

should we have been locked down and vaccinated for respiratory illness in 114 of the last 120 years?

What will the next 120 years look like? If everyone gets vaccinated for respiratory illness in 2021, will mortality drop below the 2020 rate?

There is something else. Look at 2019. 

2019 was the least deadly year in Sweden since 1900, and likely the least deadly in the entire history of Sweden. Combine that fact with the deadliness yearly rankings in the first table above. Here I excerpt 2019 and 2020:

19 = least deadly. Unusually few people died in 2019, in 9 out of 10 10-year-age-bins. Only the 90+ age bin is noteworthy in 2020, with a “2” (second deadliest year since 2002. 2002 was worse, so rank 1)

One may reasonably infer that among the oldest Swedes, those who in more normal years (see the tables above) would have died in 2019, instead had their lives extended into 2020, and then died there. The logic involves the obvious fact that humans are not immortal. And that people already older than average life expectancy are more likely to die the older they get, as is the case following a year (2019) in which elderly mortality in Sweden was very low.

Lennhamn analyzes this and other factors in his post.

You say: “eliminate COVID anyway”

Sounds like a nice idea. But is it? Let’s ask first,

Is it meaningful? Does it mean anything? Does it mean what we think it means?

“Eliminate Covid” may not mean what you think it means.

…considering that influenza-like illnesses have always had myriad < causes—rhinoviruses, influenza viruses, other coronaviruses, adenoviruses, respiratory syncytial virus, etc.—

Then, will elimination of any single cause (Sars Cov2):

  • eliminate respiratory illness? (no),
  • extend the lives of very elderly people near end of life? (no)
  • reduce the mortality rate in the population? (no)

“Eliminate Covid” may mean something else

The global plan announced by Bill Gates: 

1. testing 20% of the world population every week continuously. 

2. Detecting outbreaks early 

3. Response via “pandemic fire squads

4. Very rapid (2 days?) development of new vaccine in response to (2), made possible by mRNA technology

5. Global roll out of new vaccine, before the outbreak becomes pandemic

The whole world will be tested every 5 weeks. So:

  • new outbreak detected,
  • pandemic fire squad dispatched, numerous times every year,
  • rapid Vx developed and
  • injected into everyone multiple times a year, BEFORE detected outbreaks (2) become pandemic, and
  • this is a strategy that conforms with “the best science”.

Note of course that nearly 100% of these “future pandemics prevented by new Vx” are completely imaginary. 


Can You See What You Look Like?

Another gem from Matt Taibi:

This made me laugh. Out loud. With pleasure. Then revulsion. Then something else. I don’t know what.

The article makes me want to point at people and laugh at them, but immediately realize I’m laughing at people who are:

  • mentally retarded,
  • self-righteous/arrogant, and
  • insane
  • and…

How to react to this is unclear. The right response, unknown. It’s OK to be mentally retarded. But mentally retarded AND self righteous AND believing yourself genius AND superior AND “making the world a better place” while annihilating humanity entirely, yeah I don’t know how to react to that.

I can only recommend everyone read it. Maybe some can see themselves. Maybe some will recognize monstrosity. Maybe some will think, again.

Other commentary:

You voted to get rid of “literal Satan Devil Hitler Putin, racist fascist, misogynist”, so you voted for the arch racist uber fascist who does THIS:

The policies are THE SAME:

And you made this life long hack criminal fraud your Saint/Idol, but now what?


Lab Leak Reversal

Interesting article here in so far as it calls for awareness of the effects of blind obedience to official narrative up to and including refusal to even look at evidence, refusal to investigate. What we have in this reversal —

  • the lab leak is impossible, “conspiracy theory”
  • the lab leak may be possible (17 months later)

— is exposure to the corruption of science, journalism, politics, and more. The institutional facade is ripped away. From the outside we are to believe that the core institutions of our society are established on sound footing. For example, things like:

  • meritocracy
    • hard work pays off
    • unbiased search for truth is rewarded
    • in a “marketplace of ideas” the best ideas win
  • no undue influence
    • puppet masters are not pulling the strings from behind a curtain

A lot of people are born yesterday, and believe nonsense like this without a shred of doubt. Other see things more realistically. These principles that have been the framework of their worldview for as long as they can remember deteriorate as the tsunami of toxic reality becomes impossible to ignore.

The Unherd article above hints at these implications but diverts us from any kind of reflection, and instead substitutes China bashing. Which is as easy as ever for western readers to do. It seems instinctive.

However, there are other articles that point in a more reflective direction. I copy one in its entirety here:

Was There a Wuhan Lab Leak? An Inquiry Won’t Dig Out the Truth. It Will Deepen the Deception

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.


A year ago, the idea that Covid-19 leaked from a lab in Wuhan – a short distance from the wet market that is usually claimed to be the source of the virus – was dismissed as a crackpot theory, supported only by Donald Trump, QAnon and hawks on the right looking to escalate tensions dangerously with China. 

Now, after what has been effectively a year-long blackout of the lab-leak theory by the corporate media and the scientific establishment, President Joe Bidenhas announced an investigation to assess its credibility. And as a consequence, what was treated until a few weeks ago as an unhinged, rightwing conspiracy is suddenly being widely aired and seriously considered by liberals.

Every media outlet is running prominent stories wondering whether a pandemic that has killed so many people and destroyed the lives of so many more can be blamed on human hubris and meddling rather than on a natural cause.

For many years, scientists at labs like Wuhan’s have conducted Frankenstein-type experiments on viruses. They have modified naturally occurring infective agents – often found in animals such as bats – to try to predict the worst-case scenarios for how viruses, especially coronaviruses, might evolve. The claimed purpose has been to ensure humankind gets a head start on any new pandemic, preparing strategies and vaccines in advance to cope.

Viruses are known to have escaped from labs like Wuhan’s many times before. And there are now reports, rejected by China, that several staff at Wuhan got sick in late 2019, shortly before Covid-19 exploded on to the world stage. Did a human-manipulated novel coronavirus escape from the lab and spread around the world?

No interest in truth

Here we get to the tricky bit. Because nobody in a position to answer that question appears to have any interest in finding out the truth – or at least, they have no interest in the rest of us learning the truth. Not China. Not US policy-makers. Not the World Health Organisation. And not the corporate media.

The only thing we can state with certainty is this: our understanding of the origins of Covid has been narratively managed over the past 15 months and is still being narratively managed. We are being told only what suits powerful political, scientific and commercial interests.

We now know that we were misdirected a year ago into believing that a lab leak was either fanciful nonsense or evidence of Sinophobia – when it was very obviously neither. And we should understand now, even though the story has switched 180 degrees, that we are still being misdirected. Nothing that the US administration or the corporate media have told us, or are now telling us, about the origins of the virus can be trusted.

No one in power truly wants to get to the bottom of this story. In fact, quite the reverse. Were we to truly understand its implications, this story might have the potential not only to hugely discredit western political, media and scientific elites but even to challenge the whole ideological basis on which their power rests.

Which is why what we are seeing is not an effort to grapple with the truth of the past year, but a desperate bid by those same elites to continue controlling our understanding of it. Western publics are being subjected to a continuous psy-op by their own officials.

Virus experiments 

Last year, the safest story for the western political and scientific establishments to promote was the idea that a wild animal like a bat introduced Covid-19 to the human population. In other words, no one was to blame. The alternative was to hold China responsible for a lab leak, as Trump tried to do.

But there was a very good reason why most US policy-makers did not want to go down that latter path. And it had little to do with a concern either to refrain from conspiracy theories or to avoid provoking unnecessary tension with a nuclear-armed China.

Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times science writer, set out in May, in an in-depth investigation, why the case for a lab leak was scientifically strong, citing some of the world’s leading virologists.

But Wade also highlighted a much deeper problem for US elites: just before the first outbreak of Covid, the Wuhan lab was, it seems, cooperating with the US scientific establishment and WHO officials on its virus experiments – what is known, in scientific parlance, as “gain-of-function” research.

Gain-of-function experiments had been paused during the second Obama administration, precisely because of concerns about the danger of a human-engineered virus mutation escaping and creating a pandemic. But under Trump, US officials restarted the programme and were reportedly funding work at the Wuhan lab through a US-based medical organisation called the EcoHealth Alliance.

The US official who pushed this agenda hardest is reported to have been Dr Anthony Fauci – yes, the US President’s chief medical adviser and the official widely credited with curbing Trump’s reckless approach to the pandemic. If the lab leak theory is right, the pandemic’s saviour in the US might actually have been one of its chief instigators.

And to top it off, senior officials at the WHO have been implicated too, for being closely involved with gain-of-function research through groups like EcoHealth.

Colluding in deceit 

This seems to be the real reason why the lab-leak theory was quashed so aggressively last year by western political, medical and media establishments without any effort to seriously assess the claims or investigate them. Not out of any sense of obligation towards the truth or concern about racist incitement against the Chinese. It was done out of naked self-interest.

If anyone doubts that, consider this: the WHO appointed Peter Daszak, the president of the EcoHealth Alliance, the very group that reportedly funded gain-of-function research at Wuhan on behalf of the US, to investigate the lab-leak theory and effectively become the WHO’s spokesman on the matter. To say that Daszak had a conflict of interest is to massively understate the problem.

He, of course, has loudly discounted any possibility of a leak and, perhaps not surprisingly, continues to direct the media’s attention to Wuhan’s wet market.

The extent to which major media are not only negligently failing to cover the story with any seriousness but are also actively continuing to collude in deceiving their audiences – and sweeping these egregious conflicts of interest under the carpet – is illustrated by this article published by the BBC at the weekend.

The BBC ostensibly weighs the two possible narratives about Covid’s origins. But it mentions none of Wade’s explosive findings, including the potential US role in funding gain-of-function research at Wuhan. Both Fauci and Daszak are cited as trusted and dispassionate commentators rather than as figures who have the most to lose from a serious investigation into what happened at the Wuhan lab. 

Given this context, the events of the past 15 months look much more like a pre-emptive cover-up: a desire to stop the truth from ever emerging because, if a lab leak did occur, it would threaten the credibility of the very structures of authority on which the power of western elites rests.

Media blackout 

So why, after the strenuously enforced blackout of the past year, are Biden, the corporate media and the scientific establishment suddenly going public with the possibility of a China lab leak?

The answer to that seems clear: because Nicholas Wade’s article, in particular, blew open the doors that had been kept tightly shut on the lab-leak hypothesis. Scientists who had formerly feared being associated with Trump or a “conspiracy theory” have belatedly spoken up. The cat is out of the bag.

Or as the Financial Times reported of the new official narrative, “the driving factor was a shift among scientists who had been wary of helping Trump before the election or angering influential scientists who had dismissed the theory”.

The journal Science recently upped the stakes by publishing a letter from 18 prominent scientists stating that the lab-leak and animal-origin theories were equally “viable” and that the WHO’s earlier investigation had not given “balanced consideration” to both – a polite way of suggesting that the WHO investigation was a fix.

And so we are now being subjected by the Biden administration to Plan B: damage limitation. The US President, the medical establishment and the corporate media are raising the possibility of a Wuhan lab leak, but are excluding all the evidence unearthed by Wade and others that would implicate Fauci and the US policy elite in such a leak, if it occurred. (Meanwhile, Fauci and his supporters have been preemptively muddying the waters by trying to redefine what constitutes gain-of-function.)

The growing clamour on social media, much of it provoked by Wade’s research, is one of the main reasons Biden and the media are being forced to address the lab-leak theory, having previously discounted it. And yet Wade’s revelations of US and WHO involvement in gain-of-function research, and of potential complicity in a lab leak and a subsequent cover-up are missing from almost all corporate media reporting.

Evasion tactic 

Biden’s so-called investigation is intended to be cynically evasive. It makes the administration look serious about getting to the truth when it is nothing of the sort. It eases pressure on the corporate media that might otherwise be expected to dig out the truth themselves. The narrow focus on the lab leak theory displaces the wider story of potential US and WHO complicity in such a leak and overshadows efforts by outside critics to highlight that very point. And the inevitable delay while the investigation is carried out readily exploits Covid news fatigue as western publics start to emerge from under the pandemic’s shadow.

The Biden administration will hope the public’s interest rapidly wanes on this story so that the corporate media can let it drop off their radar. In any case, the investigation’s findings will most likely be inconclusive, to avoid a war of duelling narratives with China.

But even if the investigation is forced to point the finger at the Chinese, the Biden administration knows that the western corporate media will loyally report its accusations against China as fact – just as they loyally blacked out any consideration of a lab leak until they were forced to do so over the past few days.

Illusion of truth 

The Wuhan story provides a chance to understand more deeply how elites wield their narrative power over us – to control what we think, or are even capable of thinking. They can twist any narrative to their advantage.

In the calculations of western elites, the truth is largely irrelevant. What is of utmost importance is maintaining the illusion of truth. It is vital to keep us believing that our leaders rule in our best interests; that the western system – despite all its flaws – is the best possible one for arranging our political and economic lives; and that we are on a steady, if sometimes rocky, path towards progress.

The job of sustaining the illusion of truth falls to the corporate media. It will be their role now to expose us to a potentially lengthy, certainly lively – but carefully ring-fenced and ultimately inconclusive – debate about whether Covid emerged naturally or leaked from the Wuhan lab.

The media’s task is to manage smoothly the transition from last year’s unquestionable certainty – that the pandemic had an animal origin – to a more hesitant, confusing picture that includes the possibility of a human, but very much Chinese, role in the virus’ emergence. It is to ensure we do not feel any cognitive dissonance as a theory we were assured was impossible by the experts only weeks ago suddenly becomes only too possible, even though nothing has materially changed in the meantime.

What is essential for the political, media and scientific establishments is that we do not ponder deeper questions:

  • How is it that the supposedly sceptical, disputatious, raucous media once again spoke mostly with a single and uncritical voice on such a vitally important matter – in this case, for more than a year on the origins of Covid?
  • Why was that media consensus broken not by a large, well-resourced media organisation, but by a lone, former science writer  working independently and publishing in a relatively obscure science magazine? 
  • Why did the many leading scientists who are now ready to question the imposed narrative of Covid’s animal origin remain silent for so long about the apparently equally credible hypothesis of a lab leak? 
  • And most importantly, why should we believe that the political, media and scientific establishments have on this occasion any interest in telling us the truth, or in ensuring our welfare, after they have been shown to have repeatedly lied or stayed silent on even graver matters and over much longer periods, such as about the various ecological catastrophes that have been looming since the 1950s? 

Class interests

Those questions, let alone the answers, will be avoided by anyone who needs to believe that our rulers are competent and moral and that they pursue the public good rather than their own individual, narrow, selfish interests – or those of their class or professional group.

Scientists defer slavishly to the scientific establishment because that same establishment oversees a system in which scientists are rewarded with research funding, employment opportunities and promotions. And because scientists have little incentive to question or expose their own professional community’s failings, or increase public scepticism towards science and scientists.

Similarly, journalists work for a handful of billionaire-owned media corporations that want to maintain the public’s faith in the “benevolence” of the power structures that reward billionaires for their supposed genius and ability to improve the lives of the rest of us. The corporate media has no interest in encouraging the public to question whether it can really operate as a neutral conduit that channels information to ordinary people rather than preserves a status quo that benefits a tiny wealth-elite.

And politicians have every reason to continue to persuade us that they represent our interests rather than the billionaire donors whose corporations and media outlets can so easily destroy their careers.

What we are dealing with here is a set of professional classes doing everything in their power to preserve their own interests and the interests of the system that rewards them. And that requires strenuous efforts on their part to make sure we do not understand that policy is driven chiefly by greed and a craving for status, not by the common good or by a concern for truth and transparency.

Which is why no meaningful lessons will be learnt about what really happened in Wuhan. Maintaining the illusion of truth will continue to take precedence over uncovering the truth. And for that reason we are doomed to keep making the same screw-ups. As the next pandemic will doubtless attest.

[end of copied article]

And indeed, others have pointed out, there is more to the story, and it’s a story with a long history. Listen to this interview for an introductory discussion of the history of the NIH and Anthony Fauci’s employment there since 1968:

The first 5 minutes are (annoying) noisy sonic chaos and advertisements, but starting at 4:10 the rest is essential discussion. Among the insights discussed, a question is raised:

What do Freddie Mercury, Rudolf Nureyev, and Arthur Ashe have in common?

And the answer is Anthony Fauci. Listen, to learn more than the obvious context. Likewise, learn of Anthony Fauci’s connection to (Los Angeles Lakers’) Magic Johnson.

Then follow the continuity, from Fauci’s 4 decades long management of NIH and his consequent authority over scientific research funding, to today’s drugs consumption enforcement regime (lockdowns, vaccine passports, etc.), to renewed and enormously expanded use of protease inhibitors:

And for further background on this, watch this essential interview from 1996 with Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR.

Kary Mullis full interview 

For another look at our new idols (Fauci et al). Here’s some help. 

Kary Mullis full interview, 1996. Parallels to today are disturbing. Same players too. Same playbook. Larger scope.

Science sometimes overcomes institutional control. Perhaps the science done by  Byram W Bridle is a good example. He’s interviewed here: (a short interview that must be heard by anyone considering allowing themselves to be injected with Covid vaccines)  

In earlier work, Bridle cites:

“Suspected covid-19”

All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”

With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29% (see footnote).

If many or most of these suspected cases were in people who had a false negative PCR test result, this would dramatically decrease vaccine efficacy. But considering that influenza-like illnesses have always had myriad < causes—rhinoviruses, influenza viruses, other coronaviruses, adenoviruses, respiratory syncytial virus, etc.—some or many of the suspected covid-19 cases may be due to a different causative agent.

But why should etiology matter? If those experiencing “suspected covid-19” had essentially the same clinical course as confirmed covid-19, then “suspected plus confirmed covid-19” may be a more clinically meaningful endpoint than just confirmed covid-19.

However, if confirmed covid-19 is on average more severe than suspected covid-19, we must still keep in mind that at the end of the day, it is not average clinical severity that matters, it’s the incidence of severe disease that affects hospital admissions. With 20 times more suspected covid-19 than confirmed covid-19, and trials not designed to assess whether the vaccines can interrupt viral transmission, an analysis of severe disease irrespective of etiologic agent—namely, rates of hospitalizations, ICU cases, and deaths amongst trial participants—seems warranted, and is the only way to assess the vaccines’ real ability to take the edge off the pandemic.

There is a clear need for data to answer these questions, but Pfizer’s 92-page report didn’t mention the 3410 “suspected covid-19” cases. Nor did its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nor did any of the reports on Moderna’s vaccine. The only source that appears to have reported it is FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine.

It continues after that.

On a related topic, changes to cause of death standards documented here:, I’m curious to learn how the mechanism works. How are these changes to protocol ordered and followed throughout medical institutions? Do doctors and hospitals take orders from WHO regarding changes to decades long standards in cause of death reporting, and just salute, say yes sir, and do it?

Funny how on cause of death certificates they include anything that “looks like” COVID. But in their famous 8/162 “proof” = 95% they purposely excluded 3,410 cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID 19, according to

Is there anything in the Covid narrative and policy apparatus that’s not completely fraudulent? Not malevolent?

What happens when review of actual data shows the apparent reality that:

In summary, based on existing published numbers, it looks like we need to vaccinate 434,000 people to stop one corona fatality, with the downside that it may cause 12 jab-related deaths and 502 serious adverse effects — if the past trends hold.

And what happens when rational data analysis shows that the virus, whether it leaked from a lab or not, turned out (luckily) to be not deadlier than normal mortality (thanks apparently to the robustness of human immunity):

For comprehensive analysis of Swedish mortality data, see:


8.3 Meters 

^^^^^^ …think about the INSANITY of injecting the entire population for that yellow line (most of whom were over 80).

Criminally insane, those who are pushing this. And those who are following it are magical thinkers who believe their magical injection will make sick 80 year olds immortal.

Recent articles/commentary:

This is the guy interviewed on the Alex Pierson show 

Byram-W-Bridle. He works here, runs a research lab. He lists his funding, also some honors.

He wrote this  in February 2021:

3. Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines

There were public declarations of greater than 90 per cent effectiveness for the Moderna and Pfizer  vaccines. Unfortunately, Pfizer did not publicly disclose the fact that there were large numbers of suspected, but unconfirmed cases of COVID-19 that were excluded from their calculation of efficacy. This was revealed in a summary report issued by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Re-analysis of the data with this new information accounted for was performed by the associate editor of the British Medical Journal, who reported his non-peer-reviewed findings in the journal’s opinion column. His estimate suggests the true effectiveness of the vaccine might be as low as 19 to 29 per cent This can’t be confirmed or refuted until raw data not included in the FDA report are released.

So, in addition to the huge difference previously discussed ( ) between RRR (95%) and ARR (0.84%), there is this, that the RRR is more likely 19% to 29%

“Suspected covid-19”

All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”

With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% (see footnote)—far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer’s vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29% (see footnote).

If many or most of these suspected cases were in people who had a false negative PCR test result, this would dramatically decrease vaccine efficacy. But considering that influenza-like illnesses have always had myriad < causes—rhinoviruses, influenza viruses, other coronaviruses, adenoviruses, respiratory syncytial virus, etc.—some or many of the suspected covid-19 cases may be due to a different causative agent.

But why should etiology matter? If those experiencing “suspected covid-19” had essentially the same clinical course as confirmed covid-19, then “suspected plus confirmed covid-19” may be a more clinically meaningful endpoint than just confirmed covid-19.

However, if confirmed covid-19 is on average more severe than suspected covid-19, we must still keep in mind that at the end of the day, it is not average clinical severity that matters, it’s the incidence of severe disease that affects hospital admissions. With 20 times more suspected covid-19 than confirmed covid-19, and trials not designed to assess whether the vaccines can interrupt viral transmission, an analysis of severe disease irrespective of etiologic agent—namely, rates of hospitalizations, ICU cases, and deaths amongst trial participants—seems warranted, and is the only way to assess the vaccines’ real ability to take the edge off the pandemic.

There is a clear need for data to answer these questions, but Pfizer’s 92-page report didn’t mention the 3410 “suspected covid-19” cases. Nor did its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nor did any of the reports on Moderna’s vaccine. The only source that appears to have reported it is FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine.

It continues after that.

These are the people behind the hysteria/propaganda and the vaccine. Here you can see clearly the KIND of people they are:

This was evident from the beginning given the tenor of the narrative (maniacal, senseless, domineering)

Disbelief (that we’re ruled by psychopathic maniacs) is normal, particularly for young people. Their faculties are still developing through experience. The problem is that young people today are developing their awareness right at the worst moment of authoritarian malfeasance in the entire history of human civilization, obscured by the most maniacal mass media ever seen.

The original rhetoric they used on day one signaled very clearly the absolute worst possible intentions.

Older, from 1996: 

For another look at our new idols (Fauci et al). Here’s some help. 

Kary Mullis full interview, 1996. Parallels to today are disturbing. Same players too. Same playbook. Larger scope.


Be Careful What You Wish For

I want a plague-ending potion.

But there is no plague. The data shows it. Death rate is normal for the current times, and in fact, near all time historic lows.

However, the wish persists:

“I want a plague-ending potion”.

We need to break this down then. Let’s examine the wish. It’s a simple formulation:

“I want…” << This is clear. The one expressing it, wants (same as: wishes)

“a plague-ending potion”. << what is wanted is also clear. But context matters. In the context of a plague, the wish is reasonable. The reasonable faculty would want this. Should want it. One can say with justification that wanting it is good. Good intentions are applied, in appropriate context. And may be applied well.

But what about wanting this in the absence of plague?

Be careful what you wish for.

Given that today’s mass media is weaponized to annihilate reasoning capacity, and to erase human knowledge, one wonders if anyone these days has even heard the phrase, passed on generation to generation for 2500 years, but dropping off the face of the earth sometime around 2001-ish? (Aesop: “Be Careful What you Wish For…”)

Wishing for plague-ending potion during a time of very low mortality rate (near historic low in fact), and highest ever age of life expectancy, is a wish that includes within it EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS: a wish for plague.

Stimulated by media-driven psychosis, the wish for plague-ending potion where there is no plague, demands plague as prerequisite for wish fulfillment. So we observe the character of today’s do-gooders.

You see them screeching in response to The Great Barrington Declaration (a mild document):

Do you know what they want? They want the virus to rip through the population killing everyone!

So what is contained within such an idea? A world without viruses. This is precisely like screeching:

You know what they want? They want the sun to rise. Every day!

What kind of horrible people would declare that they want the sun to rise every day? Or that the world should continue viral transmission, as it does. No. Today, these are called maniacs. “Reasonable” people oppose.

Then we come to this:

The first argument he makes is that doing it wrong (mass Vx during pandemic) generates variants.

The second argument he makes is implied corollary: mass V should be done before a disease is pandemic.

The second argument supports the global plan announced by Bill Gates: 

1. testing 20% of the world population every week continuously. 

2. Detecting outbreaks early 

3. Response via “pandemic fire squads

4. Very rapid (2 days?) development of new vaccine in response to (2), made possible by mRNA technology

5. Global roll out of new vaccine, before the outbreak becomes pandemic

That strategy solves the “problem” described by Bossche.

The whole world will be tested every 5 weeks. So:

  • new outbreak detected,
  • pandemic fire squad dispatched, numerous times every year,
  • rapid Vx developed and
  • injected into everyone multiple times a year, BEFORE detected outbreaks (2) become pandemic, and
  • this is a strategy that conforms with “the best science”.

Note of course that nearly 100% of these “future pandemics prevented by new Vx” are completely imaginary. 

Here it is as always worth mentioning again that the PCR “test” for contagion outbreak, following the example of 2020’s Drosten PCR assay detecting Sars-Cov2 is a PCR assay that detects the presence of a 30 base pairs genetic sequence, a minuscule fraction of a virus, and, a sequence that is not unique to any particular virus (it lights positive in the presence of ordinary coronaviruses).

“SCIENTISTS” can develop PCR assays detecting 30 base pair gene sequences, new assays every day, for 4 and a half billion years until the Sun dies out or goes white dwarf, and not even scratch the surface of the reservoir of all possible 30 base pair sequence combinations.

Check it for yourself:

There are 900 Octillion unique number combinations in 30 digits:,octillion%20different%2030%2Ddigit%20numbers.,octillion%20different%2030%2Ddigit%20numbers.

Fine, that’s in a base 10 system. While genetics is base 4 (A, G, C, T). So, do the reduction. But increase it again, because the PCR assays involve base pairs. Do the math if you can. Oddly enough, if you count unique AGCT pairs, you find there are 10 unique pairs:

10 unique pairs of A, G, C, and T

I could be wrong about that certainly, but it does seem that there are 10 unique pairs among any 4 items, which would make genetics, like arabic numbers, a base 10 system, thus upholding the 900 Octillion comparison. In any case I think I remain on safe ground with the 4 and half billion year napkin sketch:

One unique 30 base pair sequence per day for 4 and a half billion years (until the sun dies out) X 365 days per year = a 13 digit number: 1,642,500,000,000 (unique 30 base pair sequences)

This is the number of PCR assays that can be designed once per day for 4 and half billion years, to have us chase our tails into our own assholes, every day, forever.

A 13 digit number, is a tiny fraction of a 30 digit number. So, 4 and a half billion years of this only skims the surface of all possible 30 base pair PCR assays.

This is a religion, maintained by “geniuses” and “humanitarians”. “Do-gooders”. “The Best and the Brightest”, who line up to be “selected” to work for “prestigious” pharmaceutical companies, and “brave” work, on the “frontlines” and participation in “dangerous” rapid response teams, the so-called “pandemic fire squads”.

That’s the plan evidently, now started, with no terminus. A rather shitty outlook to say the least, abject dystopia for as long as anyone can project into the future.

Here is clear evaluation of initial results: Should 12 die for 1? likewise dreadful, a nuke in the altar of the church of the vaccine. It just takes the data from official sources and does the basic arithmetic. Please check and see if he’s wrong.

I had a doubt about the calculation but I think I’m satisfied with it now. I showed the math like this:

A. -1c/200V (less 1 case per 200 vaccinated)

according to "the latest results from Israel — the country with the most vaccinations — show that the actual ARR for Pfizer is closer to 0.46%. That gives an NNV of 217.(NOTE: These numbers come from LANCET, the world’s oldest and best-known peer-reviewed medical journal.)" - ibid


B. +1F/2000Inf (1 fatality per 2000 infections, (in people under 70, according to )


C. -10c/2000V (multiply A by 10/10)

and multiply C by IFR=1F/2000c (this is valid because (C/V) (F/C) = F/V:

D. -10c (1F/2000c)/2000V

and reduce D:

E. -0.005F/2000V

then multiply E by 200/200:

F. -1F/400,000V

In summary, based on existing published numbers, it looks like we need to vaccinate 434,000 people to stop one corona fatality, with the downside that it may cause 12 jab-related deaths and 502 serious adverse effects — if the past trends hold.

I think it’s important to use precise language when inoculating the world population so that everyone can assess the risk profile for themselves.

Correct me if I’m wrong. Please. I want to be wrong about this one.

(NOTE: These numbers do not take into account long-term vaccination effects, which may take up to a year to manifest. They also don’t take into account the fact that there is no proof that covid vaccines confer immunity. Or that according to NIH, the VAERS numbers may be underreported by a factor of between 1/10 to 1/100.)

See the article ^^^, for the data analysis.


Swedish Vaccine Schedule

I’d like to ask, since you do discuss it (a rare quality), do you think it is a valid assertion, to say that:

— any Swede who has a doubt about increasing the age 0-18 Swedish schedule of vaccines from 5 (vaccines) to 54 or 78 (like in the USA which increased to that level since 1986, from a handful, to 54 to 78 depending on how one counts multi-dose injections),

… back to my question,

is a Swedish person who either doubts that such a 15X increase is a good idea, or who is not actively promoting or working to increase the Swedish vaccine schedule (for age 0 to 18) from 5 to 54 (or 78)… is such a person an “anti-vaxxer”?

Are you yourself promoting an increase in Sweden from 5 vaccines to 54 or 78? If not, would it be fair for me to ask you if you are an  “anti-vaxxer”? 

Are you an  “anti-vaxxer”?

Sweden has had a 5 vaccine standard for, I don’t know, 40 or 50 years? I’d intuit that the number of Swedes opposing this can be counted on 1 hand. There is no “anti-vaxxer“ community in Sweden.

But nevertheless the modern Swede adopts this rhetoric, the accusatory “Are you an anti-vaxxer?”, in a decontextualized way in which it is meaningless: it applies to nothing that exists organically in Sweden, an effect (anti) for which there is no cause (54 to 78 vaccines by age 18).

Yet it is wielded today by Swedes who have no idea what they are talking about. 

We can demonstrate.

To any Swede:

how many vaccines have you had? 5?

Wow. 5 vaccines.

What clearer proof can there be of extreme vaccine hesitancy?  You’ve taken only 6 percent of the scheduled vaccines. You clearly know nothing about science. You’re a tin foil hat wearing lunatic, probably an insurrectionist Trump lover. Cognitive therapy (Kbt) would clearly be useless on you. There are other solutions.

James Spione writes:

It is an old truism that Americans take their freedom for granted. Little did I expect, however, how readily so many of us would willingly surrender our autonomy, given the right set of circumstances. As it turns out, in 2020/21 a global pandemic provided just the right conditions for the implementation of an extraordinarily comprehensive system of social control. As you read this, the way our society works is being radically altered at every level and yet most are pretending it isn’t happening. 

But this is real. Whether the coronavirus has personally touched you and your loved ones, or not. Whether you “believe in science,” or you are skeptical and cautious of government mandates, or think this is all a big plot. It really doesn’t matter. The following processes are unfolding right now—and in their totality they represent a radical shift in the way our society functions…

1. Autocratic governance – For well over a year, we have witnessed the normalization of governance through executive order, the mandates of individual leaders which supersede existing laws and circumvent normal democratic processes. Autocratic rule has by and large been accepted by the public. Nearly all personal behavior and interaction, including travel, work, recreation and education, is affected and in some sense controlled by these superseding orders. The acceptance of this radical change has been enabled by a classic

2. Campaign of fear – Authoritarian societies must always have a powerful, scary, threatening existential enemy to whip the population into a terror and make them receptive to radical social and political changes. A constantly changing, always present, potentially fatal virus, covered 24/7 by mass media and relayed into the social media echo chamber, reaching all citizens on multiple delivery devices, fulfills this role with unprecedented 21st-century efficiency. This has created an unending

3. State of emergency – “Two weeks to flatten the curve” has gradually morphed into a lasting behavioral management structure, with no stated end point. Even when the pandemic seasonally wanes as it is now in the US, many of these policies are staying in place, such as widespread routine testing, health checks and surveys, isolation and quarantine based on positive tests instead of actual illness, etc. More worrisome are plans to codify what should be temporary measures into permanent structures. The most concerning of these is

4. Official identification papers – The need for state identification to perform ordinary daily tasks is perhaps the defining hallmark of an authoritarian system. Commonly known as “vaccine passports,” this is an enormously consequential shift to make basic civil rights—travel, work, education, access to food, supplies and necessities—conditional upon behavioral compliance. Once an infrastructure like this is in place, the conditions required for continued access to these rights can easily (i.e. will) be changed by authorities. It is hard to overstate how dangerous this is: it represents a profound departure from hundreds of years of Western democracy. If widespread implementation of this idea is successful, it has the potential to hand near total control of all social and economic interaction to a handful of state leaders. 

5. Implementation of medical apartheid – In tandem with vaccine passports, the long-discredited idea of “separate but equal” is now returning with a vengeance. Those who are not vaccinated are already in some places (such as stadiums in New York) being physically herded into separate areas, with plans for further restricting access to certain stores, businesses, events and entertainment. No one seems to be able to explain the grouping together of unvaccinated people—presumably more vulnerable to disease?—as a public health measure. The whole idea of herd immunity is to have those with immunity mingling throughout the entire herd, thereby mitigating viral spread. It should be obvious that this policy of separation is not based on the greater good, but rather is motivated by political expedience and is direct punishment for disobedience to central authority. The goal is to create further pressure for compliance.

6. Destruction of healthy social supports – Every facet of how people interact is being subsumed by this new structural order. Assembly and face-to-face interaction of any kind has been discouraged or outright banned, depending on where you live. In-person interaction is now assumed to be potentially toxic and harmful. Even widespread vaccination has not altered this change in the social landscape, as authorities have stressed that the shots neither confer immunity nor keep the virus from spreading. This has been devastating to the psychology and spirit of the populace. People now pin their hopes on autocrats to allow them access to normal, healthy interaction.

7. Powerful moral belief system – You can’t get wide swaths of society to accept, let alone enthusiastically assist in building, a strict authoritarian regime without giving them a powerful sense of purpose and righteousness. Caring, protection, safety, and a sense of group solidarity are powerful motivators. This has been encouraged through

8. Widespread Allegiance Rituals – Wearing a mask, staying home, staying six feet apart, reporting your daily health status to work or school, wearing two masks, etc.—and now being vaccinated—are not just public health measures, but important cultural signifiers of being a good citizen, signaling one’s solidarity with a cause and obedience to important new public safety rules. These have been encouraged through the use of 

9. Ubiquitous Slogans and Mottos – Lockstep messaging on billboards, highway signs, in advertising and on mass and social media, short phrases repeated endlessly to frame public thought into simple moral directives.

10. Mass Paranoia – The governing idea that all people are potential threats at all time—“sick until proven healthy”—has now been accepted by a large portion of the populace. Even when the virus seasonally wanes (“cases” down 90% as they are now) this way of thinking has taken deep root, with fear of the unvaccinated now working in tandem with fear of the virus itself, even though covid is showing every sign of becoming an endemic—i.e. normal—part of the public health landscape. This is being expressed through another classic building block of an authoritarian society, the

11. Vilification of the Other – In the past, this group has often been a well-defined ethnic or religious minority, or a minority/dissenting political party or movement. In this modern, technocratic version of fascism, the “other” is a more loosely defined category of “anti-vaxxers,” “denialists,” “conspiracy theorists,” “extremists” and/or “the vaccine hesitant.” The important part here is the dynamic of projecting society’s ills onto a scapegoat group at which to be enraged and disgusted, to be feared and shunned and silenced. 

12. Strong Partisan Influence – This movement towards authoritarian control of the population, in the United States at least, is heavily weighted by political affiliation. Four years of media-stoked outrage at Trump, the last of which was marked by extreme frustration at his weak policy on the coronavirus, has segued seamlessly in the minds of many Democrats and liberals into redirected anger at anyone who challenges any pandemic policy whatsoever, no matter how damaging or questionable. 

13. Enormous social pressure to conform – From persuasion to bullying to coercion to shunning, there is widespread and increasing pressure on those who remain skeptical of this entire process to fall in line. This is reaching its apex with the vaccination issue, driving a wedge into society that is further undermining normal, healthy social interaction, resulting in dysfunctional workplaces, broken friendships and fractured families. 

14. Pervasive Censorship – Not just random opinions on social media, but highly credentialed scientists, epidemiologists, and doctors with decades of medical or pharmaceutical experience who stray from the acceptable scope of opinion have been systematically silenced by enormous tech corporations like YouTube, Google, Twitter and Facebook. Most concerning is the suppression of information about helpful, even life-saving treatments from well-known drugs with many decades of safety and efficacy data. Even public testimony in front of Congress, a symbolic emblem of a democratically functioning state, has been censored. Cheering on this assault on democratic process, normal medical peer review, rational critique and dissent are the

15. True believers – Whether in the media, on social media, or one’s friends in real life, there are those who have consistently pushed the envelope to ever more extreme reactions and “solutions.” A well-known progressive writer mused online about the need to set up detention camps for those who won’t vaccinate; a NY Times columnist unironically suggested critical thinking about the pandemic is a bad idea, and that the top three searches on Google on any topic are always the most factual; another journalist posited that we need to start shunning the vaccine hesitant. In the social media space, namecalling and accusations of being a “threat to everyone’s health” or “causing harm” are hurled at those that critically examine the official narrative by increasingly angry individuals who see themselves as sane, noble protectors of the public health, a rationalization that justifies every aggressive move they make. Every authoritarian movement has its brownshirts, and this one is no exception.

16. Extraordinary level of denial – Like the Good Germans who had no idea where those trains were going, there is a widespread, bizarre avoidance and ignoring of the development of all of these technological and social structures, which are unfolding rapidly in plain sight.

This is way more than a public health response to a pandemic. I urge everyone to break the cycle of denial and look fearlessly at what is happening. Continued acceptance of this extreme remaking of society will have grave consequences for our and our children’s future. 

Look again at what I just wrote, as a simple list. Tell me this is all okay:

1. Autocratic governance
2. Campaign of fear
3. State of emergency
4. Official identification papers
5. Medical apartheid 
6. Destruction of healthy social supports
7. Powerful moral belief system
8. Widespread allegiance rituals
9. Ubiquitous slogans and mottos
10. Mass paranoia
11. Vilification of the Other
12. Strong partisan influence
13. Enormous social pressure to conform
14. Pervasive censorship
15. True believers
16. Extraordinary denial

James Spione


Dispatch from Moon Base Alpha


Day 472: I remain alive and well on the moon. Communications continue. Today’s contact from an old friend in Japan:

sketched some of my art club students 
they’re doing 5 min pose sketching exercises 


He wears a uniform?

kids wear school uniforms, ya

✅ 🧩

the nail that sticks up gets hammered down😑
but if enough stick up you can’t keep up👌



I only communicate in emojis now 

welcome to the modern world
words have become obsolete. too much information to process

If you need a dose of optimism, all I can say is, … signs of life here. Watch the video together with this short post from Tommy Lennhamn 



ah bret weinstein. very interesting dude

The video has the story of ivermectin that blows my mind. The official narrative we are told about it is ignorant/fucked up beyond recognition.

Did you know it was discovered in 1975 in Japanese soil?

so here’s how suppressed information is, the normies i work with JUST now have started bringing up that they heard sweden made it thru the pandemic just fine without doing shit
and people were like “wait really? wtf are we wasting our time with all this shit then?” 
and one teacher actually had the courage to point out that growing numbers of covid doesn’t constitute needing a state of emergency, its mostly just higher testing capacity  

This is the best blog I know for analysis of Swedish data  


and also that japan had record low deaths this year

That’s great, people finally start to think and speak

sweden too i think right? 

Sweden too yes

The whole blog is a treasure. Here’s one nugget


2020 was the 7th LEAST deadly year in Sweden since 1900. 114 years were deadlier. 2019 was the LEAST deadly in (likely) the entire history of Sweden

In other words, or repeating, 114 of the last 120 years were deadlier than 2020 in Sweden (deaths per population).

The 6 years of the last 120 that were less deadly (slightly) than 2020 were 2014, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 2019.  

2019 was the least deadly year in Sweden in the last 120 years, and likely the least deadly ever in the history of Sweden. 2020 is slightly higher, a bit less than 2013.

Detailed discussion here:

The data is similar in Germany, and elsewhere. 

I would like someone to explain therefore, particularly, those who don’t believe in “conspiracy”, why we are facing increasing restrictions, like the requirement to restrict our breathing, restrict the sight of our faces, restrict our movements, and so on, and why preparations are in place in Germany to remove “violators” into “isolation centers”?

No one is conspiring to impose these restrictions? Or, rather, they’re doing it out of benevolence, not malevolence, for our own good, for public safety?

Safety from what?

See the graph

damnit fresa, you hate grandma
i win this debate


so the japanese gov’t has decided to follow step with the  general west and try shutting everything down. places haven’t been allowed to serve alcohol since mid april....
just a random punch in the face to small restaurants 

Sick, the west is sick

as Lennhamn details clearly, 2019 was the least deadly year, since 1900 (and probably ever), in Sweden, a statistical aberration. An abnormally few number of people died in 2019. What does that mean? It means, because human beings are not immortal, that many very old people who didn’t die in 2019, who statistically normally would have, had their lives extended into 2020 and died there.

There’s no mystery. It’s statistical regression to the mean.

Even so, 2020 was the 7th least deadly year since 1900, and 3 years in the last 10 were deadlier (deaths per population). 

And see this

RANKING done by Age Group specific mortality rates. 1 most deadly, 19 least deadly.
its kind of fun to go around and try to find the speakeasies tho lol
we went to a little yakitori place and i asked for a shochu(japanese vodka) 


and he says “well they say we can’t serve you want the wheat or the sweet potato version?” 😂

and he just puts the bottle on our table and says “if you know how to pour it, it might end up in your glass” 

Hahaha yes!

ya that old dude is legit
the advantages of knowing the subtleties in the language

so im curious, is sweden also trying to change the definition of immunity to meaning “you got a vaccine”? 

because its sounding like media and shit is trying to push the idea that after ACTUALLY catching this cold, your body just magically doesn’t gain any immunity 

like who the fuck ever went and got a flu shot AFTER they got the flu? 😂

Sweden began in November 2020 to say things that conform with WHO distortions, and applied some restrictions, like recommended masks on trains (50% don’t follow the recommendation). Before November there was no mask recommendation at all and masks were only worn by like 1 in 10,000, the occasional neoliberal nutjob delusional fascist.

WHO changed that definition. 

They changed definition of “herd immunity” to vaccinated

Who does that? Neoliberal delusional fascist nutjobs 

ya, like if you GET the disease and “survive”(that always makes me laugh when they say covid survivors, as if there were “flu survivors” before🤣) you obviously get immunity, probably better than from an experimental vaccine


also to note, i survived H1N1 during THAT pandemic
caught it, coughed, kicked it

haven’t had the flu since, actually
that was back in 2009, too 

Swedish health authorities are now committing crimes against humanity. Regional authorities send letters to citizens now telling them their vaccine is ready and to come in and take it. They do this WITHOUT informing that Covid vaccines:

  • are not approved
  • are only authorized for emergency use
  • have not completed safety trials
  • are experimental new technology
  • the long term effects are unknown
  • the known near term effects appear already to show they do more harm than good
  • alternative treatments ARE available and likely to be very safe and effective (Ivermectin). 
  • the emergency is fraudulent

That the items above are omitted means that informed consent is not obtained. Therefore, experimental therapy (or prophylactic) is conducted without informed consent = crimes against humanity.

Informed Consent The Origins of Informed Consent: The International Scientific Commission on Medical War Crimes, and the Nuremberg Code Beyond Nazi War Crimes Experiments: The Voluntary Consent Requirement of the Nuremberg Code at 70

Born in a war crimes trial, the Nuremberg Code remains at the center of legal and ethical guidance for all legitimate research involving human beings.


Contemplating the Nuremberg Code in 1992, Elie Wiesel—a Holocaust survivor and the Holocaust’s most influential memorialist—wrote that the Nazi doctors who were tried at the Doctors’ Trial for murderous concentration camp experiments did not see their victims as human beings, but as abstractions. In his words:

This is the legacy of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Nuremberg Code. The respect for human rights in human experimentation demands that we see persons as unique, as ends in themselves . . . we must not see any person as an abstraction.2(pix)

Wiesel’s words were used 20 years later by Rebecca Skloot as an epigraph for her powerful best-selling book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Skloot continues the Wiesel quotation: “Instead, we must see in every person a universe with its own secrets, with its own treasures, with its own sources of anguish, and with some measure of triumph.”3(pxiii)

Surgeons took a sample of Henrietta Lacks’s cervical cancer tumor for research without asking for her consent in 1950. No one at the hospital even told her family about this. Lacks died shortly thereafter, but her cells lived on in research laboratories around the world. As both Wiesel and Skloot underline, it is much easier to abuse people we do not see as fully human. The protection against treating people as abstractions who we can use and abuse with impunity is, as declared by the judges at the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial in 1947, the doctrine of voluntary, informed consent. This doctrine requires researchers to confront their human subjects directly, to talk to them, and to treat them as unique individuals.

The Nuremberg Code consists of 10 principles that constitute basic legal and ethical rules for research with human subjects. The first principle, the consent principle, is unique among them. Not only is it placed first, but unlike the other 9, each of which is limited to a single sentence, the consent principle is followed by 2 detailed explanatory paragraphs:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. The latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity. (emphasis added)

And the idea that people have, that the people driving this care about YOU is idiotic beyond belief. They HATE you 


dude ya, all the sudden everyone decided to believe large pharma corporations act out of the goodness of their heart for humanity 

if that were true, do you think they would bother PATENTING it? it would be open source so AS MANY companies could make and distribute as cheaply and quickly as possible

And… Ivermectin (is off patent)

They’re going to force people to take these injections every year forever

pretty much. they’ll be like “oh! new strand! your antibodies are low!” 

the way they’ll do it is denial of services. no vaccine/no travel etc.

its how china keeps everyone in check with their social credit system. they block you out of society for exercising any level of autonomy 

The Drosten PCR assay detects a 30 base pairs sequence, a tiny fraction of a small molecule 

ive heard its UNREASONABLY sensitive 

PCR assays can be designed to detect any desired base pairs sequence. They can design a new assay to detect a new 30 base pairs sequence every day for 4 and a half billion years until the sun dies out, and not get close to exhausting detectable base pair sequences 

They can ALWAYS say they detect something in you, and it’s true! That doesn’t mean it’s meaningful. That’s totally different. They did the same with HIV. This is a must see>>

Kary Mullis full interview

For another look at our new idols (Fauci et al). Here’s some help. 

Kary Mullis full interview, 1996. Parallels to today are disturbing. Same players too. Same playbook. Larger scope.

Nobel Prize winner, Chemistry, 1993 (Yeah, geniuses today (wikipedia), you see geniuses everywhere today, they call Mullis “bizzarre”, a “conspiracy theorist”)

And they just announced they’re coming with the protease inhibitors for COVID too 

AZT is a protease inhibitor. Watch the Mullis interview

had never even heard of a lot of that, but i guess that’s the world we live in

AIDS was a total scam, run by exactly the same people. That doesn’t mean that some gay people in the 70s and 80s weren’t getting really sick and dying. But there were reasons for that. Mullis explains clearly. Then Fauci came and set up the scam. And now he’s doing it to all of us

ya i remember when AIDS was like the scare of the century.....and it just kind of fell off the face of the earth as far as coverage went

Yeah, it’s back. It’s called Covid-19. A must see interview, from 1996. Its 2 hours but must be watched 

sounds like my evening is cut out for me then, its rainy season lol

You’ll be glad you watched it, or maybe ignorance is bliss, yeah, it’s rough, the connections to today very disturbing

i think a lot of people don’t seem to understand that we don’t actually live in some magic enlightenment where people are better people than they used to be
we just have new toys

Exactly. We are at peak corruption
there’s nothing special about our society today that will save it from the collapses that EVERY society ever has experienced

Yep, can’t survive on corruption, propaganda, delusion, and systematic self harm

everyone thought the USSR would last forever when they were in it, and then....oops🤷‍♂️
Rome, the Dutch, British, all little piss ant places with no influence at all now. next in line, US

Yeah, the US/EU/UK/NATO seem to be on a mission to self destruct .

And the brain power within them having been systematically drained for generations, intentionally, as internal policy, not by outside forces

People have never been less aware, less able, less skilled, less able to do, or think

dude its apparent here in japan too (which honestly is kind of a US satellite anyway)   

most people are dumb as shit lol

well ya know, they’re the bugmen

life is mindless consumption 

Good one today, some insights

Same in Sweden, a willful stupidity, it seems, everywhere. 

I have better conversations with pavement. But there are people having conversations, some trying to improve discourse. Possibly this is growing. I hope so. Alternative is annihilation, really, like the movie, Annihilation:

these days, i actively take note of people who aren’t following dumb rules and befriend them just because they might have something to talk about

I do the same, always looking for people with a soul 

oh so i tried to search that interview and it is shadowbanned. doesn’t show up in search results for me unless i type the ENTIRE thing in quotes
ok ya, this is a pretty gripping interview

“take this poison until you die because i think otherwise you might die” brilliant 

Kary Mullis


“if you’re dumb enough to watch that box over and do what it tells you, that’s your problem, not mine” 

Kary Mullis
i love this guy

I know, right? What a mensch 

They broke the mold after that one. A shame

the final comment he had in that interview, no joke, i tell my students that all the time 

no one’s really running the show, no one really grew up, we just happen to be a little bigger than you 

good luck

haha, i first found that out when i worked for ...😂

“wait....this guy that owns a company is just some dude....”

Haha 💥 


i always had it in my mind that was the case but surely not in a “professional” field right? 

well i also remember when i met the governor one day and was like.....this is just some schmuck too.....shit

lord of the flies




here’s the result. this is what being in a cult looks like. The complete collapse of reason, replaced by magical thinking, a belief in salvation, a religious zeal, visions, fanaticism. These are comments of Americans in my home town in Kentucky


Briefing For a Descent Into Hell

Well, that’s the title of Doris Lessing’s 1971 book, Briefing For a Descent Into Hell. Which I bought as a kid but never read. Always meant to though…

Back then I thought it was science fiction, but for fuck’s sake now…

Feldman’s reply here (in the video clip) is of course weaker than, …I don’t know…, a mattress of hot Krispy Creme donuts for those trying to rest with debilitating spinal injury. 

The sickly response:

“to compare what CNN and MSNBC are doing, to what FoxNews and NewsMax are doing, is just mind-boggling to me”

– Andrew Feldman

And that precisely is THE problem. Without wrapping your mind around the fact that CNN and MSNBC have become over the last 20 years, MORE willing to distort reality, more willing to ignore facts, more willing to lie, and more willing to spin BIGGER lies, about issues of far greater importance, than Foxnews or “Qanon”, …without recognizing that, American public discourse will remain sunk, in a bog, of sewage, with no possibilty for meaningful, reasonable, discourse about anything.

Have you not noticed the descent into the abyss, of corporate owned American media since 1980?

Reasonableness dropped off a cliff in the last 4 decades. Here’s what I’ve seen:

I’ve watched the total transformation of American media since 1980 with eyes wide open, beginning with the introduction of “conservative” talk radio, which was basically unhinged (insane) from the beginning. And was in contrast to normal American media which still operated in accordance with the fairness doctrine and a still present residual of the Franklin Roosevelt era.

Put American media since 1980 on a graph to measure the degree of psychotic separation from reality and reason on the Y axis, with two bars on the X axis, one for conservative media (talk radio, then FoxNews). And another bar for mainstream media (NYT, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc.)

The Y axis is a measure of reasonableness, or lack of it. Put a scale on the Y axis: completely reasonable, an ideal reasonableness, is as tall as a doorway.

In the 1980s and 90s, mainstream media (NYT, CNN, MSNBC, NPR) would rise about mid way I’d say, up to the door handle. 

Conservative talk radio and FoxNews lowered the bar. Their bar was below the door handle, down around your knees.

The problem, is what happened since.

NYT, CNN, MSNBC, NPR didn’t increase, or even maintain, their higher standard (of reason). They nose-dived to the floor, racing conservative media to the bottom, and “won”.

Today, the “mainstream” media (NYT, CNN, MSNBC, NPR) is below knee level, lying on the floor. And yet, as if by some kind of force, is pulling itself further down, into the abyss. Without limit. There is no floor.

The typical American and European news viewer didn’t notice this descent into hell. 

That’s apparent.

They’re mesmerized. Stupefied.

They think they’re pointing their fingers DOWN at FoxNews and typical conservative media, while by now they’re pointing UP to point at those, and continuing their fall. 

Now sunk to such depth, buried both by darkness, and distance from reality, they no longer see what they’re pointing at. But the pointing and screaming continues nonetheless, the incoherent ranting, of drowning lunatics, breathing water now, sinking, to the ocean floor, and beyond, sinking into the core of the earth.

The media we’re trained to watch is now so deranged, so psychotic, so detached from reality, that it makes Donald Trump look like a modern day Isaac Newton.

I’m not saying he IS. Please. Ed Curtain describes precisely what all these “political” actors are. It’s a show. Nothing more:  

What’s new is that the elites are bored with this game. I can only recommend this article which I think is the most important I’ve read in a long time, by Alex Bartlett:


Let’s Talk about Doctors

We’re taught, I mean actively, we’re taught to respect and even admire doctors. Above all, to trust them. This teaching happens in many ways.

Education itself, I mean, first of all, it’s the primary lesson, the very purpose of education. What did we learn from 12 years of school, plus “university” after that? Really not much. Think about it.

If you can think. Can you, after being educated? You probably can’t. You’ve been trained specifically not to think. It’s been drilled out of you. In place of thinking, you’re taught to respect and obey, and if you’re a really enthusiastic student, to trust and admire those in authority, those who declare themselves to be in authority.

Are you trained to formulate high quality questions? To ask hard questions? Are you trained in any kind of structural, or non-structural, approach to thinking? Do you even know what it means to think about something?

Oh, WTF am I talking about?

How about this:

Is there any relationship between education and thinking? How about doctors? Do they think? Are they paid to think? I’ll come back to that.

It’s a big club. You ain’t in it.

In their club, they declare themselves to be in authority. And they cultivate a hierarchy consisting of a phalanx of paid shills bloviating about those in authority, at the top. Everything beneath the bloviating top is disciplined by systematic corruption:

  • Doctors are paid to dispense pharmaceutical products. The form of the payment varies in different countries, but the effect is always the same.
  • Mass media is owned by pharmaceutical companies. Newspapers and television stations depend on revenue from pharmaceutical advertising. Pharma advertising was legalized in the United States

Articles about direct to consumer advertising (DCTA) of pharmaceuticals are easily found. Here are two:

From the former:

The Prescription Drug DTCA Industry Landscape

DTC drug ads


DTCA (direct to consumer advertising) for pharmaceuticals was legalized in 1997. Despite its relatively short 22-year existence, it has heavily impacted the advertising landscape for U.S. healthcare and stands in stark contrast to forms of legal advertising for drugs in other countries around the world. In the face of controversy and questions surrounding the ethics of DTCA, the U.S. and New Zealand remain the only two countries in the world that allow this practice. The U.S. may remain the only one if the draft of the Therapeutic Products Bill in New Zealand manages to include a ban on prescription drug advertising.

While DTCA has some positive effects, these commercials tend to mislead patients and can result in the breakdown of the doctor-patient relationship. Between 1983 to 2013, a span of 30 years, 449 articles about DTC prescription drug ads were published.[1] These articles dissected the various pros and cons of the practice. The pros were primarily based on the belief that when patients saw ads for drugs that aligned with their symptoms, they would start a dialogue with their physician and take a more active role in their healthcare journey. Despite this well-intended strategy, DTCA of prescription drugs has shown the potential to jeopardize the doctor-patient relationship. According to an FDA survey, 65% of physicians said that DTCA for drugs sent confusing messages to the patients, and 8% claimed that they felt pressured to prescribe brand-name drugs after patients cited a DTC drug ad.[2]

The routine use of DTCA and its adverse effects resulted in the AMA taking a stand against this type of advertising. The AMA was concerned that “a growing proliferation of ads is driving demand for expensive treatments despite the clinical effectiveness of less costly alternatives.” The AMA’s stance is representative of the growing skepticism surrounding DTCA in the medical community. If the largest association of physicians in the country is voicing its concerns about this practice, why do pharmaceutical companies continue to use DTCA?

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), there has been a drastic increase in DTC prescription drug marketing budgets, jumping from $1.3 billion in 1997 to more than $6 billion in 2016.[3]; that is a 361% increase. These companies use DTCA to promote prescription drugs because it increases the volume of drugs sold. A 2008 House Commerce Committee found that for every $1,000 spent on prescription drug ads, 24 new patients were added for the pharma industry. Additionally, a 2003 research report found that rates for prescription drugs with ads were almost seven times greater than for those without ads.[4] Global Healthcare Outlook, 2019

2 points about DCTA:


Articles such as those above describe the effect of direct to consumer advertising on drug sales. This is the typical advertising scenario. You motivate people to want your product, and if effective then you sell more product.

But that is not the primary effect, or purpose, of DCTA. The primary effect and purpose is ownership of mass media. Newspapers and television have, as is well known, lost their traditional advertising revenue streams due to the pressures first of the growth of the internet, and the concomitant shifting of advertising from traditional media to the web as readers left traditional and advertisers followed, and secondly, pressure from social media which, amplified the web effect and left TV and newspaper media high and dry, starved of ad revenue, on the brink of collapse.

But, you see, DCTA!

The effect of this condition is obvious. Mass media is owned and operated by pharmaceutical companies (plus their buddies in the war/arms industries).

This means that pharmaceutical companies are in control of hiring and firing. They exert editorial control. I laugh when I write that. Editorial control. Ha! There’s nothing to edit. They’re in control of content. They WRITE the content. They don’t edit it. They write it.


You think, “well I don’t live in the United States, so, that doesn’t happen here.”

Think again. You live in an empire. The tentacles of total corruption are strangling your institutions as well, by various means. These can be studied. But only after one is willing to recognize that such a thing can exist.

If you are unwilling to say, “oh, such a thing may exist”, then you will never look, and you will never see. But if you are willing to look, then you can see. Perhaps you will find it interesting that your country has signed contracts with the WHO and with Bill Gates individually, contracts that REQUIRE your authorities to follow orders given by WHO and Bill Gates:


There are different kinds of doctors. Like everyone else, most are intellectually lazy, incurious sychophant dullards. They’re educated more than most people, which means they’re even more obedient. Their work routines are simple recipe-following. Pharma companies instruct them on what to do when presented with whatever symptoms, which drugs to order in response. Largely this function can be automated, so doctors have reason to be concerned about the future viability of their profession.

In the mean time, they’re financially incentivized/rewarded for prescription. Little thought is required. In fact, it impedes.

Principle, morality, benefit to patient, these are obsolete notions. That is to say, in the actually existing environment within which the medical profession operates, with corruption so profound, so pervasive, “benefit to patient”, that concept sank to the bottom of the ocean long ago. And doctors are not exerting themselves to raise the bar.

I mean, there are exceptions, but the profession as a whole is complicit and is largely responsible for at least half the human population being interned, permanent gulag life.

There are exceptions. Some speak out for truth, against corruption, against crimes against humanity waged with their profession as the instrument. But they are suppressed.

Absolutely nothing about COVID-19 is scientific. It is entirely a top-down totally corrupt extortion scheme inflicted on the world by psychotic life long criminal frauds (Fauci, NIH, Gates, et al)

From Paul Bruno:

“A climate of fear is preventing experts from questioning the handling of the pandemic, with reputations smeared, jobs lost and even families threatened.Much abuse has come from within academic or professional circles, with one professor saying debate was becoming impossible because “we are not talking to each other properly. We are being thrown into confrontational positions.” Many leading experts have withdrawn from the debate after having reputations smeared, jobs lost and even families threatened raising questions about pandemic policy. This month alone has seen one leading medic, working to protect vulnerable children, forced to abandon a project to safeguard youngsters after their name was sullied when they questioned the government approach.

Another expert has been sidelined from a vital role on a government advisory group, while senior NHS staff have been threatened with disciplinary measures for questioning the government approach online or in the media.Senior academics say they have feared losing vital funding, warned not to speak out with the threat of disciplinary action or deemed ‘outliers’ for their views on lockdown.

At least two scientists have been subjected to public abuse by scientific colleagues who disagreed with their academic view.

One critic posted a grotesque image superimposed on a professor after he disagreed with his view. Other posts by scientists have branded colleagues “charlatans” and “snake oil merchants”.

A prominent professor accused a fellow academic of “deliberately subverting public health” on a twitter post after disagreeing with her views on managing the pandemic.

In another case a government scientific advisor called a university boss to try to stop one of its professors from criticising government policy.

Retired Supreme Court Lord Sumption told a podcast this week that he was a reluctant figurehead for questioning lockdown – but felt obliged because of the way critics had been treated.

He said the attacks were damaging to free speech. He said: “I have faced many defamatory things said to me on Twitter and to the media, including by other scientists who have even accused me of manipulating data. It becomes quite nasty.

“We are not talking to each other properly and there are many things we do not understand about this pandemic which we need to learn. But we are being thrown into confrontational positions on things, sometimes by the media and sometimes by the government. This is a bad atmosphere in which we can learn.

“Some of this culture is down to ego, but some people honestly believe only their way will solve things and will not listen to other peoples’ views.

“There is a range of disciplines including virologists, public health doctors, statisticians and clinicians and we don’t automatically understand each other.

“We don’t see the whole picture and it is very harmful in a pandemic if we are in a position where we cannot have a free discussion.

“I live on the positive support from the scientific community and I will not engage in this. I did get a bit down but many colleagues, my family and my teenage children have helped me to keep questioning where policy is not following science.

Professor Carl Heneghan, Director of Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence Based Medicine said: “An envelope of fear has engulfed the debate around covid. Scientists who suggested an alternative way have been subject to attack, ridicule and threats by others. I have been called an “agent of disinformation” and one scientist even called me a “public health threat” on twitter. I’m happy to discuss any issue where people believe I got something wrong. But Science only operates if it continually opens up questions, uncertainty and debate. There is no such thing as “the science.”A consultant in the north of England said: “Many of us clinicians want to put more emphasis on the unintended consequences of lockdown that are harming people and these stories need looking at with the same vigour as coronavirus.“But everyone is so terrified of speaking out. I know of one senior NHS manager who was threatened with job loss..”

Allyson Pollock, a leading public health professor said funding also played a part because a significant proportion of academic research funds and university revenue is derived from the government.

She said: “Universities don’t want to upset the government because they rely on government funding. If academics criticise government policies there is often pushback.”Dr Kamran Abbasi Executive of the BMJ said: “Increasingly NHS clinicians are unable to express their concerns about the NHS service provision in case they are deemed to stray into political territory.”

He added: “Science is about debate and rarely absolute. Once we start attacking each other it has gone out of the realm of science and become personal. However debate needs to be encouraged as it is only this way that we can get closer to the truth.”A spokesman for the General Medical Council which regulates registered doctors said: “Good medical practice says that doctors must treat colleagues fairly and with respect. As outlined in our social media guidance, this expectation covers all situations and all forms of interaction and communication. We say doctor’s must not bully, harass, or make gratuitous, unsubstantiated or comments about individuals online.”

This is the original article, but it’s like swatting flies to evade the disturbing adds popping up from all sides continually blocking your vision and disturbing your attention, so I copy-pasted the entire text of it in my comment, but here it is anyway for reference sake:

The corruption of science is not new.

While you “fucking LOVE science”…

Fauci loves FUCKING science.


This is testimony about the medical professions’ systematic withholding of any treatment at all for respiratory patients who receive a positive Covid test, for 2 weeks until they then arrive at a hospital.

If that doesn’t strike you as abnormal, and even on the surface, as stupid, then do a self sanity check now. For those who’ve recognized this systematic failure/refusal to treat patients, the testimony here paints a clear and extremely disturbing picture. The picture happens to be consistent with decades worth of similar malfeasance surrounding Anthony Fauci, NIH, et al.

I’ll come back to this.


Fauci’s credibility

Duration 1:33:49 Fauci’s First Fraud is a 2020 independent film exposing how Fauci perpetuated misinformation over the AIDS pandemic leading to millions of deaths.“The Nobel Prize winner who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, said it does not cause AIDS,” explained producer, Ken McCarthy in an email interview.

“Another Nobel Prize winner, Kary Mullis — the one who invented the HIV PCR test that Fauci used to find ‘infected cases’ among the healthy — called the use of the test for diagnosis of AIDS a fraud.”

Sound familiar?

Watch the film at the link.

Remarkable Parallels Between the AIDS and COVID Scare.

The description for this documentary about the 1980’s AIDS scamdemic reads like the COVID-19 headlines of 2020:

“A deadly new virus is discovered… There’s no treatment or cure… It’s highly contagious… Everyone is a potential victim… The world is at risk from asymptomatic super spreaders… New clusters of cases reported daily…“

Everyone must get tested even though the tests are unreliable… Positive antibody tests are called ‘infections’ and ‘cases’ even when the patient has no symptoms… Every politician gets involved… Media hysteria in high gear… Activists demand salvation from government and Big Pharma…

“Billions of dollars are authorized for fast track drug and vaccine research… Simple, effective remedies are rejected while expensive, dangerous ones are pushed……Presumptive diagnoses… Exaggerated death statistics… Falsified death certificates…”

It would seem that the only significant factor differentiating the AIDS pandemic from the COVID scandal is scale. As McCarthy explains:

“Every single fraud technique being used today to ‘sell’ COVID hysteria was invented in the 1980s and 1990s by Tony Fauci to sell the AIDS fraud.”

The New Normal May Not Be All That New After All

The documentary presents a compilation of interviews, press releases and documents collected from YouTube, VHS, periodicals and even an audio cassette, showing the parallels between the new normal theater of 2020 with the HIV scare of the 1980s and 90s.

For example, the documentary includes an interview with Charles Geshekter Ph.D., a three-time Fulbright scholar who teaches African history at California State University in Chico. He explains how the WHO came to the conclusion that AIDS in Africa could be diagnosed with a broad list of common symptoms, just like COVID:

“A fever, a persistent cough, loose stools for 30 days, and a ten-percent loss of bodyweight over a two month period.”

The entire film is packed with such parallels. Another example, later in the documentary, states: “Over the last 36 years, Fauci has repeated the claim that all his AIDS patients were ‘otherwise healthy.’ ”

Yet, a clip with a gay historian, Mark Gabrish Conlan, shows that such victims were not healthy at all:

“The very first AIDS cases were five gay men diagnosed in Los Angeles in 1981… What linked them was that they were all in the ‘fast lane gay lifestyle…’ They were taking many different [recreational] drugs at the same time, combining drugs, much more than was the pattern for straight drug users. They also partied a lot, at the bars, the clubs, the bathhouses. They met a lot of men, had a lot of anonymous sexual contact. As a result they were exposed to a lot of the classic sexually transmitted diseases — like syphilis and gonorrhea. Because they were getting those diseases, they were also frequently going to doctors and getting antibiotic prescriptions….”

“All that created a situation where a handful of gay men were burning the candle at both ends and putting a blowtorch to the middle. It’s no wonder that after a while their immune systems started to collapse and they started getting sick in these unusual ways that previously had only been seen in older people whose immune systems had deteriorated from age.”

Today, Fauci and company have expanded their case load from a fringe group of homosexuals to the 73 million baby boomer population in the United States.Of course, we are now being told, the old are dying from COVID-19. As if, before the coronavirus went novel, frail nursing home residents were “otherwise healthy” and not already succumbing to respiratory diseases.

Just like, before AIDS, the overuse of antibiotics and a wide range of “party” drugs by a small subset of the gay male community was not severely compromising to health.

These recreational drugs included “poppers,” an immune-suppressing inhalant widely used and sold in gay clubs and bathhouses. As the documentary shows, poppers were heavily advertised in most gay magazines.

Of course, why would heavy narcotic use have anything to do with the collapse of their immune system? We are assured, two-thirds through the film, by much younger version of Anthony Fauci:

“There have been a number of theories as to what the origin of HIV/AIDS is. One of them was a theory that certainly turned out to be completely incorrect — that it is a lifestyle phenomenon.”

Anthony Fauci

36 Years of Lies, Misinformation and Manipulation

“The documentary includes footage of Fauci at various points in his career, starting in 1984 and extending to the present, describing his work in his own words,” says producer, Ken McCarthy. “This is how Anthony Fauci built his career, credibility, and political base.”

McCarthy studied neuroscience at Princeton University in the late 1970s under Bart Hoebel, a pioneer in the study of sugar addiction. McCarthy is considered a pioneer, himself, in the field of internet marketing. A Time Magazine article credits Ken McCarthy’s insights into click-through tracking as a key factor in the commercialization of the World Wide Web.

Such marketing expertise makes McCarthy keenly aware of the true motivations behind mandating a COVID-19 vaccine.

“You have to understand, the vaccine business is fantastic,” he jokingly states in a interview on the The Finding Genius podcast. “Government mandated means [vaccines] have no marketing costs. Universal? Most markets are niche, even big markets. I can’t sell hair curlers to bald men; but [they] can dictate that every child in America get a vaccine….”

“If [they] can dictate that every breathing human being in America gets a vaccine the money becomes mind-boggling.”

In additional to pioneering fundamental elements of the commercial Internet, McCarthy has also been a pioneer of independent online journalism.

“In 1995, I organized and hosted the first conference on the subject of web-based reporting for local news markets,” he explains. “In 1997, as a demonstration of the potential of the medium, I produced what is still the most detailed documentation of an election fraud – the 1997 San Francisco 49er Stadium Bond Initiative – that appears in any format.”

And now he has compiled a detailed documentary showing how Anthony Fauci sold the HIV/AIDS scare in the 1980s, and is doing so again in 2020 with a brand new set of acronyms.

Kary Mullis

Kary Mullis full interview: 

For another look at our new idols (Fauci et al). Here’s some help. 

Kary Mullis in pink t-shirt, Nobel Prize winner, Chemistry, 1993, full interview, 1996. Listen to him in conversation interviewed.

Listen to him describe the reality of AIDS diagnosis and “treatment”.

How many, millions (?) of perfectly healthy people were diagnosed because of a detected virus, then “treated” with an old (and banned) chemotherapy drug, “AZT”, which, doctors directed them to take until they died, sometimes for years.

Parallels to today are disturbing. Same players too. Same playbook. Larger scope. 

Yeah, geniuses today, you see geniuses everywhere today, they call Mullis “bizzarre”, “conspiracy theorist”…

Idiocy, Magical Thinking, Corruption, and TDS

The idea that we can end respiratory illness with vaccines or masks or distancing is, very simply, idiocy.

If a vaccine reduced the effect of some virus, then another virus will take its place in human respiratory illness. To believe otherwise is magical thinking.

Idiocy and magical thinking are the basic narrative premises of “Covid 19”.

The other factor at work is the engine of the apparatus. The engine is simple (though on enormous scale) corruption.

There’s another essential factor.

Corruption, idiocy, and magical thinking are not enough. There must be some other factor that suppresses normal human reason, that otherwise would resist, oppose, and call out corruption, idiocy, and magical thinking.

So there is this other factor, the role of which is to suppress normal human reason. This factor, I suggest, is Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) which was cultivated systematically for 5 years and has profound effect over much of the US and far beyond the US, throughout large parts of Europe and Latin America for example.

There’s a simple answer.

How can all previous frameworks of reason, evidence, and caution be dumped into the landfill?

How can principles of medicine like “first do no harm” be set ablaze, incinerated?

How can disease projection models be so wildly inaccurate, while those running the show are still believed?

How can those calling the shots demonstrate zero concern for the effects of their policy apparatus while maintaining their interest in nothing but their fanatical mission to inject every person on earth with their products, repeatedly?

How can the idea of a RUSH TO INJECT every person on earth be taken as a commitment to reason and science? CAUTION thrown to the wind. Surrender to the MANIC RUSH. How is that consistent with principles of science, testing, evidence, and public health, and humanitarianism?

How is it that this is being PUSHED? And how is it that it’s being followed?

The answers are EASY:

  1. The people PUSHING it are psychotic mother fuckers. And corrupt scumbags.
  2. The people following it were born yesterday. They hear no evil. See no evil. Corruption is inconceivable to them. They’ve been so sheltered, living on fantasy island 🏝 where everyone’s good and the wealthy and powerful are like mommy and daddy carefully planning for good management and the safety and care of everyone. They don’t know what corruption is. It doesn’t look like anything to them. They can’t see it. Even when, or especially when, it’s right out in the open, and pervasive.

Not Even, as it’s injected right into their arm:

Anthony Fauci: 40 Years of Lies From AZT to Remdesivir

 Oct 27, 2020  312

As the planet’s “Virus Tsar” since 1984, he has spread misinformation and ignored critical questions. The consequences could hardly be more fatal.

Why are doctors so obedient?

It’s not just doctors. It’s people. And, apparently, education.

James Spione writes:

Martin Bassani
Precisely correct!

But the degree, the depth of the inability, the pervasiveness of the acceptance of the framing, and the effect of that, it does raise a doubt, some serious questions about what we thought it meant to be smart, and how smart people are, what it meant to us and to them, what it meant or means, to those who think themselves smart

Martin Bassani
I haven’t discerned any particular patterns but one thing does stands out. The most moronic responses come with certitude which is often related to the number years of of schooling. Schooling, in general, is the number one cause of killing off our natural capacity for critical thinking. 

yes. It seems true among people I know. The more education, the more absolutely impervious people are to reason

Juniper Kozlowski
Martin Bassani oh man is this ever true around me also. Thinking i could speak about this whole thing to some brilliant PHD’s who teach latin and greek at a big college nearby was a big mistake. they recoiled in horror and thought i was a trump supporter.

It could be connected to their belief that their advanced education has VALIDATED them. Which means they felt deeply inadequate before their validation. And doubts about official narratives — support of which makes them feel SELECTED and therefore reinforces their validation — your doubts are a threat they can’t tolerate. They’d end up invalidated and inadequate. 

Does advanced education instill feelings of inadequacy, or do people lacking confidence migrate toward specialized advanced education?

Peter Colt
That’s exactly it, very well put; they call me a ‘conspiracy theorist’ and write articles saying that people like me have inadequacy/inferiority ‘issues’ that we deal with by believing that we’re in a select group of people with secret knowledge, when in reality they’re projecting their own emotions onto us. They have convinced themselves that they are part of a well educated elite, too intelligent to possibly have been hoodwinked by a corrupt system, yet their confidence in their elite status is actually very shaky, therefore they get defensive when anything challenges their opinion of themselves.

What’s the result of this?

Anthony Fauci smirked at Trump,


  1. Fauci is the object of greatest admiration, adulation.
  2. He’s IDOLIZED.
  3. Everything he says is true.
  4. Everything he says is believed.
  5. Every pronouncement he makes is obeyed.
  6. Obedience to Fauci is made into a sign of moral righteousness
  7. All evaluation of Fauci’s 4 decades long record of service to pharmaceutical corporations that are convicted criminal organizations = heresy
  8. heretics are EXCOMMUNICATED

Regarding item 7 above:

From the video:

I don’t think we can trust vaccine companies. I think anyone who trusts the vaccine companies is not looking at the history or the corrupt institutional cultures that are pervasive in all of these companies. The four companies that make all of America’s mandated vaccines, Novi, Merck, Vaxil, and Pfizer, are all convicted serial felons. These are criminal enterprises. Those four companies, since 2009, in other words over the last decade, have spent almost 35 Billion dollars in criminal penalties and damages, for defrauding regulators, for falsifying science, for lying to doctors, uh, and for killing hundreds of thousands of Americans with products they knew were lethal.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Under the Vaccine Act that was passed in 1986 in our country, vaccine makers, for mandated vaccines, have no liability for injuring people. You cannot sue them for vaccine injury. And the new COVID vaccines have an even greater level of protection, as you know “pandemic countermeasures” under the Prep Act, under the CARES Act, they are completely immune from, have blanket immunity. You can’t sue ’em. So they can never get caught. No matter how negligent they are. No matter how many people they mangle, they injure, they kill. No matter how toxic the ingredients. No matter how grevious your injury. You cannot sue that company. There’s no discovery. There’s no depositions. There’s no incentive for them to make a safe product.

Robert F Kennedy Jr.

This is what thinking looks like, with backbone, with establishment of principle, with clear perception (of for example, the environment (corruption), with high quality questions. First of all, with the formulation of RELEVANT questions:

31 reasons why I won’t take the vaccine

Another paper, highly recommend:

Messianic Mad Men, Medicine, and the Media War on Empirical Reality: Discourse Analysis of Mainstream Covid-19 Propaganda

Daniel Broudy1 and Darwin K. Hoop2

1Professor of Applied Linguistics, Okinawa Christian University, Nishihara-cho, Okinawa, 903-0207, Japan, ORCID:

2Independent Scholar and Researcher, Chapel Hill, NC, USA,


This article critically examines the emerging global war on pathogens mimicking the Global War on Terror (GWOT). We draw upon the history of recent wars and the fear-driven narratives aimed at nudging the public toward uncritical acceptance of the new emerging social and economic global order. We adopt Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model’ to describe how mainstream media perform in manufacturing consent to policies that tighten control overpopulations and degrade rights, agency, and sovereignty. Here we consider the efforts of globalist political actors who seek to co-opt or influence political institutions around the world and position themselves as unelected rulers of an emerging authoritarian order. We argue that agenda-setting media are predisposed to serve elite interests that shape news coverage, bound public debate, and obscure new forms of warfare behind the smokescreen of a manufactured Global War on Pathogens (GWOP). We introduce critical analysis and alternative perspectives, largely marginalized by the mainstream, on the hidden conflicts of interest involved in the demands for full social compliance.


pandemic, Covid-19, vaccination, experiment,mainstream media, integration propaganda, agitation propaganda, Propaganda Model, narrative control, GWOT, GWOP,fear, perception management

Straw Man Arguments

“Where it falls apart for me is the idea that this new coronavirus does not exist and that everybody with access to microscopes who is capable of identifying viral groups is in on it.”

That’s a straw man argument. No sensible person says that human respiratory illness does not exist. The real issue is that the C19 narrative is premised precisely on the ideas:

  1. that human respiratory illness does NOT exist typically
  2. that if a virus (Sar-cov-2) can be beaten by vaccine, that another virus will NOT take its place in human respiratory illness
  3. that, admitting (2), another virus (variant) will take its place after all, so therefore you need another vaccine, and another, and another, and another… forever.

The premise of C19 is utterly absurd, devoid of actual science, and is nothing more than the greatest extortion scheme ever played, by far.

by the way, “identifying viral groups with a microscope” or by any other means, like by Drosten PCR, does literally nothing to demonstrate that the detected viruses are causing “covid disease”.So “being in on it” is a useless concept.

The presence of respiratory disease also does precisely nothing to demonstrate the presence of “covid disease”. See item (1) again: human respiratory illness exists. C19 narrative is premised absurdly on the idea that every respiratory illness is covid, and that respiratory illness is novel.

Stuart Davies
Good points, Rob. Interesting that it hits the same subject that I just responded to in an email to a friend, here’s what I just said to him:

I’m not saying there is no coronavirus at all. In fact, there are all kinds of coronaviruses in circulation every year, they are among the 200 + different viruses which can cause the common cold. What I am saying is the specific coronavirus (SA-CoV-2, more commonly called covid 19) blamed for the pandemic is NOT PATHOGENIC in humans according to the one study that has been done which the CDC cites as evidence it is pathogenic. I have sent you my analysis on that several times, don’t you remember it? So, they apparently did study a virus they call covid 19, but they also showed that it cannot make humans sick…but you have to read the study yourself to see that, rather than simply believe the CDC’s interpretation of what it says.

I am saying there is no pandemic, it is a flat out fabrication. It is based on fraudulent statistics derived from illegal changes in disease reporting and procedures for reporting cause of deaths. I sent you a bunch of that documentation more than once before also, and can send that again if you like. Here is another video I saw yesterday, with a doc from Montana who gives a very good explanation on the issue of ’cause of death’ reporting on death certificates: 

Here is an excerpt from an article from a few years back before all of this covid BS came along:

“Influenza-like illness (ILI) is a substantial clinical and economic burden on patients, healthcare providers, and the broader healthcare system. Depending on the pathogenicity of the viral strain and the effectiveness of the vaccine, there are typically between nine million and 36 million influenza cases annually in the United States, resulting in 140,000 to 710,000 hospitalizations.1 However, influenza represents a small percentage of the hundreds of millions of upper respiratory infections (URIs) that occur annually in the U.S. alone.2,3 This broader group of infections accounts for more healthcare provider visits than any other acute condition annually and results in almost 50 million lost days from work and school.

ILI is a condition that presents with fever, cough, sore throat, shivering, chills, malaise, body aches, and/or nausea and is often associated with rapid onset. Frequent causes include the common cold and influenza, but ILI can be caused by more than 20 different viral and bacterial pathogens with overlapping and non-specific presentations. This complicates accurate, timely diagnosis.

More than 200 subtypes of viruses cause the common cold. While rhinoviruses represent a plurality of causative pathogens (30 percent to 50 percent of colds), other infectious agents are also implicated: coronaviruses (10 percent to 15 percent); influenza viruses (five percent to 15 percent); respiratory syncytial viruses (RSV, ~10 percent); parainfluenza viruses (PIV, ~ five percent); enteroviruses (< five percent); and human metapneumovirus (hMPV).7 Additionally, the cause of 20 percent to 30 percent of common colds is unknown. Given the similar presentation associated with these viruses, it is not possible to establish the causative pathogen based on clinical diagnosis alone.

For instance, the differential for RSV in adults includes influenza and PIV. In infants it is even broader, including influenza, PIV, hMPV, rhinovirus, coronavirus, human bocavirus, and adenovirus. Studies have shown that RSV infection develops annually in three percent to seven percent of healthy older adults, may contribute to excess wintertime mortality previously attributed to influenza, and is a leading cause of hospitalization in young patients.8-10

Even the diagnosis of influenza can be confounded by the overlapping syndromes of ILI. A meta-analysis that reviewed the precision and accuracy of symptoms and signs of flu in adult patients over 60 years of age concluded that “clinical findings identify patients with influenza-like illness but are not particularly useful for confirming or excluding the diagnosis of influenza.”11

ILI poses a significant risk in immunosuppressed and immunocompromised patients… Rapid, accurate diagnosis is an important component of patient management in these populations as it helps direct appropriate antiviral and/or antibiotic therapy and can inform decisions about timing of transplant or additional therapy.15 Current practice guidelines support testing for a wide range of suspected respiratory pathogens in these high-risk populations.”

Note what they said towards the end there: “Rapid, accurate diagnosis is an important component of patient management… Current practice guidelines support testing for a wide range of suspected respiratory pathogens in these high-risk populations “

And what happened this last year? They kept people who were sick out of the hospital, denied treatment until they were really sick, then MISDIAGNOSED them with a completely FRAUDULENT ‘covid PCR’ test! Once they had their false ‘positive’ for ‘covid 19’ (which once again has been proven to be NON PATHOGENIC in humans) they did not follow the standard medical diagnostic procedure from just a few years before: “Current practice guidelines support testing for a wide range of suspected respiratory pathogens…”

Stuart Davies continues:

“The state’s Public Health Laboratory in Rocky Hill misdiagnosed 90 people as COVID-19-positive during the past month, a mishap that likely led healthy nursing home residents to be housed with infected patients, state health officials acknowledged Monday. Department of Public Health Commissioner Deirdre Gifford and the public health laboratory’s director, Dr. Jafar Razeq, also could not say whether the four private labs assisting the state with COVID-19 tests had similar problems with false positives. But they said the reason for the misdiagnosis lies with the test’s manufacturer, and not with the state lab.”

And especially this:

Also explained in this video:

“Date: 13 January 2021 WHO-identifier: 2020/5, version 2 Target audience: laboratory professionals and users of IVDs. Purpose of this notice: clarify information previously provided by WHO. This notice supersedes WHO Information Notice for In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device (IVD) Users 2020/05 version 1, issued 14 December 2020. Description of the problem: WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology. Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer. WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity. Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”

“SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPER The Corman-Drosten paper contains the following specific errors:

1. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

2. Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

3. The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.

4. A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

5. A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

6. The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

7. The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

8. The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

9. Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

10. We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted [20]; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there [21] and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.”


The whole thing STINKS

Rabbi Chananya Weissman

And what’s needed is a disinfectant:

Brandeis made his famous statement that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” in a 1913 Harper’s Weekly article, entitled “What Publicity Can Do.” But it was an image that had been in his mind for decades. Twenty years earlier, in a letter to his fiance, Brandeis had expressed an interest in writing a “a sort of companion piece” to his influential article on “The Right to Privacy,” but this time he would focus on “The Duty of Publicity.” He had been thinking, he wrote, “about the wickedness of people shielding wrongdoers & passing them off (or at least allowing them to pass themselves off) as honest men.” He then proposed a remedy:

If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.

Louis Brandeis