Go to the original to see links to sources for facts stated.

As the mainstream narrative about the origin of COVID-19 falls apart, it’s time to put other widely accepted facts about the virus—and the devastating measures they were used to justify—under the same scrutiny

On March 13, 2020, the public school district where I teach announced that all classrooms and buildings would be closed for two weeks. Then two weeks turned into two months, and two months turned into over a full year without in-person instruction. My school serves a diverse population of low-income students in the San Francisco Bay Area. It is impossible to overstate the severity of this disruption caused by school closures for these students, many of whom did not have a computer or internet at home when virtual learning began. Online, my students got only a fraction of the regular curriculum. Kids who had once loved the social aspects of school were left with only the parts of school they hated, and students with disabilities who depended on school for daily living needs were cut off from a vital service.

“Public health” and “the safety of our children” came to mean students Zooming from homeless encampments, experiencing severe abuse, regressing academically, falling into depression, going hungry, struggling through catastrophic learning loss, and, in the saddest cases, not making it through the year alive. Despite consistent evidence that schools were not sites of high transmission for COVID-19, many teachers failed to put aside baseless fears about classroom superspreading and rampant infection. As a result, many of the most vulnerable children in our society suffered outrageous hardships, while their affluent peers attended private schools in person. We’ve all been told that school closures and lockdowns were mandated by science, but what if these mandates were immoral? What if they were based on a series of lies? In fact, what if the entire rationale for most restrictions was actually rotten to the core?

We’re watching the mainstream pandemic narrative starting to unravel. While the Senate and House intelligence committees investigate the origins of SARS-CoV-2, many reporters are openly wondering why they initially dismissed the lab leak hypothesis as “misinformation.” Few in media consider the possibility that their approach to the theory was not an anomaly, but rather a long-established pattern of journalistic dereliction of duty. For the public, these renewed questions about the virus (and their hard-to-face answers) speak to a deep sense that something is amiss in the story we’ve been told by major media outlets. But gain-of-function research is just the tip of the iceberg.

A trove of media darling Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails was recently released to the public. The emails reveal early assertions that asymptomatic transmission is rare, that post-infection immunity is highly likely, and that masks are “not really effective.” However, you wouldn’t know that from the public messaging since the start of the pandemic, in which bureaucrats and journalists upheld lasting misconceptions that asymptomatic cases are dangerous, natural immunity is not a factor in protecting the population, and individuals are responsible for viral spread. These misconceptions fueled countless months of lockdowns, business closures, and job losses, pushing millions of people into poverty and despair through the destructive lie that stringent “sick until proven healthy” interventions save lives.

In reality, the rushed doomsday forecasts and commitment to politically correct pseudoscience prompted leaders to abandon decades of pandemic planning. This not only had disastrous economic consequences, but it also exacerbated the effects of COVID-19 itself. And rather than swiftly correct their errors, public health officials and politicians doubled down, manipulated data, and blamed ordinary people for the failure of nonsensical policies. The uncomfortable truth is that “The Science” did not protect vulnerable populations. Instead, “expert” advice served only to make the pandemic more deadly and replace the scientific process with destructive anti-science.

Saving Lives by Killing People

In December 2020, 35% of Americans believed that half of the people with COVID-19 required hospitalization. The correct figure was 1%-5%. Americans also estimated that the share of COVID-19 deaths for people between 18 and 24 was 8%. It was actually 0.1%. These incorrect assumptions were influenced by anecdotes, shocking media coverage, and early projections like the influential Imperial College model, which threatened that without lockdowns there would be 40 million COVID-19 deaths worldwide. The model assumed an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.9%, but the actual IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15% and the median IFR for people under 70 is 0.05%.

As a result of mistaken prognostications like this, the media compared COVID-19 to the 1918 influenza pandemic, for which the average age of death was 28. For COVID-19 the average age of death is 73, and about half of all deaths are in people 80 or older. While the CDC projected a one-year decrease in life expectancy for the U.S. population, the overall decrease in life expectancy was only five days, and the U.S.’s excess mortality in 2017 was greater than its excess mortality in 2020.

There is no better example of the harm created by flawed simulations, and the subsequent misguided interventions, than New York’s disastrous nursing home policy. While Gov. Andrew Cuomo landed a $5 million book deal and won an Emmy for his televised briefings, conditions on the ground for COVID-19 patients in his state were catastrophic. Over 9,000 elderly COVID-19 patients were sent from hospitals back to nursing homes. Additionally, Cuomo required group homes for people with intellectual disabilities to take COVID-19 patients and attempted to issue a blanket DNR guideline for all cardiac patients in New York City. He also denied nursing homes’ requests for testing kits, ignored the concerns of families, and gave immunity to nursing home executives. This resulted in the deaths of nearly 15,000 long-term-care patients.

These deaths did not occur because Cuomo ignored scientists and researchers. They occurred precisely because Cuomo was adhering to predictions from his team of experts who projected the need for 140,000 hospital beds and 40,000 ICUs. Ultimately, New York’s actual bed and ICU use peaked in mid-April at 18,825 and 5,225, respectively. The deadly decisions the governor’s office made were motivated by a perceived need to save resources and space—a manufactured imperative based on fictitious IFR figures and a baseless belief in universal risk.

Moreover, although some New York hospitals were overwhelmed, many were not. While Elmhurst hospital in Queens was at full capacity in April, the hospital had 26 new ambulances to take patients to 3,500 empty beds in New York City, many within a 20-minute drive. Because of panic induced by horrific forecasts, New York City doctors cited the need for “wartime ethics” when advising patients and families about DNRs. At some hospitals, doctors were informally allowed to override patients’ desires for medical intervention. These ethical violations were urged on by crazed media coverage and an environment of psychological terror, but they were not justified by the true level of danger involved in treating patients.

Despite concerns about hospital beds and ICUs, field hospitals across the country remained largely empty, costing taxpayers $660 million despite the fact that most of them did not serve any patients. Cuomo’s nursing home order was replicated by four other Democratic governors, and one-third of all American deaths from the virus are now linked to nursing homes. As a consequence of these practices, New York State has the second-highest COVID-19 mortality rate in the country.

Following the Science

Three of the top four states in overall COVID-19 mortality have Democratic governors who “followed the science” long after the initial promises that it would only take “two weeks to flatten the curve.” Although these states have high population density, density is often associated with lower COVID-19 death rates. After Texas Gov. Greg Abbott lifted all his state’s restrictions in April, Texas saw no resulting surge in cases, hospitalizations, or deaths. In fact, many states that continued restrictions saw higher cases and deaths than states that lifted restrictions early.

The Herd Immunity Taboo

Purity and danger: Why some are strangely comforted by lockdowns, fearful of herd immunity, and quick to punish anyone who questions the stark choice between them

These trends are consistent with dozens of peer-reviewed studies and retrospective analyses indicating that stay-at-home orders did not have an impact on rates of fatal infection and that comparisons between many countries do not show superior outcomes from lockdowns. Besides hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care settings, households show some of the highest rates of transmission, while the share of transmission that has happened outdoors is less than 0.1%. Furthermore, vitamin D and exercise have both been linked to better outcomes for COVID-19 patients. In the U.S. 78% of people hospitalized for COVID-19 were overweight or obese. Lockdowns caused Americans to gain an average of two pounds per month and reduce their daily steps by 27%, thereby increasing the likelihood of adverse COVID-19 outcomes.

Not only were government orders confining people to their homes highly detrimental, but the early recommended treatment procedures for the virus were often fatal. Although experts and the media claimed that ventilators were lifesaving, death rates in most states actually dropped dramatically once the use of ventilators was abandoned in favor of other treatments. In order to meet what was supposed to be an astronomical medical demand, the U.S. spent $3 billion manufacturing ventilators, but by August 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services had distributed only 15,057 ventilators, leaving 95,713 of them untouched in a federal stockpile.

Usually, 40%-50% of patients in severe respiratory distress die on ventilators, but in New York City the death rate for COVID-19 patients on ventilators was 88%. Hospital staff often intubated patients prematurely or left them on ventilators for 10-15 days. Patients were given unusually heavy sedatives so that staff would be able to check on them less frequently. U.S. hospitals received $13,000 for each Medicare COVID-19 patient and $39,000 for each Medicare patient they intubated. These patients were separated from their families and had no one to advocate for them. Many people died after terrified doctors, misinformed about the scale of the risks, used intubation as a way to avoid virus exposure.

When lockdowns began, commentators referred to herd immunity as a “genocidal” concept that meant exposing vulnerable people to disease. That is actually what happens when natural immunity is prevented. Lockdowns limit and delay the acquired immunity of the younger population, making older people more vulnerable to exposure, especially in the absence of focused protection measures. Long-lasting immunity from COVID-19 is acquired after mild or asymptomatic cases, and sensational stories about “long COVID” and “COVID heart” have been debunked. In-person learning was not correlated with higher rates of student illness and school closures may have actually worsened death rates.

Clearly, quarantining the healthy did exactly the opposite of what was sold to the public: It increased non-COVID-19 excess deaths while leaving elderly and immunocompromised people completely unprotected. While some may excuse the destructiveness of lockdowns as a simple error, the sheer volume of reversals public health officials have made during the pandemic paints a picture of bureaucrats intentionally misleading the public in order to cover up their failures or pursue agendas unrelated to public health.

Moving the Goal Posts

Experts have consistently taken an imprecise approach to statistics, changed their minds, and withheld information while claiming the mantle of “scientific consensus.” Over the summer of 2020, the WHO quietly changed its definition of herd immunity from protection acquired through both natural immunity and vaccination to one acquired only through vaccination. Similarly, in December 2020, Fauci declared that he was changing his estimate for vaccination rates needed to achieve herd immunity from 60% to 90%. When asked for a scientific rationale, Fauci said he changed the percentage based purely on polling that indicated more Americans were willing to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

When lockdowns failed to yield meaningful mitigation results, public health agencies that had previously recommended against masking changed their position. Although simulations suggested that 80% mask compliance would do more to stop the spread of COVID-19 than lockdowns, regional analysis in the United States does not show that mandates had any effect on case rates, despite 93% compliance. Moreover, according to CDC data, 85% of people who contracted COVID-19 reported wearing a mask.

Research has shown that once unquestioned rules like 6 feet for social distancing are arbitrary and not actually associated with lower transmission. Reporting of death and hospitalization rates was also inexact, and mass asymptomatic testing distorted public understanding of the virus. Ninety-five percent of COVID-19 deaths had an average of four related underlying conditions and the CDC’s death count includes “deaths involving unintentional and intentional injury.” As a result of testing children hospitalized for unrelated conditions, the number of pediatric COVID-19 hospitalizations was exaggerated by at least 40%.

The PCR testing protocol for COVID-19 was based on a paper by Christian Drosten, which was peer-reviewed and published within just two days in a journal on whose editorial board Drosten sits. The method was created “without having virus material available,” using instead a genetic sequence published online. The PCR test amplifies genetic material of the virus in cycles but does not determine whether a case is infectious. A higher number of cycles indicates a lower viral load. The cycle threshold for PCR tests used in the U.S. was usually limited at 37 or 40, highly sensitive levels. In July 2020, Fauci remarked that at these levels, a positive result is “just dead nucleotides, period.”

For vaccinated Americans, the CDC has lowered the cycle threshold for “breakthrough infections” to only 28 cycles and announced that post-vaccine cases will only be counted if they result in hospitalization or death. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stated that vaccinated Americans who died and tested positive for COVID-19 merely died “with” COVID-19, not “from” COVID-19. This method of tallying would eliminate many pre-vaccine cases. It is also likely that 85%-90% of tests that are positive at a cycle threshold of 40 would be negative at a cycle threshold of 30.

Despite this lack of accurate data, authorities have consistently scapegoated members of the public as “anti-maskers” or “anti-vaxxers” responsible for prolonging the pandemic. They have used divisive messaging and disorienting scare tactics in order to justify months of COVID-19 restrictions that were based on dogma, not on science.

Scientific Inversion

Our current state of scientific inversion has sown intense division in the U.S. and threatens to rip apart the social fabric. For the past 16 months, the public has been told that it is our duty to serve the needs of medical institutions and personnel, not the other way around. Effective low-cost therapeutics like ivermectin were dismissed in favor of a vaccine program that transferred billions of dollars from taxpayers to pharmaceutical executives and shareholders. Critics of measures like school closures were accused of far-right white supremacy, even though these measures were most damaging to working-class people and minorities. Deadly policies were portrayed as lifesaving, and public health protocols caused immense clinical damage.

A few people have benefited from this war on reality while many have paid a heavy price. In 2020, workers lost $3.7 trillion, while billionaires gained $3.9 trillion and 493 new individuals became billionaires. During this same period, decades of progress against diseases like malaria and tuberculosis were reversed. Disruptions to health and nutrition services killed 228,000 children in South Asia. Globally, the impact of lockdowns on health programs, food production, and supply chains plunged millions of people into severe hunger and malnutrition.

In the U.S., we are facing a crisis of cardiovascular disease and undiagnosed cancer. Unemployment shock will cause 890,000 additional deaths over the next 15 years. Overdoses from synthetic opioids increased by 38.4%, and 11% of U.S. adults considered suicide last June. Three million children disappeared from public school systems, and ERs saw a 31% increase in adolescent mental health visits.

Now, the stories that were used to justify these hardships are continuing to unravel. Many of the people responsible will insist that the second-order consequences are the horrible symptoms of a magic virus and that the mistakes made in handling such a crisis were inevitable. But preventing young children from reaching crucial developmental milestones in the face of mounting evidence is not just a “mistake.” Forcing hospital patients to die alone without saying goodbye to their families is not just a “mistake.” Pushing millions of people into poverty and starvation is not just a “mistake.” These are crimes.

Basic civil, human, and economic rights were violated under demonstrably fraudulent pretenses. The sacrifices we thought we were making for the common good were sacrifices made in vain. Unlawful lockdowns demoralized the population and ruined lives. The tragic reality is that this was all for nothing. The only way to prevent these events from recurring is to exhaustively investigate not just the origin of the virus, but every corrupt and misguided decision made by politicians, NGOs, public health organizations, and scientific institutions made since its fateful emergence.

Somewhere over the Rainbow, something went terribly wrong... That is the title of my embroidery which you can see at the top of this page. Being a visual artist, I don't often explain my ideas and concepts in detail, leaving interpretations mostly up to the viewer. I found it necessary however to accompany my art with words on this occasion.

I’ve started and finished this post many times. Had friends read over and edit it, took a break to digest, then scrapped half of it. I have tried to replace anger with compassion and, finally, this is the version I feel ready to share with everybody who’d like to read it.

My hope is that this will help you, the reader, the viewer, to understand my conclusions about this subject. And I will tell you them candidly so no mistake can be made in misunderstanding or misrepresenting me.

--

I stumbled across the subject of gender identity ideology somewhat out of the blue about seven months ago and, after some initial research into it, I became really rather alarmed by the rise of accusations of bigotry and hatred aimed towards people who don’t buy into it.

‘It’ being the idea of a gender spectrum and sex as a social construct, rather than a biological reality. An Idea that seems to have gained a rather fanatical following and high visibility via social media over the past few years.

I had also been blissfully unaware of last year’s consultations by the English and Scottish Governments regarding the GRA (Gender Recognition Act) reform in respect of ‘self-ID’ (self identification) and the potential legal and human rights ramifications for women and girls. The implication being that if one can simply self-ID into womanhood, the single-sex protections of the 2010 equality act become completely null and void.

And so the issue has collided with my understanding of feminism and simply by being a feminist or part of certain circles, incorrect assumptions about my political beliefs are being made. With this post I seek to articulate my personal beliefs, so that I can defend and advocate for them.

I feel no animosity towards people who hold different beliefs to me, be they religious, gender identity ideology or any other kind of faith, and I hope you can extend the same courtesy to me.

Terminology

Definitions matter. Respecting people, matters. Criticising bad ideas also matters.

To express my convictions as clearly as possible, I have made a list of key words and their definitions as I understand them to be correct and have used in this essay.

A woman, is an adult human female. (Not an identity or feeling.)

Female is the sex of an organism that produces non-mobile ova (egg cells).

The word female comes from the Latin femella, the diminutive form of femina, meaning "woman". Barring rare medical conditions (DSD or Intersex), female humans have two X chromosomes.

Intersex is not transgender or non-binary. It is a rare medical condition. (Not an identity or a feeling.) In some current arguments Intersex conditions are being used to legitimise the idea of ‘being born in the wrong body’. However, most Intersex individuals do not wish to be included under the ‘trans-umbrella’. The aim of Intersex supporting charities is to demedicalise the condition, whereas Transgender support groups seek to gain easier and ever earlier access to medications and surgeries.

Cis [-gender] is a term invented to describe a person not struggling with their gender identity. Personally, I reject this prefix. Firstly, because I don’t have a ‘gender identity’ (as I do not believe in such a concept), and, secondly, describing me simply as a woman or female will suffice.

Sex is either of the two categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

It is not ‘assigned’, but rather observed at birth or often already in utero, based on external sex characteristics. Sex (not gender identity) is a protected characteristic under the law.

Humans can not change sex. If we ignore sex, we ignore sexism. This is important, particularly for women, living in sexist societies.

Femininity & masculinity refer to traits or characteristics typically associated with being female or male, respectively. Individuals usually possess both what are considered feminine and masculine attributes to various degrees, regardless of their sex.

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity.

Gender dysphoria (or ‘GD’) is a distressed mental state arising from a conflict between a person's perceived gender identity and the biological sex of the person.

Transwomen are biological males that choose to live as a woman, or believe they actually are women. There are similar examples in other cultures such as the fa'afafine in samoa - literally meaning ‘in the manner of’ (fa’a) ‘woman’ (fafine) - or the Hijra in south asia, as well as ‘Two Spirit’ for Indigenous North Americans, though these are seen as a third gender, rather than as literally the same as the female sex.

Transmen are biological females that choose to live as a man, or believe they actually are men. There are far fewer, in fact barely any examples at all of transmen in other cultures the world over. (Although there has been an enormous, inexplicable steep increase of young women being referred to gender clinics in the western world over the past decade.)

Non-binary is a term used by people who believe that gender is a spectrum rather than a binary, and states that they fall anywhere on this spectrum, or even ‘outside’ of the male-female dichotomy (I am still curious to know what ‘outside’ means).

Though I know some wonderful people who have come to embrace and re-define themselves by these terms and this ideology, I struggle with it for many reasons.

I struggle with this need to further categorise people into boxes: non-binary, a-gender, pan-gender, genderqueer, genderfluid, demiboy, demigirl etc. Instead of freeing us from the constrictions of socially imposed stereotypes this new system of categorising people actually imposes yet more new ones.

You are a butch girl? Must be non-binary. Feminine boy? Non-binary, or maybe trans. There appears to be no room for masculinity in women and femininity in men, and I don't find that very progressive.

How are any of these new labels any different to terms used to describe ‘character’, ‘personality’ and ‘expression’?

The proposition that people who don’t call themselves non-binary are any less on a spectrum between feminine and masculine traits seems entirely strange to me. I don’t know anybody who is a hundred percent male or female in their expression. I don’t even think its possible.

Furthermore, the idea that to be described as cis is to be treated as being privileged seems completely misplaced. Especially when talking about biological females who cannot simply identify out of oppression precisely because they are female (which is not an identity or feeling).

To hold these definitions and beliefs now often gets pejoratively called “biological essentialism”, as well as mean and hurtful.

None of the previous is intended as, or even just 'is', unkind or judgemental towards anybody, let alone mean.

The immutable biological qualities of females and males should not and do not determine or dictate whether or not you can create and design your own life as you wish. Feminists have argued this for a very long time.

But I really struggle with the increasing demands of having to validate somebody's idea of themselves, which is solely based on subjective feelings rather than objective realities.

It strikes me as a bad idea to demand others to bend or discard the facts of biological science, in favour of unjustified imposed mantras such as “transwomen are women”.

I have no issue with somebody who feels more comfortable expressing themselves as if they are the other sex (or in whatever way they please for that matter). However, I can not accept people’s unsubstantiated assertions that they are in fact the opposite sex to when they were born and deserve to be extended the same rights as if they were born as such. And I do not believe that these beliefs should override existing protections that are in place as a result of the biological realities of women, since their purpose is to relieve oppression based on women’s physicalities and reproductive functions (not identity or feelings).

Feelings don’t have human rights. Humans do.

I am also completely at a loss over Stonewall’s (the LGBTQ lobby group) updated description of transgender, seeing that, by their logic, almost anybody would fall under this category, including those that don’t identify as trans.

screenshot of Stonewall website

How is it acceptable for one group to self-identify (such as trans, non-binary, queer etc.) while also denying that right to others, when people (such as myself) do not accept the label cis?

“That includes people who do not self-identify as transgender, but who are perceived as such by others…”

How is it okay for an organisation in Stonewall’s position to categorise somebody as transgender, even if that person doesn’t do so themselves?

The Doctrine

The whole concept of gender identity shifts the onus onto everybody else, rather than being the responsibility of the self.

One is now kindly asked to play along with the Ideology of Gender Identity in the form of an ever growing list of new pronouns, identities and the validation of nebulous ‘facts’, or else be seen and labelled as hateful and bigotted.

It is an ideology because it is rooted in faith. A faith that I do not share. Let me explain.

The Ideology of Gender Identity doctrine (as I understand it and gathered from social media and personal conversations with proponents) is as follows:

• Transwomen literally are women, transmen literally are men. (They have simply been assigned the wrong sex at birth. So a transwoman’s penis is therefore a female sexual organ, and vice versa for transmen and their vaginas)

• Non-binary people exist and are ‘valid’ (this is an often repeated mantra)

• The dictionary definition of ‘woman’ (“an adult human female”) is ‘problematic’ and transphobic

• Biology is transphobic and exclusionary

• Men can get pregnant and give birth

• Women can ejaculate sperm and fertilise eggs

• There are no physical advantages for transwomen over cis-women in sport

• Allowing people to self-ID will have no impact on women’s rights in any way. The loopholes that would be created for predatory men to take advantage of are a figment of hateful and bigoted women’s imaginations. (Men never go to great lengths to access vulnerable women and being a member of a marginalised group automatically precludes anyone in it from wanting to do harm to others)

• Gender Identity is an inherent immutable quality that everybody has and only oneself can determine (unless Stonewall dictates otherwise). If one doesn’t have it, one gets assigned the label cis

• Gender Identity can be fluid, meaning one day you can feel like a woman, another day like a man, and another day like neither. (None of this will create any issues for accurate data collection to tackle gender inequalities)

• ‘Woman’ is an identity or feeling rather than biological observable reality. ‘Man’ is an identity or feeling rather than biological observable reality. Therefore anybody should freely be able to access the services, changing rooms, toilets, sports teams, grants and shortlists, shelters and prison services that best correspond with their chosen gender, not sex. This won’t create any issues, because transpeople are literally the sex they say they are, and non-binary people can choose what suits them best

• Sex is a social construct that is arbitrarily assigned at birth

• Sex and gender are a spectrum

• Same sex attraction is trans-exclusionary

• Sexual attraction is based on socially constructed biases. Humans are attracted to genders, not to sex (alternatively, you are a vagina or penis fetishist and therefore transphobic)

• Transwomen who fancy women are lesbians

• Transmen who fancy men are gay

• Lesbians that don’t consider transwomen with a penis as a partner, are problematic and transphobic

• Misgendering is actual, literal violence

• Dead-naming (using a previous name of a person who has since changed their gender and name) is actual, literal violence

• Cis people have cis-privilege

• Transwomen are the most marginalised of all women

• Anybody who disagrees with any of these points, is a TERF - Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist

• TERF’s are fascists and deserve to be hurt

• TERF’s are part of (or are funded by) the alt right

• TERF’s are not feminists

• Women who have concerns about sharing spaces and services designed for biological females, are actually, literally transphobic, exclusionary and elitist about the label women and are only hiding behind ‘concerns’ so that people can’t see how biggoted they really are. They don’t want transwomen to be part of their exclusive club

• Anybody who disagrees with any of these points is a transphobe who actually literally hates transpeople, and denies their existence

• To question any of these points is actual, literal violence, as questioning would erase somebody's existence

• No Debate!

I believe that is most of it but please correct me if I forgot something or misrepresented the doctrine in any way. This is my genuine attempt to rationalise and understand the code of belief.

The crux

I disagree with pretty much every single point of this doctrine. The conclusion of which for followers of the doctrine would be that I hate trans- and non-binary people. (I do not.)

That I am a narrow minded bigot. (I am not.)

That I am a facist; as bad as a Nazi; Tansphobic cis-scum; and deserve what’s coming my way if I don’t change my beliefs. (If twitter and other social media sites and their users are to be believed.)

Please, make your own conclusions.

But none of this will lead me to forgo and forget my human rights to assert my own personal boundaries and beliefs, without being ‘othered’ or name-called for doing so.

None of it stops me from worrying about what this entire reconstruction of words and meanings does for girls’ and women’s rights in particular.

None of it makes me worry less about the future of women's sports, because transwomen have an undeniable, proven physical advantage even after transitioning and hormone therapy. (There are obvious reasons for sex seggregation in sports, namely male physical advantage, which doesn’t go away with hormone treatment!)

None of it will stop me from worrying about the impact that normalising and validating the idea of being “born in the wrong body” has on young children and adolescents, who are being put on life-long medical paths and often rendered infertile due to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery due to this ideology.

And none of it will stop me from speaking out about this publicly, even though it may be detrimental to my opportunities as an artist, as well as some personal relationships.

It is not my intention to upset or limit the freedoms of friends, acquaintances or even strangers, nor do I wish to be ostracised, but I can not and will not compromise my artistic and personal integrity, in service of an oppressive and, increasingly, actually violent, dogmatic ideology.

When Ideas escalate

It’s clear that emotions run high and tribalism runs deep. And I find myself unable to go along with what now seems to be the only accepted narrative in ‘my circles’.

I find it quite concerning and, frankly, manipulative to read with increasing regularity of ‘gentle reminders’, or the insistence on ‘inclusive’ (or as I like to call it ‘reductive and dehumanising’) language.

The word women is replaced by ‘uterus-carriers’, ‘menstruators’, ‘vulva- havers’, ‘chest feeders’ and the absolute top-of-the-pops on my No Fucking Way list: ’NON-MEN’ (I wish that was a joke.)

It is uncannily reminiscent of black women’s history, when female slaves were dehumanised as ‘breeders’, or today’s billion dollar surrogate industry in India, where vulnerable women are literally used as incubators and called ‘carriers’.

I virtually never see anybody advocating for men, and transwomen by extension, to now be called ‘penis owner’, ‘people with penises’ or ‘prostate carrier’ and ‘ejaculator’ in the name of inclusion.

And here’s the rub: this entire issue is overwhelmingly asymmetric against one sex class.

A vocal British trans-rights advocate, born male, proclaimed that ‘centring’ reproductive systems (i.e. pussy hats, Big Swinging Ovaries accessories etc) at a women’s march is reductive and exclusionary (because transwomen do not have pussies or ovaries).

I disagree.

Women ‘centering’ and celebrating our reproductive organs is not only our right but, speaking as a woman myself, it is a way of reclaiming agency over body parts that are being legislated and shamed virtually everywhere in the world (for recent examples, see international abortion laws and Period shaming, though there are plenty more).

Meanwhile, T-shirts are being worn that say “Fuck TERFS”, “I punch TERFS” and even “KILL THE TERF”. Baseball bats and hammers adorned with the trans flag colours and signs saying “Fuck your pussy power” and “ DIE CIS SCUM” are being proudly waved around by proponents of the doctrine at those same women’s marches and pride parades.

These are predominantly groups of biological males threatening actual violence against women, with weapons.

There was even an exhibition of these paraphernalia at the San Francisco Public Library (you can check that out here).

It is unsettling to me that this has not only become acceptable but quite commonplace under the protective banner of the rainbow flag. What has gone wrong?

Lesbians are being told that - by new definitions - not considering a transwoman (who may still have a penis) as a potential partner is transphobic and exclusionary. Workshops are being run by organisations, such as Planned Parenthood, on “how to overcome the cotton ceiling”, a play on women breaking the glass ceiling, referring to the cotton of a lesbian woman’s underwear...

The “Degenerettes” have supplied me with ample inspiration for my embroidery, and their ‘activism’ seems by no means unusual anymore.

I find it disturbing and disturbed.

Transitioning children

This is another issue I am incredibly alarmed by.

I grew up with many gay and lesbian friends, and they all had one thing in common: adolescence was a bitch.

Now, that is a statement true for most of us, particularly those that behave and present in unconventional ways but for kids that grow up to be homosexual it’s particularly tough in a world that is still quite homophobic. Most only came to terms with and started to feel more comfortable within themselves around their mid to late 20’s. Some struggled for much longer still.

Gender Identity Ideology, suggests that kids who say they are the other gender or express themselves in stereotypical ways normally ascribed to the opposite sex are probably trans. There is no acknowledgement that adolescence is an awkward and very confusing time for all, and to question who you are and where you fit in society is part and parcel of it.

But the speed with which we as a society have embraced the ‘born in the wrong body’ narrative really scares me.

I believe it is the responsibility of adults to support children through the challenges of puberty, with love, understanding, acceptance and an approach of watchful waiting.

Instead some adults are now being pressured to unquestioningly accept the idea that a gender questioning child may have been ‘born in the wrong body’. Other parents are actively facilitating the wishes of a minor, who has no way of understanding the long term implications of things like puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and surgery.

A child who isn’t yet fully sexually developed, may very well wonder about who they are. Particularly if presented with ideas that conflict with common knoweledge, such as: it is actually possible to change sex through medical and surgical intervention, and; there is actually no need to change sex because you are the gender, and by extension, the sex that you feel you are. Sex is but an illusion and all that matters is your identity.

According to peer reviewed studies, in 80% of children who meet the criteria for GDC (gender dysphoria in childhood) the GD recedes with puberty. Rather, many of these adolescents will later identify as non-heterosexual.

There will be those for whom GD persists after puberty and it is paramount to help these individuals to gain easier access to psychological assistance.

But to downplay the long term effects of those medications and surgeries on young children, as many trans activists and proponents of the doctrine are, doesn’t seem kind to me at all. Physical changes during childhood can be irreversible as it is a crucial phase of development, especially in regard of the development of sex characteristics during adolescence.

Nowadays, many kids, particularly those that feel they don’t fit in with larger society, find refuge in online forums like Tumblr, reddit and other such online communities.

The social incentive for some to adopt new identities seems understandably enticing, but can also add to the feelings of discontent as well as dysphoria, according to many accounts of young people who had been part of these online groups and eventually fell out of them.

Benjamin A Boyce has a youtube channel that is a mix of investigative journalism, cultural criticism, and interviews. He has an ongoing series of interviews in which he speaks to transpeople (young and old), de-transitioners, psychologists and sexologists about many of the above mentioned concerns. Those interviews are very respectful, inquisitive and enlightening, and I absolutely recommend them to anybody who is interested. Here is the link.

Furthermore, a fantastic summary of current evidence in the treatment of gender dysphoric children and young people can be found here .

Misplaced compassion

I can see how the origins of this postmodern line of thinking arose from compassion towards people suffering from gender dysphoria who are struggling to come to terms with themselves in an environment that imposes traditional social gender roles on us from birth.

Trans and gender non-comforming individuals often face discrimination, stigmatisation and violence, and also have to deal with a myriad of other mental and physical health issues.

I genuinely feel deeply compassionate towards anybody who experiences any kind of internal struggle, and I believe that better access to, in particular, mental healthcare for people suffering from GD is paramount.

However, none of those reasons convince me to embrace the total denial of epistemological, objective scientific facts, which is a base requirement of this doctrine and a dangerous precedent.

For someone suffering severe depression who has suicidal ideation the compassionate and responsible medical response is not to facilitate their suicide. To promote such a response would be outrageous and illegal.

The same is true for other types of dysphoria such as apotemnophilia or body integrity dysphoria; a rare, infrequently studied condition in which there is a mismatch between the mental body image and the physical body (sound familiar?) characterised by an intense desire for amputation of one or more limbs, or to become blind or deaf. This fixation also often starts in early childhood or adolescence.

As a society, we try to help our fellow individuals. If their body causes them distress or they feel that they would be ‘complete’ if they were arm- or legless, we would not do that by cutting off healthy limbs or making them blind but by trying to find ways to alleviate the reasons for the dysphoria.

Similarly, for someone suffering GD who has the ideation that they must transition to resolve their anguish, I struggle to see how the compassionate and responsible response is the facilitation of the surgical removal of their healthy penis, breasts or ovaries and the ingestion of hormones (which will bring with them numerous future health problems). All without the guarantee of curing their dysphoria.

This should illicit equally as much concern as the others and yet we as a society seem to have embraced the ‘born in the wrong body’ tale fully.

Please watch this documentary and/or read this essay about body integrity dysphoria and explain to me if you can what the difference to gender dysphoria is, because I can not see it. Aside from one being fitted with a narrative and normalised in society, while the other remains ethically difficult and controversial.

A little perspective...

For those that don’t know me personally here’s a little introduction, which perhaps will help you understand why I couldn’t help but write this piece and stitch this embroidery.

While I have lived in London now for 15 years, I originally grew up in East Berlin, as it was until the wall came down in ’89 and Germany was reunified. This opened doors to six-year-little-old-me I never could have imagined, simply because I was unaware of the prison-like restrictions this wall and the communist state had inflicted on my life and that of everybody around me until that point.

The pre-school art folder I still possess is filled with red communist flags, peace doves and DDR (German Democratic Republic) flags crafted from paper cutouts, penciled illustrations and paint. Next to them, a childish drawing of three little girls holding hands: one white, one brown, one yellow; because under communism ‘everybody is equal’.

On face value, some aspects of East Germany seemed almost progressive, for women’s emancipation in particular. Retrospectively, it makes sense that neither of my grandmothers (both endured the Second World War and are still alive) nor my mother or aunties, all of whom spent their formative years trapped the east side of the Berlin Wall, would consider themselves a feminist, and yet I very much do.

I am from the weird in-between generation. I can still remember having to be cautious about what we would say and to whom. Even your closest friends, or so we were told, could turn out to be working for the Stasi, the East German State Security Service, which has been described as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies ever to have existed.

Everyone may have been ‘equal’ but we certainly weren’t free to think and do what we wanted.

Certain TV programs from ‘The West’ were off limits, as was anything not in the ‘communist spirit’. If you were found to be guilty of ‘wrong think’, the consequences could be grave, including prison sentences or worse.

(If you know little of East Germany, I highly recommend watching “The Lives of Others” and “Goodbye Lenin”, both incredible films that will give you a good taste of what life was like then.)

The idea of ’wrong think’ is something that has, worryingly, returned to many aspects of the political spectrum and public discourse. And its increasing prevalence scares the shit out of me, frankly.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Another important piece to my story is my father, who I have always been very close to. He is what can only be described as gender non-conforming, as you can see in the pictures below (which he has allowed me to use for the purpose of this essay). I want to talk about him to give context to my words and how close to home this feels to me.

My dad’s un-inhibited expression has always been a source of pride but also worry for me. I am all too aware that we live in a narrow-minded world that often fervently attempts to ostracise the ‘other’. Some individuals feel it’s acceptable to physically or verbally assault people who do not conform to their idea of ‘normal’. It should go without saying: this is wrong.

I abhor it and will speak out against such prejudices on behalf of everybody that wishes to express themselves outside of our social norms.

I have defended my father and every gender-non conforming person’s right to express themselves freely without fear of violence or discrimination, and have stood up against prejudiced individuals’ ideas of how people should dress and express themselves ‘appropriately’, and I continue to do so.

WIth everything said, I am genuinely deeply worried.

I worry that we have increasingly become a society where valid concerns regarding women’s rights, children's safeguarding and freedom of speech, are being classed as hate speech to stop any debate from happening.

I worry because this notion of ‘wrong think’ and wrong speak’ feels eerily reminiscent of my east german childhood, and that’s actually quite terrifying.

I worry because we should be having nuanced and respectful discussions about how to progress and make life more equal and fair for everybody: how to create more single sex as well as mixed sex facilities and shelters; how to create new trans shortlists in addition to women’s shortlists in political parties, scholarships and the like; how to create a level playing field in sports allowing individuals of all abilities and backgrounds to compete.

How can we support gender questioning children, without neglecting our safeguarding duties and condemning them to an often irreversible medical pathway for life?

Instead, this ideology, which is predominantly rooted in Queer theory and wishful thinking, surrounded by a potent dose of misogyny, homophobia and often also ageism, leaves no room for any debate at all.

Women and transpeople are both marginalised groups within society, and we need to find solutions for both of those groups, without overriding existing rights of women.

I worry because I fear that in the current political climate, and with the rise of populism internationally, women and transpeople will both lose out big time if we continue on this path.

Which begs the question: who really benefits from an imploding liberal and feminist movement?

It isn’t us.

The death rate from COVID-19 is dramatically low at United Memorial Medical Center in Houston, TX compared to other hospitals across the nation and the world. Despite Dr. Joseph Varon's popularity on TV, news personalities avoid questions of why he's having success treating his patients. As it turns out, he's using drugs the WHO and CDC recommend against.

John Cunnington is a dear friend, and former McMaster University associate professor. After a 38-year career as a respirologist and internal medicine physician, he retired in 2018.

_Long before COVID-19 appeared, I benefited from John’s insight into how the medical system works. I_n recent months, my mild-mannered friend has grown increasingly concerned. It seems to him that the medical ethics that guided his entire career are being tossed aside. I invited him to write down his thoughts. This is the first guest essay published on this blog:

By John Cunnington, MD

At the top of the medical hierarchy is the neurosurgeon. Neurosurgeons are surrounded by a mystique of omniscience and omnipotence. Imagine my surprise, therefore, as a lowly medical student, to discover that the senior neurosurgeon in our institution, Robert Hughes, was being sued for malpractice. In fact, Robert Hughes, to his chagrin, went on to make Canadian medical and legal history on the issue of informed consent.

In 1970 Hughes performed a carotid endarterectomy (cleaning out of the carotid artery to the brain) on a 44-year-old man, John Reibl, who then went on to suffer a stroke that left him paralyzed on one side and unable to continue working. Reibl sued Hughes, claiming that he was not informed that he might suffer a stroke from this elective surgery, and that had he known this he would have delayed the surgery until he’d become eligible for a Ford Motor Company pension less than two years later.

Here is Reibl’s testimony to the Court:

Q. Did he talk to you about what would happen if you didn’t have the operation?

A. Yes, he said, “It is up to you if you want to have it or not. You can live a few years. You can live about 7 or 10 years or longer. One of these days you are going to fall on your nose, and that’s it. If you are going to do it now in the beginning you are not going to have any problem later.”

Q. Did Dr. Hughes say anything else about any risks of the operation?

A. He didn’t mention anything.

Reibl v Hughes went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and in 1980 the Court articulated the current standard for informed consent, specifically that the physician (or other health care provider) “must give the patient sufficient information so that an objective, reasonable person in the patient’s position would be able to make an informed choice about a medical procedure”. The court defined failure to disclose the attendant risks as negligence.

Thus, in Canada, to receive a treatment or procedure, the subject must not just verbally agree and sign a consent form, but must give informed consent after having the risks explained to them.

Forty-one years after the Supreme Court decision our federal and provincial governments are engaged in a program of administering to the entire Canadian population above the age of 12, a completely new, untried, experimental, non-FDA approved, gene therapy treatment. This therapy, according to US and European government adverse vaccine reaction databases, is reasonably suspected of having killed thousands of people, and created serious injury in tens of thousands. Meanwhile, the long-term consequences of the therapy are simply unknown.

Are Canadians who are receiving this treatment getting this information? Are they being told what they need to know to give informed consent? A friend of mine recently got the injection. I asked him if he was informed of the possibility of side effects. He said none were mentioned!

As far as I can determine, Canadians are not being informed that there are risks. When they show up at the injection site it appears that they are told to sign a form and hold out their arm. Those giving the treatment are not discussing with them the pros and cons, the risks and benefits of the injection prior to “vaccine” administration. Most Canadians taking the shot have no idea that there is a risk of blood clotting disorders, such as pulmonary embolism and stroke, of life-threatening immune processes such as vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia, or that young people taking the shot are at risk of the potentially fatal complication of myocarditis (nor are they informed that the risk of Covid itself is almost negligible for the young and healthy). Such lack of information is a violation of the Supreme Court decision on consent. If you are injured by the vaccine and did not provide informed consent, you have grounds to sue your health authorities for negligence and damages.

Note: The onus is not on patients to do their own research. The onus is on the health care provider to inform patients of the risks so that an objective, reasonable person in the patient’s position would be able to make an informed choice. Does anyone really believe that a 12 to 15-year-old child is able to sufficiently understand the complex issues involved in experimental gene therapy to give informed consent? Does enticing children with ice cream (Toronto), or adults with a lottery (Alberta), constitute informed consent?

If Reibl v Hughes sets the standard for approved treatments, what then should be the standard for unapproved treatments, for experimentation on humans with new and untried technologies? As a consequence of experiments performed by Nazi doctors on concentration camp prisoners and the subsequent Nuremberg trials, that Court articulated ten research ethics principles to guide medical experimentation in humans. The first principle is that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”. Although the Nuremberg Code, created more than 70 years ago, did not use the word “informed”, it did use the word “consent,” and it is hardly a stretch to conclude that the consent they spoke of was “informed consent”. Most Canadians taking these novel gene therapy injections have no idea that these “vaccines” are not an approved therapy, like a flu shot, and they are unaware that they are in fact being enrolled in clinical trials which are still ongoing.

Our federal and provincial governments, premiers, public health administrators and personnel are negligent in administering the Covid vaccines to tens of millions of Canadians without clearly informing them that this is an experimental therapy, one which could result in serious adverse events, including life-altering injuries or death, and that the long-term side effects, for example potential auto-immune diseases, are as yet unknown.

When governments use all the means in their power, including control of the media and widespread censorship of dissenting voices, to induce people to get a medical treatment without adequately informing them of the risks, they are violating the fundamental trust between the people and their government.

PDF Version with line numbers
Excerpts from references for a review
Preprint v.1.1.2 June 8-17, 2021

V.1.0 is archived. June 13 correction: added missing important reference to Chen J-M. Live unattenuated vaccines for controlling viral diseases, including COVID-19; JMV, 2021.

Dangers of COVID-19 Vaccine Associated Enhanced Disease

Leo Goldstein [1]

• COVID-19 vaccines, used in the US and most of EU, provide acceptable immunity against currently prevalent variants of SARS-COV-2 for up to six months. Evidence suggests that many vaccinated persons younger than 50 are likely to experience vaccine associated enhanced disease (VAED), when they encounter SARS-COV-2 later, in the fall or winter this year.
• The causes are waning antibody immunity and future spread of variants of concern (VoC), resistant to or even escaping vaccine-induced immunity.
• These two problems are likely to create a “perfect storm” in the fall of 2021. The time to start preparing for it is now.
• Children and adolescents are negatively affected by COVID-19 vaccines more than adults, because of stronger effect of the COVID-19 vaccines in them, in cross-reaction with the common cold coronaviruses. Additionally, healthy children and adolescents do not need vaccination against COVID-19.
• Mass vaccination of children and adolescents must stop.
• The fight against COVID-19 should shift from mass vaccination with the current anti-spike vaccines, which are already obsolete because of the coronavirus evolution, to proven early antiviral treatments and possibly prophylaxis.

Abstract

Vaccine Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED) is a special case of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infectious diseases, caused by vaccination. Disease enhancement is detrimental to the patient.

ADE takes place when neutralizing antibodies do not completely neutralize the pathogen. This might happen when the titer levels are too low or when the antibodies are for another pathogen serotype or variant. Many (but not all) past attempts to develop vaccines against SARS, MERS, and other coronaviruses failed because they led to ADE.

This problem is even worse in the current COVID-19 vaccines because they only target the spike protein of SARS-COV-2, which presents unusually few targets for natural antibodies and quickly mutates. Further, failure to treat infected patients and have created huge amounts of SARS-COV-2 and the ideal conditions for its evolution. The coronavirus has already used these opportunities to increase its transmissibility and to avoid some antibodies. It will continue to mutate toward resistance to the vaccine-induced immunity.

ADE was the main concern in the development and emergency authorizations of the COVID-19 vaccines. The vaccine trials and early administration to adults have not shown immediate ADE. Given the remarkably high antibody titers elicited by the vaccines, immediate ADE was unlikely. However, this provides no assurance for the future when the antibodies immunity wanes and distant variants or even serotypes of SARS-COV-2 appear. Multiple lines of evidence, reviewed below, point to a high likelihood of future VAED in vaccinated individuals.

Introduction

Regulatory Documents

FDA, Vaccines to Prevent COVID-19 – Guidance for Industry (FDA re-Guidance 2020)

FDA, Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for an Unapproved Product Memo (FDA re-Pfizer 2020)

FDA, EUA Expansion to the ages 12-15 (FDA re-Amendment 2021)

FDA, Fact Sheet for Pfizer BNT162b2 (FDA re Fact Sheet 2021)

EMA, Assessment Report for Comirnaty aka Pfizer-BioNtech BNT162b2 (EMA re-Pfizer 2021)

EMA, Assessment Report for Moderna (EMA re-Moderna 2021)

Definitions

Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) is an immune system phenomenon, when neutralizing antibodies bind to a virus, but instead of or in addition to neutralizing it, help it to enter cells. The term is also used when these antibodies, not finding targets on the virus, damage the healthy cells (Hellerstein 2020). ADE might happen when the quantity (titer) or quality (matching epitopes presented by the virus) is low. ADE caused by vaccines is called VAED. In the respiratory diseases, it is sometimes called VAERD (vaccine associated enhancement of respiratory disease).

(Lee et al. 2020) reviews ADE as relevant to SARS-COV-2 vaccines and antibody treatments.

There are many ADE mechanisms, but they can be classified in two types:

1. sub- or non-neutralizing antibodies help the virus to enter cells (enhanced infectivity, likely to increase virulence)
2. sub- or non-neutralizing antibodies attack healthy cells instead of the virus (enhanced virulence, might increase infectivity indirectly)

Both used to happen in the past attempts to develop vaccines against coronaviruses.

AOS (original antigenic sin) is a propensity of the immune system to react to a second pathogen similar to the one it has already encountered in the same way. Immunization against one strain of a pathogen might generate ineffective immune response to another, and to trigger ADE (Vatti et al. 2017), (Fierz and Walz 2020). (Lyons-Weiler 2020) describes one virulence enhancement mechanism.

Methods

This is a theoretical paper with a short review of the relevant literature.

Discussion

ADE

The current COVID-19 vaccines, used in the US and most Western countries, are mRNA and viral vector vaccines, targeting only the spike protein of SARS-COV-2. For the purposes of this paper, “COVID-19 vaccines” only refer to these mRNA & viral vector vaccines, unless otherwise specified. Anti-spike coronavirus vaccines are known to be especially prone to cause ADE. For SARS-COV-2, the selection of the spike (S-protein) as the only antigen was an especially bad choice (Hellerstein 2020). T-cells, rather than antibodies, provide long term immunity and do not cause ADE, but only about a quarter of T-cells associated with SARS-COV-2 target its spike, compared with half to two thirds in previous coronaviruses.

Many (although not all) attempts at vaccines against other coronaviruses have failed because they caused ADE in animal models. This was the case with the experimental vaccines against SARS and MERS. The same thing happened during the attempt to develop a vaccine against FIPV, a coronavirus disease in cats (Agrawal et al. 2016), (Gao et al. 2003), (Dandekar and Perlman 2005). On a remarkable side note, Remdesivir was tried for FIPV in cats and failed. It was then tried on humans for COVID-19 and also failed (Goldstein 2020), but still received a EUA.

The current appearance that the COVID-19 vaccines do not cause ADE is insufficient because of the short time between vaccination and exposure to SARS-COV-2. Remarkably high antibody titer, elicited by these vaccines, neutralizes SARS-COV-2. However, vaccine induced antibody titer significantly drops after 6-9 months following the full vaccination (Dispinseri et al. 2021). This is when the vaccine recipients may become susceptible to ADE, upon exposure to SARS-COV-2. Another contributing is the coronavirus’ divergence from the original genome, targeted by the existing COVID-19 vaccines. Currently dominant variants are partially resistant to the natural and vaccine induced immunity. Future variants will be even more resistant or will completely escape it. These two factors have dangerous synergy.

Huge amounts of the coronavirus are in circulation because so many people get infected worldwide. Lockdowns (Wittkowski 2021) and “do not treat” policies have created ideal conditions for the coronavirus’ evolution toward increased infectivity and immunity evasion. The two-shot vaccination protocol also accelerates the vaccine escape (Di Caro et al. 2021), (Weisblum et al. 2020), (Wang et al. 2014).

Accurately predicting ADE is hard, but there are many variants of concern and thousands of subvariants. They continue to evolve. At least some of them will cause infection enhancement, thus gaining an evolutionary advantage, and will become prevalent. Thus, the current strategy of excessive vaccination and lack of early antiviral treatment is all but guaranteed to bring about ADE.

The speed of SARS-COV-2’s evolution toward immunity evasion was not expected when the vaccines were developed (Chen et al. 2021), (Wang et al. 2021). Inactivated whole virus vaccines, like the first three vaccines authorized in China (Baraniuk 2021), also present theoretical danger of ADE, and have less efficacy than mRNA vaccines.

Normally, evolutionary pressure on pathogens is toward lower virulence (milder disease). More virulent pathogens reveal their presence faster, which leads to treatment and/or isolation of the human hosts. The public response of isolating healthy people eliminates this pressure. An evolutionary pressure toward increased virulence of the pathogen always exists – sicker hosts shed more virus. In the midst of lockdowns, a sicker person is also likely to break the lockdown in order to seek help. Thus, the lockdown policies contribute to spread of more virulent variants of the coronavirus.

COVID-19 Vaccines Immunity

Unlike narrow immunity from an anti-spike vaccine, an individual who obtained immunity by infection or exposure, develops a broad and long-term immunity, with T-cells, B-cells, and antibodies against all antigens presented by the coronavirus in all replication phases. The quick emergence of a variant evading natural immunity is unlikely. Normal antigenic drift of coronaviruses is slow and allows the natural immunity to catch up. Some research shows that this happens with the common cold coronavirus E229 (Eguia et al. 2021).

Individuals injected with COVID-19 vaccines might also have difficulty developing normal, broad immunity, even after multiple encounters with SARS-COV-2. As predicted by the original antigenic sin effect, their immune reaction to the virus will be directed against its spike. They might remain in jeopardy even after overcoming moderate COVID-19, and might get it multiple times per season, with or without ADE.

The detrimental vaccine effects described above apply to people naïve to SARS-COV-2. Individuals who acquired natural immunity by infection or exposure to SARS-COV-2, prior to vaccination, may do better. Of course, those individuals had already developed broad and robust immunity to SARS-COV-2 and did not need the vaccination.

It is considered impossible to distinguish ADE from ordinary severe COVID-19 (Arvin et al. 2020), especially because neutralizing and enhancing antibody activities compensate for each other (Wang and et al. 2016).

Expected COVID-19 Wave

A new COVID-19 wave, in the Northern Hemisphere, will likely start in the fall this year. This is when the antibody immunity of the first vaccinated persons will wane. Additionally, coronavirus season (cold and flu season) kicks in. The emergence of more dangerous SARS-COV-2 variants can bring the new wave even sooner.

Children

Children 12-15 are expected to be impacted especially hard by the COVID-19 vaccines, due to higher reactivity of their immune systems. A Pfizer study has shown 1.76 higher antibody titers in this age group compared with 16–25 year-olds (FDA re-Amendment 2021) (Table 9). Some research suggests that the COVID-19 vaccines could possibly interfere with the development of immunity to common cold coronaviruses. This risk is totally unjustified. Very few persons <18 develop severe COVID-19, and 84% of them have obesity or other known chronic conditions (Preston et al. 2021).

Suspected ADE from COVID-19 vaccines, especially spike protein-based ones, was explicitly linked to the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) (Rothan and Byrareddy 2021), (Ricke 2021), (Lawrensia et al. 2020).

A recent study suggests interference of the COVID-19 vaccines with the immune reaction to common cold coronaviruses (Amanat et al. 2021). Some 12-year-olds, who have not developed natural immunity to all four common cold coronaviruses, might be unable to develop it because of the original antigenic sin with the anti-spike vaccine.

Regulatory Concerns

Concerns about ADE/VAED potential of COVID-19 vaccines have been expressed by scientists prior to the emergency use authorization (Hellerstein 2020), (Garber 2020), (FDA re-Guidance 2020), in time of the vaccines review, and are included in the EUA documents in the US and EU. The EMA (EU counterpart of the FDA) took note of serious concerns about decreasing neutralization by antibodies, leading to ADE/VAED in both Pfizer (EMA re-Pfizer 2021) and Moderna (EMA re-Moderna 2021) vaccines. The regulators acknowledged that they could not resolve those concerns. This was recognized as the top risk in the FDA’s EUA for an Unapproved Product (FDA re-Pfizer 2020) :

“risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown and needs to be evaluated further in ongoing clinical trials and in observational studies that could be conducted following authorization and/or licensure”

This language was repeated in the May 10, 2021, in expansion of this EUA for an Unapproved Product for the ages 12-15 (FDA re-Amendment 2021), without referencing any clinical trials or observational studies that could ameliorate this risk. As of June 4, 2021, no such trials or studies could be found in the literature.

The showing that ADE does not happen within two months from the vaccination is insufficient. Remarkably high antibody titer, elicited by the vaccine, neutralizes SARS-COV-2. But even then, reduced efficacy against new variants was observed. The real question is what happens when antibody immunity wanes (in 6-9 months) and the individual is exposed to SARS-COV-2.

It seems such studies were not performed, despite the EUA’s instructions to do so, or yielded results that the interested parties did not want to make public. There is a considerable political pressure to vaccinate as many people as possible, which makes it hard to report any adverse results about the COVID-19 vaccines.

Unresolved Concerns Mean Trouble

On June 4, 2021, PubMed returned 0 results for the search (COVID + VAED) (query https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=COVID+VAED&sort=date). PubMed returned only five results for the search (“vaccine enhanced disease” + COVID), only one of which was relevant. It stated that “no evidence of vaccine-enhanced disease have been reported” without citing any clinical trials or observations (Lombardi et al. 2021). It also repeated talking points of the vaccine manufacturers, like efficacy in the first 100 days after vaccination. Searches for (COVID + vaccine + ADE) and (COVID + vaccine + “antibody dependent”) yielded many results, none of which were relevant to vaccinated individuals’ chances of developing ADE six months after vaccination.

Pfizer and Moderna conducted large scale vaccine trials in the summer 2020. They could or should have followed up with the vaccinated volunteers to see how they did in the January-February wave of COVID-19. They have incentives to show the world that their vaccines protect for more than six months and do not cause ADE. Such papers could not be found. In this case, no good news is bad news.

The issue of ADE/VAED was raised in multiple letters from scientists, such as Wodarg – Yeadon Petition to EMA (Wodarg and Yeadon 2020), without a satisfactory resolution.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla acknowledged the likely need for a third booster shot within 12 months (CNBC 2021), followed by annual booster shots (NBC News 2021) for the recipients of the Pfizer vaccine. It also sounds as acknowledgement of ADE/VAED. There is no evidence that such booster shots will work as intended, and there is not enough time to trial them.

Explicit disclosure of the risk of ADE to COVID-19 vaccine recipients before obtaining informed consent (Cardozo and Veazey 2020) was recommended. Despite this recommendation, ADE risks are not disclosed in the FDA-approved vaccine Fact Sheets (FDA re Fact Sheet 2021). The absence of benefits for adolescents and the many existing treatment alternatives are also not disclosed.

There are other issues, such as damage with the spike protein, generated by the body in response to the vaccine (Alexander 2021), which are out of the scope of this paper.

Conclusions

All the above-described risks and potential long-term effects inform the public to stop vaccinating children and teenagers (<18) and to fully disclose all vaccine risks and existing alternatives to all recipients. The required disclosures should include the fact that the current COVID-19 vaccines target the original Wuhan coronavirus and that the currently circulating variants are much different and partially vaccine resistant.

Recommended action is to treat symptomatic patients early (McCullough and et al. 2020) with antivirals (like Ivermectin + Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin/Doxycycline + Zinc) and treatment adjuvants (vitamin C, possibly melatonin etc.). Early antiviral treatment (McCullough 2021) will also slow down the evolution of the coronavirus. SARS-COV-2 is unlikely to develop resistance to a triple or quadruple cocktail.

Live unattenuated virus vaccine (LUV) may be a better option (Chen 2021) against SARS-COV-2. An individually selected dose of the coronavirus might be administered intranasally, followed by antiviral treatment against COVID-19. It would contain a single variant, selected to be up to date and to have a low virulence. Of course, such treatment must be carefully designed and clinically tested.

No Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interest. No funding was provided for this work.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to AO for the contribution to this paper.

References

Agrawal AS, Tao X, Algaissi A, Garron T, Narayanan K, Peng B-H, et al. Immunization with inactivated Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus vaccine leads to lung immunopathology on challenge with live virus. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics. 2016 Sep 1; 12(9):2351–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2016.1177688

Amanat F, Thapa M, Lei T, Ahmed SMS, Adelsberg DC, Carreno JM, et al. The plasmablast response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination is dominated by non-neutralizing antibodies and targets both the NTD and the RBD. medRxiv. 2021 May 1; 2021.03.07.21253098. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.07.21253098v2

Arvin AM, Fink K, Schmid MA, Cathcart A, Spreafico R, Havenar-Daughton C, et al. A perspective on potential antibody-dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2. Nature. 2020 Aug; 584(7821):353–63. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2538-8

Cardozo T, Veazey R. Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease. International Journal of Clinical Practice. 2020; 75(3):e13795. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ijcp.13795

Chen J-M. Live unattenuated vaccines for controlling viral diseases, including COVID-19. Journal of Medical Virology. 2021; 93(4):1943–9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.26453

Chen J, Gao K, Wang R, Wei G-W. Prediction and mitigation of mutation threats to COVID-19 vaccines and antibody therapies. Chem Sci. 2021 May 26; 12(20):6929–48. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/sc/d1sc01203g

CNBC. Pfizer CEO says third Covid vaccine dose likely needed within 12 months. CNBC. 2021. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/pfizer-ceo-says-third-covid-vaccine-dose-likely-needed-within-12-months.html

Dandekar AA, Perlman S. Immunopathogenesis of coronavirus infections: implications for SARS. Nat Rev Immunol. 2005 Dec; 5(12):917–27. https://www.nature.com/articles/nri1732

Di Caro A, Cunha F, Petrosillo N, Beeching NJ, Ergonul O, Petersen E, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 escape mutants and protective immunity from natural infections or immunizations. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2021 Jun 1; 27(6):823–6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1198743X21001464

Dispinseri S, Secchi M, Pirillo MF, Tolazzi M, Borghi M, Brigatti C, et al. Neutralizing antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic COVID-19 is persistent and critical for survival. Nat Commun. 2021 May 11; 12(1):2670. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22958-8

Eguia RT, Crawford KHD, Stevens-Ayers T, Kelnhofer-Millevolte L, Greninger AL, Englund JA, et al. A human coronavirus evolves antigenically to escape antibody immunity. PLOS Pathogens. 2021 Apr 8; 17(4):e1009453. https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1009453

EMA re-Moderna. Assessment Report Moderna. 2021. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf

EMA re-Pfizer. Assessment Report Comirnaty. 2021. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf

EMA re-Moderna. Assessment Report Moderna. 2021. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/covid-19-vaccine-moderna-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf

EMA re-Pfizer. Assessment Report Comirnaty. 2021. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf

FDA re Fact Sheet. FACT SHEET FOR RECIPIENTS AND CAREGIVERS EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) OF THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE TO PREVENT CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) IN INDIVIDUALS 12 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER. 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/144414/download

FDA re-Amendment. EUA Amendment for an Unapproved Product Review Memorandum May 10, 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/148542/download

FDA re-Guidance. Development and Licensure of Vaccines to Prevent COVID-19; Guidance for Industry. https://www.fda.gov/media/139638/download

FDA re-Pfizer. Emergency Use Authorization for an Unapproved Product Review Memorandum. 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download

Fierz W, Walz B. Antibody Dependent Enhancement Due to Original Antigenic Sin and the Development of SARS. Front Immunol. 2020;11. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.01120/full

Gao W, Tamin A, Soloff A, D’Aiuto L, Nwanegbo E, Robbins PD, et al. Effects of a SARS-associated coronavirus vaccine in monkeys. The Lancet. 2003 Dec 6; 362(9399):1895–6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673603149628

Garber K. Coronavirus vaccine developers wary of errant antibodies. Nature Biotechnology. 2020 Jun 5; https://www.nature.com/articles/d41587-020-00016-w

Goldstein L. “Remdesivir for COVID-19” Study accidentally proved effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine. Watts Up With That? 2020. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/26/remdesivir-for-covid-19-study-accidentally-proved-effectiveness-of-hydroxychloroquine/

Hellerstein M. What are the roles of antibodies versus a durable, high quality T-cell response in protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2? Vaccine: X. 2020 Dec 11; 6:100076. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590136220300231

Lawrensia S, Henrina J, Wijaya E, Suciadi LP, Saboe A, Cool CJ. Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome Temporally Associated with SARS-CoV-2: a New Challenge amid the Pandemic. SN Compr Clin Med. 2020 Nov 1; 2(11):2077–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-020-00602-8

Lee WS, Wheatley AK, Kent SJ, DeKosky BJ. Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies. Nat Microbiol. 2020 Oct;5(10):1185–91. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00789-5

Lyons-Weiler J. Pathogenic priming likely contributes to serious and critical illness and mortality in COVID-19 via autoimmunity. Journal of Translational Autoimmunity. 2020 Jan 1; 3:100051. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589909020300186

McCullough PA, et al. Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2020 Dec 30; 21(4):517–30. https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/abstract/abstract5065.shtml

McCullough P. Peter McCullough MD Testifies Exclusive Vaccine Focus Killed Up To 85%. Dryburgh.com. 2021. https://dryburgh.com/peter-mccullough-covid19-home-treatment/

NBC News. A third Pfizer dose? The Covid-19 vaccine maker is studying booster shots. NBC News. 2021. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/third-pfizer-dose-covid-19-vaccine-maker-studying-booster-shots-n1258775

Ricke DO. Two Different Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) Risks for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies. Front Immunol. 2021;12. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.640093/full

Rothan HA, Byrareddy SN. The potential threat of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology. 2021; 32(1):17–22. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pai.13361

Vatti A, Monsalve DM, Pacheco Y, Chang C, Anaya J-M, Gershwin ME. Original antigenic sin: A comprehensive review. Journal of Autoimmunity. 2017 Sep 1; 83:12–21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896841117302226

Wan Y, et al. Molecular Mechanism for Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Coronavirus Entry. Journal of Virology. 2020. https://journals.asm.org/doi/abs/10.1128/JVI.02015-19

Wang Q, et al. Immunodominant SARS Coronavirus Epitopes in Humans Elicited both Enhancing and Neutralizing Effects on Infection in Non-human Primates | ACS Infectious Diseases. 2016. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsinfecdis.6b00006

Wang R, Chen J, Gao K, Wei G-W. Vaccine-escape and fast-growing mutations in the United Kingdom, the United States, Singapore, Spain, India, and other COVID-19-devastated countries. Genomics. 2021 Jul 1; 113(4):2158–70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888754321001798

Wang S-F, Tseng S-P, Yen C-H, Yang J-Y, Tsao C-H, Shen C-W, et al. Antibody-dependent SARS coronavirus infection is mediated by antibodies against spike proteins. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 2014 Aug 22; 451(2):208–14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X14013321

Weisblum Y, Schmidt F, Zhang F, DaSilva J, Poston D, Lorenzi JC, et al. Escape from neutralizing antibodies by SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants. Marsh M, van der Meer JW, Montefiore D, editors. eLife. 2020 Oct 28; 9:e61312. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61312

Wittkowski K. “The Lockdowns Are Creating a New Virus”— Epidemiologist Dr Wittkowski. Dryburgh.com. 2021. https://dryburgh.com/knut-wittkowski-lockdowns-are-creating-a-new-virus/

Wodarg W, Yeadon M. PETITION/MOTION…. 2020. https://dryburgh.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wodarg_Yeadon_EMA_Petition_Pfizer_Trial_FINAL_01DEC2020_signed_with_Exhibits_geschwarzt.pdf

[1] SHFi (defyccc.com); contact@defyccc.com

Ordo Pluriversalis: The End of Pax Americana & the Rise of Multipolarity, by Leonid Savin, Translated by Jafe Arnold, Black House Publishing, London, 2020.

This book is significant not only because of its detailed examination of globalisation, unipolarity, multipolarity, and associated themes such as foreign policies, superpower rivalries, geopolitics and diverse branches such as the meaning of nationalism, and ethnos, but because it provides an insight into an important school of thought in Russia and further afield.

Leonid Savin is a member of the Military Science Committee of the Russian Ministry of Defence, has served on the faculty of sociology at Moscow State University, is editor of Geopolitica.ru, editor of the Journal of Eurasian Affairs, director of the Foundation for Monitoring and Forecasting Development for Cultural-Territorial Spaces, and lectures within Russia and outside. He is an organiser of the Eurasian Movement, and a leading advocate of the Fourth Political Theory. Of the latter, the primary theorist is Dr Alexander Dugin, whose influence as an adviser and scholar extends over military, academic, political, and governmental agencies in Russia, Europe, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.

Eurasianism sees Russia as pivotal in forming a new geopolitical and civilisational bloc, halting the process of globalisation driven by an Anglo-American axis that seeks world hegemony. In the new multipolar world envisaged by The Fourth Political Theory ‘vectors’ replace both pretty nationalism and globalism.

Traditional Russian Outlook on Western Positivism and Universalism

Given that there is much about Putin’s foreign policies that show influences from the Eruasian doctrine, Ordo Pluriversalis reveals aspects of the ideological background that often informs official Russian attitudes. Indeed, Dugin has advised a range of personalities, including Putin, Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov, and flamboyant ‘ultra-nationalist’, Zhirinovsky.

Savin dedicates his book to the 100th anniversary of the publication of Europe & Mankind, by Nikolay Trubetzkoy (1890-1938). In 1920 Prince Trubetzkoy identified ‘cosmopolitanism’ as a façade for ‘Romano-Germanic [‘Western’] chauvinism’. (N. Trubetzkoy, Europe & Mankind, English translation by Alexandr Trubetzkoy, online: https://sashamaps.net/docs/writings/europe-and-mankind/ ). What Trubetzkoy saw in 1920 in cosmopolitanism as a façade for international domination by ‘the West’, is analogous to the present epoch of Atlanticism, or U.S. world hegemony in the name of liberalism and globalisation. Trubetzkoy states what is very close to what Eurasianists such as Dugin and Savin are reiterating:

‘So the spreading of so-called European cosmopolitanism among non-Romano-Germanic peoples is purely a misunderstanding. Those who succumbed to the propaganda of Romano-Germanic chauvinists were misled by the words “mankind”, “humanity”, “universal”, “civilization”, “world progress”, and so on. All these words were understood literally, whereas in reality they concealed very specific and rather narrow ethnographic concepts’. (Trubetzkoy, ibid., chapter: The Hypnotic Power of Cosmopolitism).

‘“Mankind”, “humanity”, “universal”, “civilization”, “world progress”; these are the same slogans we hear today whenever globalisation is imposed on a ‘rogue state’, whether by military invasion, financial credits, aid, trade, or ‘colour revolution’.

So we see that the first critique of globalisation was based on ‘cosmopolitanism’, as Trubetzkoy referred to it, insofar as globalisation requires the levelling of all cultures and peoples in the name of the world shopping mall and the world factory. ‘Liberalism’ still uses the same slogans of ‘Mankind’, ‘humanity’, ‘world progress’, that provide the moral rationalisation for bombing a state into submission where commerce and moral rot cannot sufficiently penetrate.

Rise of Post-Cold War Multipolarity

Savin examines a variety of advocates of unipolartity, and the unipolar world that appeared after the implosion of the Soviet bloc. The end of the Cold War era was supposed to usher the ‘new American century’, as one influential neocon think tank was called. Various think tanks began looking at a number of scenarios, after it became apparent that U.S. global hegemony was not going to go unchallenged even with the demise of the USSR. In 2012 the U.S. National in Intelligence Council issued Global Trends 2030 which considered emerging conflicts in Asia, causing world economic dislocations, the possibility of a convergence of China with the USA and Europe; a fractured world where nation-states were supplanted by NGOs and world-cities as power centres.

The scenerios are not new. During the Nixon years there was a de facto agreement between the USA and China vis-à-vis their common enemy, the USSR, and a Sino-U.S. pact had been assiduously promoted for decades by Rockefeller and other plutocrats, as an adjunct to the Trilateralist doctrine (USA-Europe-Japan).

Problem of Populism for Unilateralists

However while the rise of China, the resistance of Islam, and the sundry ‘rogue states’ confronted unipolarity after the Soviet collapse, with Russia promptly overcoming the Yeltsin aberration, in some globalist quarters the chief challenge to unipolarity comes from within the USA. The danger of a breach between the foreign policies of the governing classes and the mass public – the danger of ‘populism’ – haunts the oligarchy.

Robert Kagan, prominent among neocons, writing in The Jungle Grows Back (2018) welcomes a fear of China as providing the necessary unifying focus that had been lacking since the end of the Cold War, but worries that peoples (plural) are reverting back to traditions, a process he blames on Trump. Another veteran neocon, Charles Krauthammer, wrote in 1990 in The Unipolar Moment that U.S. hegemony would be achieved, yet predicted that it would only last a generation. He frankly stated that U.S. actions in the Persian Gulf, and elsewhere were undertaken behind the façade of ‘multilateral clothing’, giving the appearance of international legitimacy, but that the world order would collapse. While Krauthammer refers to the USA creating ‘world stability’, and of ‘remaking the international system’ based on ‘domestic civil society’, Savin questions this with the long record of American global adventurism. Krauthammer calls his ‘new unilateralism’ ‘realism’ but also sees the main danger as being the USA’s return to ‘Fortress America’, or to ‘multilateral institutions’.

It is ‘America first’ non-interventionism that became resurgent, to a degree, with the Trump interregnum. What was so horrendous about Trump’s foreign policy, that aligned neocons with street rioting Leftists, is that it returned to the doctrine urged by George Washington in his ‘Farewell Address’ (1796) : that the USA cultivate neither friends or foes abroad. One of Trump’s last speeches was to cadets at West Point, where he said that the USA should refrain from trying to police the world. ‘The job of the American soldier is not to rebuild foreign nations, but defend, and defend strongly, our nation from foreign enemies. We are ending the era of endless wars’. (Donald Trump Tells West Point Cadets, We are not the Policeman of the World, Telegraph, June 13 2020, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/13/donald-trump-tells-west-point-cadets-not-policeman-world/ ).

So amidst the chaos of what some commentators have long called the ‘new world disorder’, Savin states that the task of those who reject globalisation is to ensure a ‘stable multipolarity’. (p. 44).

The implosion of the Warsaw Pact caused a crisis in international relations. The Cold War between two great powers assured that the USA would be restrained. In the immediate aftermath of the Soviet collapse, such restraint was gone. The USA could act unilaterally. The USA expanded its influence into the former Warsaw Pact states and Russian territory with the use of ‘colour revolutions’, whose supposed ‘spontaneity’ was well-planned and lavishly funded by Open Society, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and many other parts of the so-called global ‘civil society’, which Russia was to blacklist and expel.

China’s Contribution to Multiplurality

Of the post-Cold War epoch, Savin sees several significant responses favouring multiplurality.

He sees antecedents in Chinese foreign policy, including the 1954 treaty with India, where territorial integrity, non-interference and co-existence were prescribed. Chinese scholars opined that the world would see one super power and many strong powers. China indicated that it would assist Europe in becoming a ‘pole’. China sees itself as playing a role in Europe’s economy and security.

It might be asked, conversely: How far can China’s economy be said to complement that of Europe, and will the E.U. become reliant on China as a ‘pole’? Does China see multipolarity as a phase in globalisation with itself as leader, rather than as a bulwark against globalisation?

The joint declaration with Russia in 1997 on a ‘Multipolar World and the Establishment of a New International Order’ places China at the forefront of the multipolar project alongside Russia. This seeks a world system based on recognition of diverse paths for development, in contrast to the hegemonic and unilateral doctrine of neo-liberalism. It was a response to the invasion of Iraq.

Russian Policy

In 2000 Russian foreign policy documents were referring to a ‘multipolar system’. In 2013 there was reference to a ‘polycentric system’ and international relations based on a regionalism of diverse interests, with regional currencies and trade pacts. That year a presidential decree referred to Russia as becoming ‘one of the influential centres of a multipolar world’.

Despite frequent references in Russia declarations and studies to the projected ‘new international order’ continuing to work within the system of the U.N., Russia had no intention of subsuming itself to any such globalist enterprise. Rather, Russia insists on its interests in Europe, Middle East, Transcausia, Central Asia, and the Asia-Pacific region. It might be asked whether China and Russia will, rather, conflict in such regions?

Significance of India

India rightly plays a pivotal role in such a new dispensation. She is seen and sees herself as playing the role of a power in the Indian Ocean that might conflict or co-exist with China and the USA. Savin refers to the territorial and civilizational disputes between China and India, but also considers that multipolarity might provide a new context for co-operation, especially if there are common interests in restraining a U.S. presence. One might expect the USA to try and confound any such Sino-Indian relationship, as it has unsuccessfully in regard to Russo-Indian friendship.

Iran as a Geopolitical Pole

Iran emerges as a geopolitical pole given its position between Central Asia and the Middle East, and its being the centre of Shi’ite Islam. Iran’s position of leadership has been impelled by its conflict with U.S. interests seeking to expand in the region. Iran’s consciousness of its position was indicated by President Khatami in 1999 in declaring 2001 ‘The Year of Dialogue Among Civilisations’ as the counter to the unipolar doctrine of ‘the clash of civilisations’. Under the following presidency of Ahmadinejad Iran pursued friendship with Latin America, Russia, Africa and China; the latter sponsoring Iran’s pursuit of membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. (Savin, p. 112).

‘The Latin American Pivot’

Given that since the Monroe Doctrine the USA has considered Latin America its ‘backyard’, resistance to ‘American imperialism’ has a long pedigree. This has taken the form of both far-left guerrilla movements and the rise of populists. Chavez was particularly important is assuming leadership of this trend, which ideologically rests on a ‘new socialism’ that incorporates indigenous cultural identities intrinsically opposed to globalisation processes. A proponent of ‘Bolivarianism’, the doctrine of a South American bloc, this has manifested in institutions such as the Union of South American Nations (Unasur), Community of Latin American & Caribbean States, and the initiative by Chavez and Castro in 2004: Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA).

Of particular importance is that in 2011 Uruguayan president Pepe Mujica iterated the need to avoid ideological dogma, and transcend left, right, and centre. What was Péron, for example, who remains such a pervasive influence, Chavez having called himself a Péroninst? What of Vargas in Brazil, whose supposedly ‘right-wing dictatorship’ is still remembered for its reforms among the industrial workers and peasantry? Both were advocates of a geopolitical bloc, as was Ibanez in Chile, although Vargas was stifled by internal opposition in pursuing this goal. Other pacts were signed by Péron with Ecuador and Nicaragua, but also stymied by internal opposition. Péron side-tracked the opposition from within by initiating a justicialist-syndicalist pan-American labour union, ATLAS, banned in 1955, after his ouster. (Bolton, Péron & Péronism, London, 2014, pp. 182-188).

Polycentricity and Pluriversality

Mulitpolarity is synonymous with polycentricity, or many centres of polity, which will comprise a pluriverse of ‘interests, perspectives, values’, where there are going to be at least several ethnic or religious groups within the same space.

While Savin traces the concept back especially to Americans such as William James, it is to South American thinkers that we return. It is here that Western universalism attempted to impose itself on sundry indigenes, first as imperialism, then as globalisation. Here there is much discussion in academia about ‘many worlds’, ways of being and of ‘reality’. Here spirituality remains a legitimate means of critique, beyond the positivism of the West. Savin cites academics referring to the continuing connexion with the spirit world, where the ‘natural, religious, spiritual, political, and social are not separate’. (Savin, p. 138).

Savin shows by the example of Carl Schmitt, the German legal philosopher, that elements of the West are as relevant to the ushering of a new dispensation as any other remnant of tradition. Schmitt is quoted from a 1927 work that ‘there is always a Pluriverse of different peoples and states’. The world is a ‘pluriverse, not a universe’. Rejecting the possibility of a world state and ‘one humanity’ he saw such concepts as facades for imposing ‘economic imperialism’.

A Matter of Time

Inherent in the globalist vision is the Late Western perception of time being linear, with a focus on the present. The obsession with ‘progress’, while thinking only of the moment, has major impacts on ecology, economy and society. Here we see a gamut of ideas inherited from the Enlightenment; positivism, Darwinism, utilitarianism.

The global managerial elite has adopted Late Western time and space perceptions, where the cliché holds good that time equals money, while to the Russian time is eternity, while India has a sense of timelessness, reflected in the vastness of the yugas of the Vedic literature, and China thinks in long durations. Savin points out the commonality of Marxism and capitalism: the lineal ascent from ‘primitive to modern’, with a focus on the present, and detachment from the past.

Citing the Weimar era revolutionary-conservative Arthur Moeller van der Bruck, epochs unfold as part of a chain of past, present and future which unlike the Late West, expresses a chain of continuity and ‘social holism’. This is why conservativism ‘creates value’, while the Late Western fixation with the present creates exploitation (Savin, p. 177); why ecological devastation in quest of instant profit is normal and necessary.

Savin poses the question as to the position of the West in a future pluriverse. Can the West be saved; ‘reset’? Alternatives he lists are: (1) Non-West, (2) Anti-West, (3) New West, and (4) East (and North and South), as a ‘spatial, ideological concept’.

Because the Fourth Political Theory is a conservative alternative, what Savin shows is that the left critique is flawed because the left itself derives from the same zeitgeist. Oswald Spengler said something similar a century ago when he stated that there is no so-called ‘proletarian’ movement that does not operate in the interests of money, in his essay/lecture on ‘Prussian socialism’ (1919), in The Decline of The West, and in The Hour of Decision.

Enlightenment Spectre

From the notion of time as lineal and therefore suggesting ‘progress’ emerged the notion that some races are ‘primitive’ and some advanced. Here the Western concept of ‘race’ emerged, again from the Enlightenment. This notion of ‘progress’ heralded the doctrine of the ‘civilising mission’ of the West, a notion that the USA assumed after Britain’s imperial decay, and rationalised colonialism; the precursor of today’s globalisation. Enlightenment philosophers such as Adam Smith and Kant had written of racial hierarchies, and the ‘necessity of development’.

We might recall that Rousseau held such notions, as did the liberal-democrat, pro-Jacobin, slave-owning Francophile faction of the USA’s Founding Fathers led by Thomas Jefferson. As did Karl Marx, whose dialectical materialism required the imposition of industrialisation on ‘primitives’ such as Indians, writing that ‘whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history…’ (Marx, The British Rule in India, NY Daily Tribune, June 25, 1853). Without ‘the laying of the material foundations of Western society in Asia’, there could be no process leading to socialism. (Marx, The Future Results of British Rule in India, NY Daily Tribune, August 8, 1853).

Character of Laws

Globalism and unipolarity, or American hegemony, receives legal sanction by contrived notions of ‘international law’. With Savin’s chapter on ‘law and justice’ (p. 187) we come to the utilitarian methodology of imposing and expanding that hegemony. International law is expressed through institutions such as The Hague Tribunal and the London Court of Arbitration. Francis Fukuyama suggests an international network of institutions to enforce international law.

‘International law’ justifies global interference including military invasion. The manner by which this serves vested interests might be seen by such examples as U.S. support for Kosovan independence, while rejecting the Crimean desire to return to Russia. The criteria for support or opposition rests with what serves globalist economics and geopolitics. Savin points out the manner by which the USA buys votes in the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly with offers of aid and loans, including support or otherwise for IMF loans.

Again, ‘international law’ proceeds from Enlightenment doctrine, including the social contract theory of Locke, Rousseau and Kant. What we are seeing is the replacing of organic world-views, whether in regard to time or law, with the inorganic and utilitarian. Savin mentions that the process was already emerging during the 16th Century, where mercantile expansion was the forerunner of globalisation: he alludes to Catholic theologian Francisco de Vittorio objecting that there is ‘no universal civil jurisdiction’. Subsequent conservative critics in the West such as Joseph de Maistre, and more recently Carl Schmitt, raised similar objections to universalism, contending that there are a multiplicity of localised world-views, from which emerge laws according to unique circumstance.

What has arisen over centuries of global mercantile expansion, once justified with religious morality, and now with international judicial concepts, has cynically in the name of ‘human rights’, become a universal levelling process.

Security and Sovereignty – Shifting Definitions

The intrusion of ‘international law’ serves Pax Americana. From ‘international law’ one proceeds to justifications for embargoes, sanctions and outright military invasion. The concepts of security and sovereignty are no longer defined according to local traditions, customs, and the ecological and historical experiences that go to form tribes, peoples, cultures, nations, and states. They are levelled to serve unilateral agendas.

Because language is manipulated, Savin often uses etymology to discover the root of concepts. Hence, ‘security’ has meant to the Greeks, ‘to knock down’, to the Romans, ‘without worry’, to the Russians, ‘careful oversight’, or vigil. We now have in the lexicon of statehood, ‘failed states,’ ‘fragile states’, ‘fractured states’, ‘restricted sovereignty’. To the modern epoch ‘collective security’ means what might be delivered to a ‘rogue state’ or a ‘failed state’ by NATO bombs, especially if that state includes a resource-rich region, such as Kosovo. U.S. backing for the 2014 coup in the Ukraine is regarded as a matter of ‘self-determination’, while Russia’s support for Crimea is called ‘expansionism’.

Other systems are at play, such as cyberwarfare, and the intrusion of transnational corporations, NGOs, venture funds and rating agencies; the power of ‘Big Pharma’ and Monsanto, regional alignments, the role of the U.S. dollar , and the granting or withholding of World Bank loans. Stewart Patrick suggests in Sovereign Wars (2017) that the extension of global links will provide new opportunities for globalisation. Indeed, it is readily ascertainable how NGOs and ‘civil society’ have acted in tandem with the U.S. State Department, USAID, NED, cyber-giants, and many others to intrude on sovereignty. This has enabled the USA to become a ‘hyper-sovereign power’ that extends an outreach globally, unrestrained by traditional concepts of security according to proximity. Savin also mentions Israel as ‘hyper-sovereign’ in its occupation of territories from neighbouring states, and the ‘pseudo-sovereignty’ of Palestine. One might also add the ‘hyper-sovereignty’ of Israel’s world-wide network that encompasses Diaspora Jewry, and sundry lobbies such as AIPAC.

Russia and Hungary acted to remove this ‘civil society’ due to its service to U.S. interests. While whole regions, state after state, have been brought into the orbit of Pax Americana U.S. officialdom alleges that Russia interferes in U.S. politics. Savin states that Russia has sought to defend herself from this onslaught by establishing in 2017 the Temporary Commission for the Protection of State Sovereignty & the Prevention of Interference in the Domestic Affairs of the Russian Federation.

Economics & Religion

These two premise sovereignty and security. As one might expect they are studied as separate entities today, where there has long been in Western academia and further afield a lack of coherence in studies, and overspecialisation that does not allow for a holistic education. But religion reflects the character of a people-culture-nation-state, and economics is also as much diverse among the peoples of the world as religion.

Again the theme is that there is no universal – ‘one size fits all’ – categorisation for the nebulous construct called ‘humanity’.

Savin returns to etymology in seeking for the nature of the subject: economy = home(stead) + rule. (Savin, p. 252). Economics expresses locality; although under globalisation, the locality becomes universal. What remains of traditional religion conflicts with modern economics.

For the West Protestantism had a primary impact on economy, and its predicate the Medieval social ethos; i.e. Catholic. Savin states that Catholicism introduced a rationalistic element into Medieval thought which allowed for the entry of capitalism. However Gothic Europe had for centuries lived according to an ethos that eschewed not only usury as sin, but mercantile competition. The economy was profoundly non-capitalist. In 325 A.D. the Council of Nicea banned usury – interpreted as any profit from money – among clerics. Under Charlemagne the ban was extended to laymen. In 1139 the Second Lateran Council called usury theft. In 1311 the Council of Vienne declared usury a heresy. However, the Church often allowed Jews to practice usury, as did the Muslims, and prohibitions started to wax and wane. (K. R. Bolton, Opposing the Money Lenders, London, 2016, pp. 2-3).

The Jewish role is considered in detail by Savin, drawing on the sociologist Werner Sombart (The Jews & Modern Capitalism, 1911), and sundry Jewish historians. More consideration could be given to the decisive Protestant role, although Savin does cite Max Weber, (The Protestant Ethics & the Spirit of Capitalism, 1905). Although the Church was still in the 16th century resistant enough to try (unsuccessfully) to ban Molinaeus’ book Treatise on Contracts & Usury, Henry VIII established a legal rate of usury, and the old prohibitions gradually went. Holland became the centre of modern banking, from whence the Bank of England learnt its trade. The primary utilitarian philosophers Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill defended usury as legitimate contract. (Bolton, Opposing the Money Lenders, op. cit., p. 4).

Judaism, Catholicism, Islam

Savin states out that Judaism, unlike Christianity and Islam, is based around legalistic contracts with God. (Savin, p. 256). Their continuing nomadism made them an international people that were ideally situated to be the middle men of commerce across boundaries. This was the premise that Menasseh ben Israel, head of the Jewish community in Amsterdam, used in trying to persuade Oliver Cromwell to allow Jews readmittance to England. (Menasseh ben Israel to Cromwell, 1655, in Paul R. Mendes-Flohr and Jahuda Reinharz, The Jews in the Modern World, Oxford, 1980, pp. 9-12).

Savin sees Catholicism as lacking in its response to the rise of international capitalism. However he does accord credit to the encyclicals of Popes Leo XIII (Rerum Novarum) and Pius XI (Quadragesimo anno) which offered an alternative to capitalism and socialism, both seen as godless. Savin accords even less cogency to the position of Russian Orthodoxy to the problem, other than vague principles relating to commerce.

Islam has had a robust outlook in condemning usury (riba) as sin and proclaiming the need for social justice in trade, but here too there are flaws. Savin cites B. Koehler’s Early Islam & the Birth of Capitalism, (London, 2014).

Economics has an inherently global character which Savin sees as only being avoidable by a totally closed economy such as the North Korean. He also avers to the problem of surplus production that has yet to be resolved, which Marx pointed out was an impelling factor that would internationalise trade beyond the boundaries of empires. An alternative that was found by Schumacher of ‘small is beautiful’ fame was from ‘Buddhist economics’, which is also called the ‘middle way’; a sustainable economy, rather than a growth economy.

The question is one that stands at the crux of opposition to globalisation, but one that both Right and Left fail to address: the sovereign prerogative of the state to issue its own credit and currency, according to the productive capacity and needs of its people, without recourse to global financial speculators. That this can be done without any wizardry or miraculous intervention was shown during the 1930s by this reviewer’s country of residence. (K. R. Bolton, State Credit & Reconstruction: The First New Zealand Labour Government, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 38, no. 1, January 2011, pp. 39-49). That the present New Zealand Labour Government does not have the foggiest idea of how to deal with the housing crisis is indicative of the woeful lack of today’s economic understanding, which one might suspect is deliberate obfuscation cultivated by those who fund such institutions as the London School of Economics.

However, the Russian Orthodox Church has made recent declarations on usury. Moreover there is a local currency called the kolion that could provide a Russian example of what can be done on national and regional scales. (Bolton, Kolionovo vs . Usury: A Lesson for the World, Geopolitica.ru, 19 May 2016, https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/article/kolionovo-v-usury-lesson-world ).

Power & State

Economy, sovereignty and religion are intrinsic to notions of state and power. In defining the many forms Savin refers to Plato’s types of power which reflect the cyclical descent of a state from health to decay: from monarchy and aristocracy, to the tyranny of oligarchs and mobs. Latin rex had legalistic implications, Persian Shahan sha (king of kings) reflected the divine nexus typical of traditional societies, while to the Rus leadership derived from one who initiates a beginning (Savin, p. 287).

Max Weber described three types of power in the modern epoch: rational/legalistic, traditional, charismatic. To the conservative French thinker Joseph de Maistre, power is predicated on something transcendent, whether religious or juridical. Heidegger, in referencing Nietzsche, saw power as mastering over something, including oneself. Acclaimed Persian Sunni scholar al-Ghazali (1058-1111) presented a similar outlook of self-mastery [the inner jihad of Muslim theology].

The constant lesson from Savin is that globalisation means shifting definitions, and an attempt to set a universal standard. Hence the ‘citizen’, the subject of state and power, becomes the mobile and cosmopolitan consumer, rootless, as befits concomitant shifts in notions of territory and locality. Savin refers to the ‘mall-state’, (Savin, p. 303).

The past epoch of imperialism saw the imposition of borders regardless of ethnicity. Savin refers to the fracture of the Kurds across several states, and to the Durand Line between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Middle Eastern states are composed of a colossal mess of map design by the Anglo-French that so disturbed T. E. Lawrence. The Versailles Treaty subjected Sudeten Germans to Czechs and provided Hitler with the justification for expansion eastward. The demands for a Greater Albania were the means by which Kovoso was detached from Serbia. Many other inorganic and a-historic borders provide propagandistic justifications for U.S./NATO/UNO intervention.

Ethnoi, Peoples, Nations

The natures of ethnoi, peoples, and nations are being redefined with the goal of obliteration into a vortex of monoculture, where a mass of drones is administered by a managerial class.

Concepts of nationality include the German ‘volk’, and the ‘Deusches volkthum’ of Friedrich Jan (1815) defining individuals united into an idenitity. Jacobinism and liberalism played an important role in defining nationalism and ‘people’ as a means of rebellion against the traditional dynastic and imperial orders, uniting individuals by means of social contract and constitutions rather than through the nexus of divine rulership. For Herder nations are born from time and place, and each nation has its own character. The Romantic Movement referred to a common spirit of ‘past, present and future’.

Max Weber saw the nation as ‘a specific sentiment of solidarity in the face of other groups’, and he wrote of a people’s ‘values’. (Weber Economics & Society, Vol. 2, p. 922). There were and remain theories that both affirm and reject the necessity of attaching nation to state. For Margaret Canovan nationhood reflects ‘solidarity’ and ‘feeling’ (Nationhood & Political Theory, 1996, p. 69).

Savin traces the Russian school of ethnology to Sergey Shiro Kogorov, who defined an ethnos as ‘a group of people who speaks the same language, recognises their common origin, and has a set of customs and lifestyles which are preserved and sanctified by traditions which differ from the customs of other groups’. (Savin, p. 323). During the Soviet era ethnos was defined by Yulian Bromley as ‘a stable group in a definite territory, with common and stable particularities of language, culture and psyche’, conscious of their unity and difference from others. He stated that language and religion were not definitive criteria for an ethnos.

Savin alludes to Russian Eurasianists as referring to ‘multi-ethnic nationalism’, based on ‘historic destiny’, rather than ethnicity, language or religion. (Savin, p. 343). Savin sees the denial of ethnic differences as part of modernism and post-modernism. He alludes to ‘constructivism’ as the post-modern contention that ethnos is a creation of power elites (Savin, p. 328).

Professor Alexander Wolfheze sees modern nations as ‘bio-cultural residues’ from the overthrown traditional order, where the bourgeois replaces the dynastic rulers. (The Sword of Tradition & the Origin of the Great War, 2018, p. 271). As Marx predicted, this bourgeois ruling class would become ‘international’. K. Leontiev in the 19th century saw modern nationalism as a means of ‘cosmopolitan democratisation’. (National Policy as a Tool of World Revolution). There arose a chauvinistic aggressive nationalism that provided ideological impetus for imperialism and colonialism, in pursuit of markets and resources; the forerunner of globalisation.

Beyond Western concepts, Savin examines the Arab, where ‘nation’ has been defined as a ‘community of people, bound together by a commonality of race, language, homeland, and laws’ (Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi). Ibn Khaldan referred to the ‘spirit of solidarity’ (asabiyyah), where language played the predominant role. In our time, the Grand Mufti of Moscow, R. Gaynetdin defines ‘nation’ as a ‘spiritual kinship’ with language and territorial bonds. (Savin, p. 346).

Indian nationalism was not constituted until the 19th century as a doctrine. Ghandi equated nation with self-governance. A. Ghose saw nationalism as ‘a divine force’, as ‘god manifesting himself’. D. Savarkar was influenced by 19th century Western Indology, referring to communalism, territory, blood (Aryan), Sanskrit, and Hinduism.

Strategic Cultures & Civilisations

While nations have fixed territories, a people (singular) does not. National borders frequently do not correspond with ethnic divisions. There might be successful sub-nations existing within a supra-nation, or imperial edifice where the monarch is the unifying factor, confederations, or state imposed edifices. Savin uses the example of the Quechua Indians spread over a large number of states in Latin America.

The term ‘strategic cultures’ was coined by Jack Snyder in 1977 to analyse the impact of cultures on international relations and military conflicts. However the antecedents go back to Sun Tzu, and Thucydides (Savin, p. 358). During the 19th century concepts such as ‘folk psyche’ and ‘folk spirit’ anticipated ethnopsychology. Savin gives a recent example of Ruth Benedict’s study on Japanese ethnopsychology produced during World War II, The Chrysanthemum & the Sword. Benedict and other social scientists, despite their generally leftist persuasion, played a major role during the Cold War is supplying ethnographic studies for the USA, including the CIA. Through the Asia Foundation, for example, the CIA created ‘part of a widespread pattern linking hundreds of anthropologists and other regional specialists with Cold War intelligence agencies’. (Katherine Verdery, The CIA is Not a Trope, Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory (2016), Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 447).

Options

The social scientists employed by the CIA, working in tandem with Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie and other oligarchic funds, analyse and categorise peoples and cultures according to how they might be subsumed by globalisation. Scholars from outside the West assert the recognition rather than the obliteration of diversity. Muslim scholars assert a dichotomy: there is Islam, and there is the West and its ‘surrogates’ in which money predominates.Abdul Rahman states that there can be no ‘dialogue of civilisations’, because of the hegemonic nature of the West, but states that there needs to be dialogue that maintains a balance of power of different civilizational blocs.(Savin, p. 379).

Russian Eurasianists in emigration, such as K. Chkheidze, criticising the flawed character of the League of Nations, seen as trying to implement a universal state, advocated ‘continental states’, which took account of racial psyche, cultural heritage, and a common recognition of historical tasks. These geopolitical blocs might include Pan-Islam, Pan-Europe, Pan-America, Pan-Asia, and Russia-Eurasia. These ideas probably influenced Karl Haushofer, the German geopolitical theorist, whose doctrine in turn has influenced current Russian thinkers. (Savin, p. 390).

Samuel Huntington politicised the concept of ‘civilisation’ in Clash of Civilizations: Remaking a World Order (1996). Here we see civilisation blocs in intrinsic conflict as they pursue or resist hegemony. Globalist hegemony receives coherent opposition perhaps most of all from Shi’ite Islam and Russia. However, Dugin offers an ideology and implicit strategies intended to be broad enough to be adapted across the world: a type of global anti-globalisation. Dugin in The Theory of the Multipolar World (2012) credits Huntington with coming closest to conceptualising the ‘pole’ as the basis for a pluriversal system of international relations.

While Dugin is the most widely known and influential of the present Eurasianists, he is part of a geopolitical tradition in Russia, the ‘founding father’ being Petr Savitsky whose concept of mestortazvitie (‘place-development’) refers to the emergence of blocs as totalities comprising geographic, ethnic, economic, historical, and other factors. (Savin, p. 392). Ethnography has been an important factor. Lev Gumilev with his Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of the Earth (2012), has provided a fascinating hypothesis on the emergence of ethnoi and the role of geography. From Germany the geopolitical theorist Carl Schmitt (‘large spaces’) provided important input.

In concluding his consideration of ‘civilisation’ Savin states that etymologically it implies a ‘process’. He refers to Norbert Elias (The Civilising Process, Basel, 1939) in stating that globalisation is one such ‘civilisational process’.

Alternatives

‘International politics’ is seen as a Western invention, which draws significant support from Westernised elites from the former colonies. One can point to organisations such as the African-American Institute as having selected and trained political, technocratic and managerial classes to assume leadership of the former African colonies, replacing the departing colonial civil servants with the new servants of U.S. neo-imperialism and the World Bank. Savin draws on anti-colonialist thinkers such as Franz Fanon (Black Skin, White Masks) but given the rootlessness of the managerial and technocratic classes being shaped by globalisation into what G. Pascal Zachary has approvingly called The Global Me perhaps maintaining reference to a ‘white’ ruling class’ is passé and obscures the depth of globalisation as a coagulating process of all ethnicities and cultures? We might also note that Black and Brown cultures that have been reshaped by postmodernism into subcultures such as Hip Hop are used as a means of co-opting youth in the process of globalisation, as shown in the Rivkin memorandum (Charles Rivkin, Minority Engagement Report, U.S. Embassy, Paris, 2010).

However, there are scholars within Western academia who provide depth critiques of globalisation and its Enlightenment origins, including its implications for ethno-cultural identity. John Gray in Enlightenment’s Wake: Politics & Culture at the Close of the Modern Age (1995) perceives both liberalism and Marxism as belonging to ‘secularist, rationalist, and humanist’ ‘world historical failure’ (Gray, p. 98; Savin, 400).

The implications of ecology are also identity-based: what are nations and geopolitical blocs other than the eco-systems of ethnoi from whence they are birthed, developed and sustained? Savin cites Jacob von Uexküll, founder of ecology, as stating that ‘a unitary world does not exist’. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben asserts, ‘every environment is a closed unity’ (The Open: Man & Animal, 2003, pp. 40-41; Savin, p. 401), a direct philosophical challenge to the ‘open society of Karl Popper and his protégé George Soros.; but a challenge that does not seem to deter ‘Green’ politics from embracing globalist agendas.

Chinese Model

In tracing the origins of a non-Western approach to international relations, Savin cites the publication of the paper by A. Acharya and B. Buzan in 2010, ‘Non-Western International Relations Theory’, in Perspectives on and beyond Asia. Savin gives first place for such perspectives to the ‘Chinese school’. However, he also cites Yazing Qin who contends that there is no ‘Chinese school’. The main ideas have been taken from the West, and remain premised on the ancient ‘Tributary System’, which subordinates others to the Chinese pole. (Qing, Why is there no Chinese International Relations Theory?, in Non-Western International Relations Theory, 2010, pp. 29-31; Savin, p. 410).

Savin contends that the Chinese school is based on the 3G model: Great Learning, Global Vision, Grand Harmony, premised on Confucian doctrine.

Hindu & Muslim

Acharya (op. cit.) advocates for an Indian approach to international relations based on religious tradition. Savin mentions Swaraj (self-government) and Swadeshi (self-sufficiency) as principles still widely employed in India. (Savin, p. 413). India remains pivotal to any resistance to globalisation in this reviewer’s opinion. (Bolton, Geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific, 2013).

Islamic theory is based on a dichotomy of Muslim and non-Muslim states. (Savin, p. 414). This religious dichotomy is portrayed by globalist propagandists in asserting the inevitability of the ‘clash of civilisations’. However, history has shown both epochs of conflict and of accord between Islam and the West. The situation is dialectically exploited by the USA’s support for Wahhabist states, while duplicitously claiming to lead a ‘war on terrorism’ as a primary method of imposing Pax Americana. (Bolton, Zionism, Islam & the West, 2014).

Sustainability

The Fourth Political Theory attempts to provide a coherent philosophy on which to premise alternatives to globalisation and the Pax Americana that is premised on what us seen as passé liberal-Enlightenment dogmas from the Late West. The Fourth Political Theory is intrinsically conservative, defined as being cognisant of the importance of traditions and therefore of differences. It also inherently rejects the notion of positivism and the lineal approach to history as ‘progress’.

This conservative rejection of positivism and the concomitant industrialism that was applauded as much by Marx as by the Manchester School, has brought us to treadmill economics that has encroached upon most of the world; i.e. globalisation and what Marx predicted (approvingly) as the internationalising tendency of capitalist production. To this Savin posits ‘sustainable development’. While this is an aim of the U.N. the institution is itself a product of positivist, Enlightenment notions of ‘humanity’. The nations that comprise much of the U.N.O. are still firmly embedded in various stages of capitalism, including those that are described a socialist. Certain Muslim and Latin-socialist states, such as Cuba and Iran, are exceptions. Few function outside the orbit of the World Bank for example. Hence the neglect of environment (Savin, p. 420), and lack of an ecological perspective, that includes human cultures as constituents of unique eco-systems.

Dasein

In looking for antecedents to the Fourth Political Theory, Professor Martin Heidegger plays an important role. (Savin, p. 421).

The Heideggerian concept, Dasein, can be seen as in accord with khudi and its analogous concepts in East and West. Here Dasein means a state of authentic being, where one exists between past and present, the underlying notion of the eternal, and the nexus between man and divinity.

Alexander Dugin asks, ‘can one speak of a specific Russian Dasein?’ (Savin p. 425). Every civilisation has its own concept of Dasein. For Russia it is centred on Orthodox Christianity and Eurasianism: tradition, and the coming-into-being. Savin quotes Heidegger on an ‘historical people’s’ metaphysics manifesting as metapolitics. Dasein requires a process of re-discovering for those living within post-modernism.

Savin gives examples of the influence of Heidegger, throughout Latin America, among Muslim scholars, Japanese (Kyoto School), the Buddhist equivalence of Dasein (‘true being’), and Korea. Heidegger is a bridge between East and West, between ‘abstract contemplation’ and ‘rigid rationalism’. (Savin, p. 427).

Multipolar Praxis

There is increasing discussion on multipolar principles implicit in ‘multilogue’ and ‘polylogue’, where even Western scholars and diplomats are searching for alternatives to unipolarity. New alliances are being considered at different levels.

Mohammed Samir Hassain, University of Pune, sees a commonality between Germany and India in opposing unipolarity. In Germany, scholarly and diplomatic quarters are discussing the concept of ‘anchor countries’ (German Development Institute, 2004; Savin, p. 433), the equivalent to Dugin’s ‘poles’, around which regional blocs might form. The European Union has potential for what high level thinkers are calling ‘strategic autonomy’. (D. Fiott, Strategic Autonomy towards European Sovereignty in Defence?, EU Institute for Security Studies, November 2018; Savin, p. 437). In particular doctrines on European continental defence, such as the European Defence Fund, are forming outside NATO.

Savin suggests that the E.U. might become ‘another West’, while there is discussion on the E.U. becoming another ‘pole’ in a multipolar world. (Savin, p. 438). Russia stands between East and West. Russia’s role with that of Germany is being widely recognised as such among strategists in both Russia and the E.U. Although Savin has discounted Spengler, like Moeller and other Weimar era conservatives, Spengler saw Germany’s future being aligned with that of Russia as the successor to the West on the world stage. (Spengler, The Two Faces of Russia & Germany’s Eastern Problems, 1922, in Prussian Socialism & Other Essays, London, 2018, pp. 111-125).

Against Colossi

What structural forms might a multipolar world take? With talk of geopolitical and regional blocs, the impression might easily be of cumbersome bureaucratic entities obliterating local identities and imposing downward structures. However, the raison d’etre of the Eurasianist doctrine is to offer an alternative to the global uniformity; to maintain or restore every authentic identity.

Fourth Political Theory suggests geopolitical blocs as confederations of small entities. This is contrary to the Late West’s conception of ‘the banality of multiculturalism’ (Savin, p. 449), which serves to fracture and re-integrate national and cultural entities around a money nexus.

What Eurasianism suggests is along the model of the Swiss confederation, where 22 regions form an organic totality. Savin draws on the works of German thinker Leopold Kohr, who rejected the nebulousness of ‘humanity’ in favour of identities that would replace the artificial borders of nation-states (modernist liberal constructs, yet so beloved by the nationalist-right); the ‘bourgeois spirit’ as Savin calls it (Savin, p. 446).

The goal is, Savin concludes, ‘A pluriversal, harmonious order of a complex of polycentric system of systems…’

multipolarity

Leonid Savin

Polycentricity

4th political theory

Related links

The End of Pax Americana and the Rise of Multipolarity

The world is going to multipolarity

Iraq: A Multipolar Restart

Almost every adult believes that he or she is rational, because he or she can easily cite many simple but important examples of personal rational behaviour in daily life. Selecting one from several packs of cereal in a store, for example, or making sure that a child is properly dressed and equipped to go to school. Any civilized society in the world rests on the foundation of uncountable such acts of rational behaviour.

But, as we well know, no system of reasoning can be built without underlying premises. The underlying premises in the two examples cited here are self-preservation and nurture, both perfectly valid premises in a civilised society. In a society at peace with itself, the underlying premises – “self-evident truths” – are understood, appreciated and not questioned.

In a time of crisis, of course, the premises of a civilised society begin to crack. Neglect, brutality, deception, mistrust and misery reign. An individual is no longer sure about what he or she should believe – and what strange thoughts the next individual may be carrying in his or her head. This leads to insecure individuals forming smaller clans or groups. Such paranoid clans and groups invariably fear and mistrust each other. Two overlapping groups – “politicians” and “scamsters” – are masters at exploiting mistrust, since “not adding to others’ misery” is not a basic premise in their version of rational behaviour.

[An even sicker, sociopathic group has as its premise “adding consciously to others’ misery”; the author prefers to skirt around the consequences of that sick premise!]

It seems clear that a person is defined by the premises – “self-evident truths” – that he or she lives by. A devoted mother, for example, lives by her self-evident truths of preservation and nurture of the family; similarly a soldier, a teacher … and so on. A scamster has no dictum other than “feeding the insatiable self”, although one does hear, at least in romantic fiction, about some who do care for other individuals.

Given that many different variants of “civilised society” exist around the world, a fascinating topic of interest for any reflective mind becomes the “self-evident truths” binding a society together – or, conversely, the absence of “self-evident truths” leading to disunity.

Let us consider an example.

A certain gentleman once said: “Suffering is a noble truth”. He meant thereby that this particular truth was existential; it holds in any human society. This truth was clearly “self-evident” to the gentleman himself at the time when he asserted it; but of course we must examine it afresh from our own special vantage point.

The name and other historical antecedents of the gentleman do not concern us at all here, since we are considering only this one utterance as a possible premise. Indeed his name and the antecedents may well throw our logical discussion off track.

That suffering is an existential reality should – one would humbly submit – be evident to all but children and the imbecile. If anything, the variants of suffering around the world have grown rather profusely over the last few centuries, as technology has produced almost incredible means to tamper with human life and the planetary ecosystems.

However, in the specific assertion cited, doubt does arise about the word “noble”. How can suffering be called a “noble” truth, given that we so desperately wish to be rid of it?

However, the very fact that we desperately wish to be rid of suffering should give us pause, since we know from experience that desperation leads to irrational behaviour. Desperation to shake off suffering – somehow, anyhow, find a way! – can therefore diminish one’s ability to remain rational and address the real issue.

We agree that, even in the most civilised of societies, one cannot teach philosophy to a hungry man. At least a simple snack, which should not be beyond reach in a civilised society, should be arranged before the philosophy lecture starts. Otherwise, pangs of hunger will interfere adversely in the rational and wholesome process of learning philosophy.

So then how can suffering of any kind – hunger, pain, stress, jealousy, depression … or whatever else! – be called “noble”? Surely that adjective is out of place here? Indeed, at first glance, suffering seems to be a rather “ignoble” aspect of existential reality. The gentleman who made that statement could have made a mistake, after all.

How do we solve this apparent riddle?

Let us agree that “suffering” is any aspect or element of existential reality that we find painful, or at least very unpleasant. A fundamental question then is this: With what attitude do we face and accept this painful or very unpleasant element of existential reality?

Surely a scowl or howl of disgust will not help us in any way. A calm mind might actually come up with a way to lessen the pain. Might “nobility” in this instance be construed to mean that the unpleasant or painful reality compels us to remain calm – to think of a way to deal with it, to alleviate it? “Nobility” in this case would lie in facing the challenge; and any serious challenge does demand a high degree of nobility in facing up to it.

Indeed, the idea of “paradise”, “promised land” or “shining city on the hill”, arises precisely when an individual fails to recognize and face up to this challenge. Such an individual may dream grandly of a “final victory” over suffering – for his or her clan or group, naturally! – and push ahead on that premise, blind to reality. One may even suggest that much of human history has been shaped by a mistaken understanding of the existential reality of suffering, against which there can be no “final victory”, but only a constant struggle.

If suffering is an existential reality, does it really matter whether or not we dub it as “noble”? Of course not! That word, after all, is only an adjective. Use of that word reflects not upon the reality itself but upon our response to it; adjectives are only in our mind.

Consider the worst crimes committed by humans against other humans. When we say suffering is “noble”, we do not imply that the crimes are not ugly, or that the criminals must not be punished. Of course criminals must be punished, and victims must be helped. But we do imply that the reflective person – the philosopher – must examine the whole scene with a clear eye, avoiding both “pie in the sky” non-solutions and political gimmicks.

We may therefore imagine a vantage point from which the question of suffering can be examined with a cool mind, which requires gaining at least some respite from suffering. A doctor must treat patients with a calm, focussed mind – not with pique or desperation.

A discussion about the premises underlying rational behaviour can be compared to two friends sparring at chess. Their aim is not to “win a big prize”, but to explore the various possibilities the game provides to them for creative, logical thinking. While no “prize” is at stake, both players will surely become better at chess as a result of the sparring.

Exactly in that spirit, one can explore the effects on people’s behaviour of the premises they live by – sometimes with happy results, and sometimes with tragic ones.

Two examples:

1. At present, the people and the so-called leaders of a certain “superpower” seem rather at a loss about their fundamental beliefs. Money, sense pleasures and fame seem high on their agenda – but these are the premises one admits to only in private. These must be disguised in fake verbosity, for them to have even a pretence of value. Therefore various self-serving concepts are being tried out, but only to worsen matters. Even those who see themselves as “enlightened” are chasing money, sense pleasures and fame. Insincerity and lack of clarity are running rampant; greed, prejudice and political exigencies are determining actions.

2. In my own country – a large and raucous democracy – debate is intense at present, essentially about which set of premises will determine our political processes in the coming years and decades. Our constitution provides very sound guidelines, but it also comes under the strain of fiercely competing premises. One hopes that our “core values” and democratic processes will eventually resolve matters – in spite of the many so-called “foreign elites” who come hawking their gobbledegook wares.

The key point seems to be this. The premises – “core values”, “self-evident truths” – that a society lives by, or fails to live by, determine its path going forward. Often these core values are bruised or buried by political chicanery and bombast, or by economic pressures; even then, however, the longer term evolution of a society is crucially dependent on them.

If there is truth in this conclusion, then another conclusion also follows. What goes by the fashionable name of “ideology” is only a “smoke and mirror” show of verbosity to disguise the true premises of a clever, vociferous, insistent and insatiable group.

We are a broad and diverse group of Canadian physicians from across Canada who are sending out this urgent declaration to the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of our various Provinces and Territories and to the Public at large, whom we serve.

On April 30, 2021, Ontario’s physician licensing body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), issued a statement forbidding physicians from questioning or debating any or all of the official measures imposed in response to COVID-19. 1

The CPSO then went on to threaten physicians with punishment – investigations and disciplinary action.

We regard this recent statement of the CPSO to be unethical, anti-science and deeply disturbing.

As physicians, our primary duty of care is not to the CPSO or any other authority, but to our patients.

When we became physicians, we pledged to put our patients first and that our ethical and professional duty is always first toward our patients. The CPSO statement orders us to violate our duty and pledge to our patients in the following ways:

1. Denial of the Scientific Method itself: The CPSO is ordering physicians to put aside the scientific method and to not debate the processes and conclusions of science.

We physicians know and continue to believe that throughout history, opposing views, vigorous debate and openness to new ideas have been the bedrock of scientific progress. Any major advance in science has been arrived at by practitioners vigorously questioning “official” narratives and following a different path in the pursuit of truth.

2. Violation of our Pledge to use Evidence-Based Medicine for our patients: By ordering us not to debate and not to question, the CPSO is also asking us to violate our pledge to our patients that we will always seek the best, evidence-based scientific methods for them and advocate vigorously on their behalf.

The CPSO statement orders physicians for example, not to discuss or communicate with the public about “lockdown” measures. Lockdown measures are the subject of lively debate by world-renown and widely respected experts and there are widely divergent views on this subject. The explicitly anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration (PDF ) was written by experts from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford Universities and more than 40,000 physicians from all over the world have signed this declaration. Several international experts including Martin Kuldorf (Harvard), David Katz (Yale), Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford) and Sunetra Gupta (Oxford) continue to strongly oppose lockdowns.

The CPSO is ordering physicians to express only pro-lockdown views, or else face investigation and discipline. This tyrannical, anti-science CPSO directive is regarded by thousands of Canadian physicians and scientists as unsupported by science and as violating the first duty of care to our patients.

3. Violation of Duty of Informed Consent: The CPSO is also ordering physicians to violate the sacred duty of informed consent – which is the process by which the patient/public is fully informed of the risks, benefits and any alternatives to the treatment or intervention, before consent is given.

The Nuremberg Code, drafted in the aftermath of the atrocities perpetrated within the Nazi concentration camps – where horrific medical experiments were performed on inmates without consent – expressly forbids the imposition of any kind of intervention without informed consent.

In the case of the lockdown intervention for example, physicians have a fiduciary duty to point out to the public that lockdowns impose their own costs on society, including in greatly increased depression and suicide rates, delayed investigation and treatment of cancer (including delayed surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy), ballooning surgical waiting lists (with attendant greatly increased patient suffering) and increased rates of child and domestic abuse.

We physicians believe that with the CPSO statement of 30 April 2021, a watershed moment in the assault on free speech and scientific inquiry has been reached.

By ordering physicians to be silent and follow only one narrative, or else face discipline and censure, the CPSO is asking us to violate our conscience, our professional ethics, the Nuremberg code and the scientific pursuit of truth.

We will never comply and will always put our patients first.

The CPSO must immediately withdraw and rescind its statement of 30 April 2021.

We also give notice to other Canadian and international licensing authorities for physicians and allied professions that the stifling of scientific inquiry and any order to violate our conscience and professional pledge to our patients, itself may constitute a crime against humanity.

1 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Statement on Public Health Misinformation (4/30/21).
https://twitter.com/cpso_ca/status/1388211577770348544

The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.

This essay is inspired by Dr Mercola’s announcement last week that (reading between the lines) his life and his family’s have been threatened if he doesn’t remove from his web site a peer-reviewed study demonstrating the benefits of vitamin D and zinc in prevention of the worst COVID outcomes. In the present Orwellian era, where propaganda and deception are ubiquitous, one of the signposts of truth that I have learned to respect is that the most important truths are the most heavily censored.

This is not what I enjoy writing about, but as I find dark thoughts creeping into my consciousness, perhaps it is better to put them on paper with supporting logic and invite my readers to help me clarify the reasoning and, perhaps, to point a way out of the darkness.

Already in January, 2020, two ideas about COVID were emerging. One is that there were people and institutions who seemed to have anticipated the event, and were planning for it for a long time. Gates, Fauci, the World Economic Forum, and Johns Hopkins School of Medicine were among the prescient. (I credit the (now deleted) videos of Spiro Skouras.) Second was the genetic evidence suggesting that COVID had a laboratory origin. Funders of the scientific establishment have lost their bid to ridicule this idea, and it has now leaked into the mainstream, where it is fused with the classical yellow peril propaganda: “China did it!”. I have cited evidence that America is likely equally culpable.

The confluence of these two themes suggests the dark logic that I take for my topic today: Those who knew in advance, not only that there would be a pandemic but that it would be a Coronavirus, were actually responsible for engineering this pandemic.

Immediately, I think: How could people capable of such sociopathic enormities be occupying the most powerful circles of the world’s elite? And what would be their motivation? I don’t have answers to these questions, and I will leave speculation to others. But there’s one attractive answer that I find less compelling: that it’s a money-maker for the large and criminal pharmaceutical industry. The new mRNA vaccines are already the most profitable drugs in history, but I think that shutdown of world economies, assassinations of world leaders, deep corruption of science, and full-spectrum control of the mainstream narrative imply a larger power base than can plausibly be commanded by the pharma industry.

Instead, I’ll try to follow the scientific and medical implications of the hypothesis that COVID is a bioweapon.

The Spike Protein

The spike protein is the part of the virus structure that interfaces with the host cell. SARS 1 and SARS 2 viruses both have spike proteins that bind to a human cell receptor called ACE-2, common in lung cells but also present in other parts of the body. Binding to the cell’s ACE-2 receptor is like the wolf knocking at the door of Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmother. “Hello, grandmama. I’m your granddaughter. Please let me in.” The virus is a wolf wearing a red cape and hood, pretends to be an ACE-2 enzyme molecule seeking entrance to the cell.

In order to enter the cell, the virus must break off from the spike protein and leave it at the doorstep, so to speak. This is an important and difficult step, as it turns out. Unique to the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a trick for making the separation. Just at the edge of the protein is a furin cleavage site. Furin is an enzyme that snips protein molecules, and it is common in our bodies, with legitimate metabolic uses. A furin cleavage site is a string of 4 particular amino acids that calls to furin, “hey — come over here. I’m a protein that needs snipping.”

The most compelling evidence for a laboratory origin of COVID is that coronaviruses don’t have furin cleavage sites, and until last year, this trick has never evolved naturally.

How we think about natural disease

The classical understanding of a viral or bacterial disease is this: A parasite is an organism that uses the host’s resources for its own reproduction. It is evolved to reproduce efficiently. If it has co-evolved with the host, it may be evolved to spare the host’s health, or even to promote it, because this is the optimal long-term strategy for any predator or parasite. But newly-emerged parasites can do well for awhile even if they disable or kill their hosts, and this is the kind of disease that is most damaging to us. The damage is done because the (young) virus’s strategy is to reproduce rapidly and disperse itself into the environment where it can find new hosts. The virus has no interest in harming the host, and was not evolved to this end, but this is a side-effect of commandeering the body’s resources for its own reproduction.

How engineered diseases can be different

A bioweapon virus is designed to cause a certain kind of harm.

• What kind of harm? It depends on the projected use for the weapon.
• Doesn’t the virus have to reproduce? Probably, for most weapon applications; but a bioweapon is not necessarily designed for rapid reproduction. A bioweapon can be designed as a “sleeper” to remain dormant for months or years, or to cause incremental disability over a long period.

If COVID had evolved naturally, we would expect that its spike protein would be adapted to mate well with the human ACE-2 receptor. There’s no reason to suspect it being otherwise biologically active. But if COVID is engineered, it may be that the spike protein itself has been designed to make us sick.

One reason this is significant is that the vaccines have all been designed around the spike protein, assuming that the spike protein were metabolically neutral. If the virus had been naturally evolved, this is a reasonable assumption. But if it came from a laboratory (whether it leaked or was deliberately released) the spike protein might be actually be the agent of damage. There are several reasons to suspect that this is the case.

The Spike Protein as an Active Pathogen

Back in February, 2020, this article noted that the spike protein was not perfectly optimized to bind to human ACE-2 and put this forward as an proof that “SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus.” But if someone were designing the virus to cause harm, the spike protein would be a convenient locus for the damage vector, so the spike might have been designed with twin purposes in mind, binding and toxicity. The spike protein appears in many copies around the “crown” of the coronavirus. Since each copy has a furin cleavage site at its base, many spike proteins will break off into the bloodstream. We now have several reports and hypotheses concerning the spike protein as an active agent of damage. The spike protein is suspected of causing blood clots, of inducing long-lasting neurological damage, and of causing infertility. Many anecdotes describe injuries to un-vaccinated people who have been in close proximity to vaccinated, prompting speculation about “shedding” the spike protein.

“Individuals with COVID-19 experience a vast number of neurological symptoms, such as headaches, ataxia, impaired consciousness, hallucinations, stroke and cerebral hemorrhage. But autopsy studies have yet to find clear evidence of destructive viral invasion into patients’ brains, pushing researchers to consider alternative explanations of how SARS-CoV-2 causes neurological symptoms….

If not viral infection, what else could be causing injury to distant organs associated with COVID-19? The most likely culprit that has been identified is the COVID-19 spike protein released from the outer shell of the virus into circulation. Research cited below* has documented that the viral spike protein is able to initiate a cascade of events that triggers damage to distant organs in COVID-19 patients.

Worryingly, several studies have found that the spike proteins alone have the capacity to cause widespread injury throughout the body, without any evidence of virus.

What makes this finding so disturbing is that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer and currently being administered throughout the U.S. program our cells to manufacture this same coronavirus spike protein as a way to trigger our bodies to produce antibodies to the virus.” [[Global Research article, Feb 2021](https://www.globalresearch.ca/could-spike-protein-moderna-pfizer-vaccines-cause-blood-clots-brain-inflammation-heart-attacks/5737069)]

Note: the Astra-Zeneca and J&J vaccines are also based on the spike protein, and cause the spike protein to be created in the vaccinated person.

* “Research cited below” refers to this study in Nature which reports that the spike protein, injected into mice, crosses into the brain, where it causes neurological damage.

Bigger news came just this week from a study in which researchers from California’s Salk Institute collaborated with Chinese virologists. They have found that the bare spike protein without the virus (injected in mice) can cause damaged arteries of the kind that lead to heart disease and strokes in humans. The original paper was published in Circulation Research, and the Salk Institute issued a news report describing the research.

One of the most credible dangers of the spike protein involves fertility. None of the vaccines were tested in pregnant women, and yet many government and other authorities are recommending it as safe for pregnant women. VAERS has reported 174 miscarriages to date after COVID vaccination. VAERS is notoriously underreported. I find the anecdotes less concerning than the fact that no one is taking this seriously, and research is being actively discouraged in the best-respected science journals.

There is a credible mechanism, in that the spike protein is partially homologous to syncytin. Syncytin, in fact, was originally a retroviral protein, inserted into the mammalian genome many aeons ago, and evolved over the ages to play an essential role in reproduction, binding the placenta to the fetus. An immune response that attacks syncytin might be expected to be impose a danger of spontaneous abortion. In any ordinary times, this would be a subject that medical researchers would jump on, with animal tests and field surveys to assess the danger. But these are no ordinary times, and the risk is being dismissed on theoretical grounds without investigation. This is especially suspicious in the context of history: a Gates Foundation vaccination program in 1995 was allegedly promoted to young women, causing infertility. (Yes, I know there are many fact-checkers eager to “debunk” this story, but I don’t find them convincing, and some of these fact-checkers are compromised by Gates funding.)

Even doing what the spike protein is supposed to do — tying up ACE2 — can be a problem for our lungs and arteries, which are routinely protected by ACE2.

The most dangerous possibility, suspected but not verified, is that the spike protein causes a prion cascade. Prions are paradoxical pathogens, in that they are misfolded proteins that cause misfolded proteins. Their evolutionary etiology is utterly mysterious, so much so that it took Stanley Prusiner a decade after describing the biology of prions before the scientific community would take prion biochemistry seriously. But prions make potent bioweapons, which laboratories can design outside of natural evolutionary dynamics. The possibility of prion-like structures in the spike protein was noted very early in the pandemic based on a computational study. This recent review combines theoretical, laboratory, and observational evidence to make a case for caution. Once again, I find it disturbing that this possibility is being dismissed on theoretical grounds rather than investigated in the lab and the field.

Where did the idea come from that all vaccines are automatically safe? Why do so many journalists dismiss the suggestion that vaccines should be placebo-tested individually, like all other drugs? Why has it become routine to ridicule and denigrate scientists who ask questions about vaccine safety as politically-motivated luddites, or “anti-vaxxers”? How did we get to a situation where the “precautionary principle” means pressuring young people who are at almost no risk for serious COVID to accept a vaccine which has not been fully tested or approved? I don’t have answers, but I do know who benefits from this culture.

Putting together all the evidence

• Knowledge beforehand
• Suppression of treatments and cures
• Toxicity of the spike protein which, if it had been made by nature, should have been benign
• Inclusion of the spike protein
• Heavy promotion of scantily-tested vaccines and
• Censorship of scientists and doctors who question the vaccines’ safety

… putting together all this evidence, it is difficult to escape the inference that powerful people and organizations have engineered this pandemic with deadly intent.

Ours, to borrow the title of a book by writer Joseph Bottum, is an “anxious age.” COVID-19 certainly did no favors to Americans’ mental health, but the prevalence of mental illness in the United States was increasing well before the pandemic. Almost 10 percent of American youth have severe depression, while almost 20 percent of American adults have a mental illness. Anxiety disorders are the most common forms of mental illness in the country.

The costs of this crisis are not only social and economic, though those costs are significant. Lonely and depressed people need additional medical care, are typically less productive, and will contribute less to their communities and families (if they have them). The problem is also political, though to understand why, recourse to the great Roman statesman Cicero—whose writings so deeply influenced our Founding generation—is required. For it was Marcus Tullius Cicero, or “Tully,” as scholastics such as Thomas Aquinas called him, who labeled anxiety as one of the greatest obstacles to effective citizenship and statesmanship.

The theme of anxiety is central to Cicero’s De Officiis, or “On Obligations.” The attitude of the true statesman, he argues, is manifested in two qualities: “First, regarding as a good only what is honorable, and second, by being free of all mental disturbance.” By honor, Cicero has in mind a more expansive definition than our contemporary understanding of it, one that encompasses the objectively true, good, and beautiful. The practice of being free from mental disturbance is what helps enable us both to perceive and realize those honorable ends.

The relationship between freedom from anxiety and good citizenship is multifaceted. For example, the anxious person is vulnerable to every passing crisis. Threats both foreign and domestic, news that is either alarming or inconsequential, all of these unsettle the anxious citizen. One sees this today in the vast number of Americans who are relentlessly provoked by the constant churn of the news cycle on social media, cable television, and talk radio. Obsessively attentive to these sources, we are manipulated to endlessly shift our gaze from congressional votes on the January 6 riot to the U.S. departure from Afghanistan to mass-shootings to the most recent allegations of police brutality.

Many of these news stories, however important, often have little, if any, relevance to our actual daily experience. We are urged to worry about terrorists, white supremacists, or foreign totalitarian regimes, though, unlike many issues happening in our local communities, there is little we can practically do about any of these threats. This relates to another area of overlap between mental health and citizenship: how anxiety distracts us from our immediate religious, familial, and civic duties.

“Mental tranquility and freedom from anxiety… make for steadfastness of purpose and high dignity,” Cicero wrote. That purpose is to work for the good of our family members and the res publica (Cicero, as the ideal republican Roman, actually prioritized responsibility to the state over that of the family!). Men have both this-worldly and transcendent ends, securing happiness through virtuous activities that bless their families and their communities, and that orient them to the eternal, ultimately to God. The anxious citizen, however, is distracted from these concrete concerns, instead focusing on whatever media, corporations, and the fickle zeitgeist tell him he must care about.

The freneticism manifested in our contemporary culture points to another danger of anxiety: the heightening of the polemical and partisan temperature, so that one’s opponents are not fellow citizens with whom we charitably, if often vehemently, disagree, but rather enemies to be vilified and destroyed. Mental tranquility and freedom from anxiety, says Cicero, are required “to avoid the stresses and strains, and adopt a sober and unswerving course in life.” Yes, this is precisely what anxious citizenship engenders: an apprehensive apocalypticism that perceives everything as tending towards some totalitarian dystopia, be it white supremacist, Marxist, or whatever.

When we allow this to be the default for our political calculations, we become incapable of disinterested, reasonable evaluations of the social and political trends we witness. We become proverbial Chicken Littles. We fall into what Cicero describes as “fits of agitation and panic.” If one has seen videos or read stories of how students on our university and college campuses react to conservative speakers or organizations, one understands what is at stake for American civil society. A generation raised on dictums like “words are violence,” “safe spaces,” and “dismantling cisgender norms” is, to put it bluntly, incapable of assuming the responsibilities of republican citizenship.

Moreover, our addictions to technology—and the attendant anxieties they amplify—make us incapable of being alone and quiet (Blaise Pascal’s oft-quoted observation is relevant here). This is also important for civic responsibility, because the citizen capable of quiet contemplation and true leisure is better able to exhibit self-mastery and engage in disinterested reflection. Noble men, argues Cicero, must “be serene and clear of all mental disturbance, and this will ensure steadfastness and self-restraint will emerge in all their glory.”

The unanxious citizen in his moderation, self-possession, and attention to immediate civic duties is less vulnerable to the ideologue or opportunist. “The man who possesses one virtue possesses them all,” observes Cicero. In this, we can appreciate how Cicero’s vision of the ideal citizen is thoroughly conservative, a foreshadowing of Burke’s “little platoons,” the framers of the Constitution’s separation of powers and political decentralization, and the Catholic Church’s understanding of subsidiarity. All of these serve as necessary curbs against political schemers and extremists.

In sum, the very nature of conservative living and conservative politics acts as a deterrent to our anxious age. The conservative—in his trust in God and development of personal virtue; in his reliance on and commitment to his family and community; and in his disinterested, prudential evaluation of the world around him—is able to resist the disastrous spirals of mental instability. No crisis or sorrow, however terrible, can sway his heart and mind from the objective realities he believes in and to which he orients his life. He is able to prioritize the highest, most perfect goods (or in Cicero’s language, what is most honorable), over other, lesser goods. The conservative knows that to do otherwise is to flirt with disaster. Or, as old Tully asserts: “When men detach the useful from the honorable, they undermine the very foundations of nature.”

Casey Chalk covers religion and other issues for The American Conservative and is a contributing editor for _New Oxford Review_. He has degrees in history and teaching from the University of Virginia, and a master’s in theology from Christendom College.

by Thierry Meyssan

For two decades, the Pentagon has been applying the "Rumsfeld/Cebrowski doctrine" to the "wider Middle East". Several times, it thought of extending it to the "Caribbean Basin", but refrained from doing so, concentrating its power on its first target. The Pentagon acts as an autonomous decision-making center that is effectively outside the power of the president. It is a civil-military administration that imposes its objectives on the rest of the military.

The maps of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2001, published in 2005 by Colonel Ralph Peters, still guide the actions of the US military in 2021.

In my book L’Effroyable imposture [1] [2], I wrote, in March, 2002, that the attacks of September 11 were aimed at making the United States accept :
on the inside, a system of mass surveillance (the Patriot Act) ;
and, externally, a resumption of imperial policy, about which there was no documentation at the time.

Things only became clearer in 2005, when Colonel Ralph Peters - at the time a Fox News commentator - published the famous map of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the map of the "reshaping" of the "broader Middle East" [3]. It came as a shock to all chancelleries: the Pentagon was planning to redraw the borders inherited from the Franco-British colonization (the Sykes-Picot-Sazonov Agreements of 1916) without regard for any state, even an ally.

From then on, each state in the region did everything in its power to prevent the storm from falling on its people. Instead of uniting with neighboring countries in the face of the common enemy, each tried to deflect the Pentagon’s hand to its neighbors. The most emblematic case is that of Turkey, which changed its position several times, giving the confused impression of a mad dog.

Two visions of the world clash. For the Pentagon since 2001, stability is the strategic enemy of the United States, while for Russia, it is the condition for peace.

However, the map revealed by Colonel Peters -who hated the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld- did not make it possible to understand the overall project. Already, at the time of the September 11 attacks, he had published an article in the US Army magazine, Parameters [4]. He alluded to the map that he did not publish until four years later, and suggested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to carry it out by means of atrocious crimes that they would have to subcontract in order not to dirty their hands. One might think that he was referring to private armies, but history showed that they could not engage in crimes against humanity either.

The final word on the project was in the "Office of Force Transformation," created by Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon in the days following the 9/11 attacks. It was occupied by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. This famous strategist had been the designer of the computerization of the armed forces [5]. One could believe that this Office was a way to finish his work. But no one disputed this reorganization anymore. No, he was there to transform the mission of the U.S. armed forces, as the few recordings of his lectures in military academies attest.

Arthur Cebrowski spent three years lecturing to all senior U.S. officers, thus to all current general officers.

The target determined by Admiral Cebrowski is not only the "wider Middle East", but all regions not integrated into the globalized economy. Larger Image

What he was teaching was quite simple. The world economy was becoming globalized. To remain the world’s leading power, the United States had to adapt to financial capitalism. The best way to do this was to ensure that developed countries could exploit the natural resources of poor countries without political obstacles. From this, it divided the world into two: on the one hand, the globalized economies (including Russia and China) destined to be stable markets and, on the other, all the others that were to be deprived of state structures and left to chaos so that transnationals could exploit their wealth without resistance. To achieve this, the non-globalized peoples were to be divided along ethnic lines and held ideologically.

The first region to be affected was to be the Arab-Muslim area from Morocco to Pakistan, with the exception of Israel and two neighboring micro-states that were to prevent the fire from spreading, Jordan and Lebanon. This is what the State Department called the "broader Middle East. This area was not defined by oil reserves, but by elements of the common culture of its inhabitants.

The war that Admiral Cebrowski imagined was to cover the entire region. It was not to take into account the divisions of the Cold War. The United States no longer had any friends or enemies there. The enemy was not defined by its ideology (the communists) or its religion (the "clash of civilizations"), but only by its non-integration into the globalized economy of financial capitalism. Nothing could protect those who had the misfortune not to be followers, to be independent.

This war was not intended to allow the US alone to exploit natural resources, as previous wars had done, but for all globalized states to do so. Moreover, the United States was no longer really interested in capturing raw materials, but rather in dividing up work on a global scale and making others work for them.

All this implied tactical changes in the way wars were waged, since it was no longer a question of obtaining victory, but of waging a "war without end", as President George W. Bush put it. Indeed, all the wars started since 9/11 are still going on on five different fronts: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen.

It doesn’t matter if allied governments interpret these wars in accordance with the US communication: they are not civil wars, but stages of a plan preestablished by the Pentagon.

Esquire Magazine, March 2003

The "Cebrowski Doctrine" shook up the US military. His assistant, Thomas Barnett, wrote an article for Esquire Magazine [6], then published a book to present it in more detail to the general public: The Pentagon’s New Map [7].

The fact that in his book, published after Admiral Cebrowski’s death, Barnett claims authorship of his doctrine should not be misleading. It is just a way for the Pentagon not to assume it. The same phenomenon had taken place, for example, with the "clash of civilizations". It was originally the "Lewis Doctrine", a communication argument devised within the National Security Council to sell new wars to public opinion. It was presented to the general public by Bernard Lewis’s assistant, Samuel Huntington, who presented it as an academic description of an inescapable reality.

The implementation of the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski Doctrine has had many ups and downs. Some came from the Pentagon itself, others from the people who were being crushed. Thus, the resignation of the commander of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon, was organized because he had negotiated a reasoned peace with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran on his own initiative. It was provoked by... Barnett himself, who published an article accusing Fallon of abusing President Bush. Or again, the failure to disrupt Syria was due to the resistance of its people and the entry of the Russian army. The Pentagon has come to burn down crops and organize a blockade of the country to starve it; revengeful actions that attest to its inability to destroy state structures.

During his election campaign, Donald Trump campaigned against the endless war and for the return of the GI’s to their homes. He managed not to start new fronts and to bring some men home, but failed to tame the Pentagon. The Pentagon developed its Special Forces without a "signature" and managed to destroy the Lebanese state without the use of soldiers in a visible way. It is this strategy that it is implementing in Israel itself, organizing anti-Arab and anti-Jewish pogroms as a result of the confrontation between Hamas and Israel.

The Pentagon has repeatedly tried to extend the "Rumsfeld/Cebrowski doctrine" to the Caribbean Basin. It planned an overthrow, not of the Nicolás Maduro regime, but of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It finally postponed this.

The eight members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It must be noted that the Pentagon has become an autonomous power. It has a gigantic budget of 740 billion dollars, which is about twice the annual budget of the entire French state. In practice, its power extends far beyond that, since it controls all the member states of the Atlantic Alliance. It is supposed to be accountable to the President of the United States, but the experiences of Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump show the absolute opposite. The former failed to impose his policy on General John Allen in the face of Daesh, while the latter was led astray by Central Command. There is no reason to believe that it will be any different with President Joe Biden.

The recent open letter of former US general officers [8] shows that nobody knows who is in charge of the US military anymore. No matter how much their political analysis is worthy of the Cold War, this does not invalidate their observation: the Federal Administration and the general officers are no longer on the same wavelength.

William Arkin’s work, published by the Washington Post, has shown that the federal government organized a nebulous group of agencies under the supervision of the Department of Homeland Security after the September 11 attacks [9]. In the greatest secrecy, they intercept and archive the communications of all people living in the United States. Arkin has just revealed in Newsweek that, for its part, the Department of Defense has created secret Special Forces, separate from those in uniform [10]. They are now in charge of the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski doctrine, regardless of who is in the White House and what their foreign policy is.

The Pentagon has a clandestine Special Forces of 60,000 men. They do not appear on any official document and work without uniform. Supposedly used against terrorism, they are in fact the ones who practice it. The classic armies are dedicated to the fight against Russian and Chinese rivals.

When the Pentagon attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001, it used its conventional armies - it had no other - and those of its British ally. However, during the "endless war" in Iraq, it built up Iraqi jihadist forces, both Sunni and Shiite, to plunge the country into civil war [11]. One of them, derived from al-Qaeda, was used in Libya in 2011, another in Iraq in 2014 under the name of Daesh. Gradually these groups have replaced the US armies to do the dirty work described by Colonel Ralph Peters in 2001.

Today, no one has seen US soldiers in uniform in Yemen, Lebanon and Israel. The Pentagon itself has advertised their withdrawal. But there are 60,000 clandestine, i.e. non-uniformed, US Special Forces creating chaos, via civil war, in these countries.

• Investigative Reports

Wearable “Solutions” and the Internet of Incarceration

A new push is underway to sell wearable devices and sensors as the solution to the opioid and prison crises in the US. However, this “solution” is set to come at a major cost to civil liberties and human freedom in general.

byJeremy Loffredo

May 20, 2021

18 minute read

In recent years, calls for radical prison reform and a solution to the U.S.’ opioid crisis have come to permeate national politics in the United States. With over two million people behind bars and more than 400,000 people dead from opioid misuse in the last two decades, these topics are often on the front page of major newspapers in the U.S. and abroad.

However, at the same time, the marketing of wearable technology, or wearables, as a solution to both of these hot-button issues has become promoted by key players in both the public and private sectors. Especially since COVID-19, these electronic devices that can be worn as accessories, embedded in clothes or even implanted under the skin, are frequently heralded by corporations, academics and influential think tanks as “cost effective”, technological solutions to these deeply rooted problems.

Yet, as will be covered in this article, the shift towards wearables may offer more costs than benefits, particularly when it comes to matters of civil liberties and privacy.

The World Economic Forum and Wearables

Klaus Schwab, Founder of the World Economic Forum, Source: Moritz Hager, WEF

On paper, the World Economic Forum (WEF, also known as the International Organization for Public Private Cooperation) is an NGO and think tank “committed to improving the state of the world.” In reality, it’s an international network of some of the wealthiest and most powerful people on Earth. The organization is best known for its annual gathering of the (mostly white, European and North American) ruling class. Each year hedge fund managers, bankers, CEOs, media representatives and heads of state gather in Davos to “shape global, regional and industry agendas.” As Foreign Affairs once put it, “the WEF has no formal authority, but it has become a major forum for elites to discuss policy ideas and priorities.”

In 2017, WEF Founder Klaus Schwab put out a book called “The Fourth Industrial Revolution.” The WEF uses the term Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) to denote the current “technological revolution” that is changing the way people “live, work, and relate to one another,” and with implications “unlike anything humankind has experienced before.” The 4IR is characterized by new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, 3D printing, and the “internet of things,” which essentially denotes embedding things with sensors – including human bodies in the form of wearables.

Like the industrial ‘revolutions’ that came before, the main theme for the WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution is that it will allow companies to produce more, more quickly and for far less money.

In the book, Schwab positions wearable technology as key to helping companies become organized around remote work by providing one’s employers “with a continuous exchange of data and insights about the things or tasks being worked on.” In a similar vein, Schwab emphasizes the “wealth of information that can be gathered from wearable devices and implantable technologies.”

But unlike the industrial ‘revolutions’ of the past, the WEF’s 4IR aims to blur the distinction between the physical, digital, and biological spheres. And the WEF is a vocal advocate for wearables in their propensity to propel what it calls ‘human enhancement.’

In 2018, Schwab teamed up with WEF’s “Head of Society and Innovation” Nicholas Davis to write a follow up book entitled “Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”Having been with the organization for over a decade, Davis was the obvious choice to co-author this book as he now “lead[s] the theme of the Fourth Industrial Revolution” at the WEF.

Schwab and Davis see wearables as just a stepping stone for the 4IR, writing that wearable devices “will almost certainly become implantable” in the body and the brain. “External wearable devices, such as smart watches, intelligent earbuds and augmented reality glasses, are giving way to active implantable microchips that break the skin barrier of our bodies, creating intriguing possibilities that range from integrated treatment systems to opportunities for human enhancement,” they write.

The authors note the potential to “drive an industry of human enhancement” that would, in turn, enhance “worker productivity.” However, other groups, including those partnered with the WEF, see other potential applications for their use well beyond the workplace.

Wearables, the Opioid Crisis and the War on Drugs

Deloitte, the world’s largest accounting firm and a longstanding partner of the WEF, has promoted wearables as a way to resolve the opioid epidemic. In 2016, Deloitte’s Center for Government Insights put out a report outlining how to fight the opioid crisis. The authors make the case that “technologists” and “innovators” should be part of the solution to the opioid crisis. Then, in 2018, the firm put out an article called “Strategies For Stemming The Opioid Epidemic,” explaining how data analytics could be used to help pharmacy benefit managers chart their course.

Ryan O’Shea, Source: LinkedIn

Other WEF partners are more directly involved in this effort. For example, WEF ‘Global Shaper’ Ryan O’Shea is the co-founder of Behaivior, a company that says it’s creating “technology to predict and prevent addiction relapses” using wearables. O’Shea, in addition to his WEF ties, is also the social media manager for Humanity Plus, formerly the World Transhumanist Association, which received $100,000 from Jeffrey Epstein in 2018 in addition to previous donations from Epstein-linked charities. Epstein also donated significant sums to Humanity Plus’ chair, Ben Goertzel.

According to the Behaivior website, the company’s mission is described as follows:

“We are creating software that can take real-time data streams from wearable devices that detect heart rate, heart rate variability, skin temperature, motion, and galvanic skin response (which is related to stress levels). This data is combined with other digital information about behavior, such as GPS location. As behavior and physiology changes, our software screens users for whether or not they are in a pre-relapse craving state.”

The company markets itself as a solution for governments who want to cut down on costs. “Reducing addiction relapses not only saves lives, but it also saves significant amounts of money by reducing re-arrests, re-incarcerations,” the Behaivior site reads. According to government records, Behaivior has received $533,000 from the NIH since its founding. It also receives support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Science Foundation. Tellingly, the company describes their focus on opioid abuse as the company’s “initial use case,” implying that the technology may soon be applied to other illicit substances. In a section on their website entitled “Market Opportunities”, the company mentions the number of Americans “addicted to drugs and alcohol” and implies it could be used for any sort of substance addiction that people seek treatment for, including substances that are currently legal to purchase and consume.

Behaivior’s funding sources and partnerships- Source: https://www.behaivior.com

Last year, the NIH also gave another company, Emitech, $328,000 to make a “forearm bracelet for rapid, on-site opioid intake monitoring and alerting.” On their website, Emitech states that “our major target users will be law enforcement units”, but adds that they could be used at other facilities such as “drug treatment centers” and “anywhere drug tests are required.”

Not unlike the private companies they are funding, the federal government is also moving money towards wearables being used to detect other criminalized substances as well as ones that are legal in some or all states. The NIH has granted money to a few wearable alcohol sensors as well as a wearable cocaine sensor. Additionally, it’s made a grant available for “the research and development of digital markers for detection of acute marijuana intoxication.”

That the WEF network sees wearables as key to stemming the opioid epidemic is particularly significant given that the Biden admin has signalled that it will focus heavily on this crisis once the COVID-19 crisis subsides.

“The bottom line for the Biden administration is that the [opioid] crisis is going to come into full awareness once covid starts moving into the background, perhaps in the first half of 2021,” the Washington Post quoted a professor saying in December 2020.

From Private Prisons to Wearable Prisons

In a much related manner, the ruling class also seems to be marrying the issue of mass incarceration with the wearables revolution.

“In a digital world with ankle bracelets and GPS devices, there is no reason to believe that physical imprisonment is the only option for those convicted of nonviolent offenses,” Darrell West wrote for the Brookings Institute in 2015. “Compared to incarceration, ankle bracelets and GPS devices seem far more tolerable. They keep offenders in society, are less punitive than prisons, and are much less expensive.”

West frames this digital incarceration as a desirable alternative where governments can cut costs but continue imprisoning the same amount of people as they do now. “Unless we find alternatives to physical imprisonment, the social and economic costs of jails will continue to sky-rocket,” he writes.

Ankle Bracelet maker Corrisoft’s Alternative to Incarceration via Rehabilitation Program, Source: Corrisoft

In 2013, the WEF-partnered Deloitte published an article on what it calls “virtual incarceration.” It envisions an automated monitoring system where parole officers can track people’s locations and an automated system sends “notifications to them when they have impending appointments, if they enter high-crime zones, or if their movements indicate that they are becoming more likely to commit a crime.”

The article also sees the use of this system as extending past the prison industry:

“ … Existing applications can already estimate blood alcohol content nearly as accurately as a breathalyzer—and predict the onset of depression. In the near future, contact with peer support groups, push notifications from case managers, and access to employers and other networks could be available at the touch of a button.”

A 2017 Australian Broadcasting Corporation article introduced something called the Technological Incarceration Project (TIP), a venture created by law professor Dan Hunter. The TIP proposes a form of “home detention” using “electronic sensors that monitor convicted offenders on a 24-hour basis.” This system, which Australian Broadcast Corporation calls an “internet of incarceration,” is meant to replace wardens and physical prisons, instead using advanced AI and machine learning to detect if a crime is about to be committed – and ensure that it doesn’t.

“Offenders would be fitted with an electronic bracelet or anklet capable of delivering an incapacitating shock if an algorithm detects that a new crime or violation is about to be committed,” it explains.

In 2018, Hunter co-wrote an article in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology proposing this system as a “major revolution to the prison sector,” arguing that it would “result in the closure of nearly all prisons in the United States” and “end the prison crisis.” According to Swinburne University of Technology, where he is dean, Hunter’s work has been supported by theU.S. Government’s National Science Foundation.

The key to his revolution is an ankle bracelet with GPS tracking and an embedded conducted energy device, to administer the electric shock and incapacitate prisoners until the arrival of the police.

The article outlines the plan for technological incarceration in three components:

“First, offenders would be required to wear electronic ankle bracelets that monitor their location and ensure they do not move outside of the geographical areas to which they would be confined. Second, prisoners would be compelled to wear sensors so that unlawful or suspicious activity could be monitored remotely by computers. Third, conducted energy devices would be used remotely to immobilize prisoners who attempt to escape their areas of confinement or commit other crimes.”

Hunter and his co-authors argue that remote monitoring through wearable sensors is a superior alternative to traditional surveillance cameras. “ … Our proposal requires prisoners to wear a series of remote sensors—including those for sound, video, and movement—that are connected to central computer systems that can detect unauthorized behavior,” they write.

Hunter and his co-authors further insist that the third step, the “remote immobilization of offenders,” would actually make this technological incarceration more secure than a conventional prison, since there is no chance of prisoner escape.

Hunter’s model of incarceration is declared as a “system that can determine whether a prisoner is having a psychotic episode (from speech recognition and audio processing of a prisoner’s emotional states), is threatening another (from audio processing of the emotional states of all the people within the prisoner’s environment and video processing of the prisoner’s behavior), or is seeking to leave a designated zone (from GPS tracking).”

Of note is the fact that several prisons and jails in the US are already using biometric voice identification technology and geolocation tracking on prisoners and the non-prisoners they call on the phone.

Additionally, Hunter’s plan to use wearables to move away from traditional prisons, first outlined a number of years ago, seems closer to coming to fruition than it did a few years ago. For example, in 2019, the DOJ gave a grant to researchers at Purdue University, to help them develop a wearables-based monitoring system for those who would otherwise be in prison. The electronic monitoring system was deployed in Tippecanoe County Corrections in Indiana under a “home detention” program.

What’s more, the other half of Hunter’s plan, utilizing AI to process prisoner communications and prevent crime, is already underway across the U.S.

Amazon now markets its AI transcription services to both prisons and law enforcement. The company’s AI system employs speech-recognition technology and machine learning software to build a database of words. As reported by ABC News, “they then notify law enforcement partners when the system picks up suspicious language or phrasings.”

“A year from now, all that slang could be obsolete – so investigators are constantly feeding new intelligence about prison slang into databases tailored to their unique jurisdiction or regional area,” explained ABC.

“We’ve taught the system how to speak inmate,” said James Sexton, an executive at LEO Technologies, a company using Amazon’s transcription services.

“Solving” Crises By Surveilling Everything

Additionally, due to the COVID-19 crisis, the federal government has adjusted both opioid treatment policy and prison policy to cater more to new, wearables-based solutions.

Under the Trump Administration, the Federal Bureau of Prisons began prioritizing home confinement to limit the spread of COVID-19 in prisons. While those inmates were to report back to prison when the ‘coronavirus emergency’ was over, Biden recently extended the national emergency and the HHS expects the crisis to last at least through December.

Furthermore, also because of the COVID-19 crisis, the US Department of Health and Human Services amended its regulations in 2020 so that treatment for opioid addiction can now be done remotely. “The pandemic has made it possible to see a licensed provider from home,” reported the New York Times.

In addition, the use of these health-tracking wearables has grown by more than 35% during the pandemic. “All of these surveillance technologies, like many other COVID-19 mitigations, are being rolled out rapidly amidst the crisis,” explained the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

Several wearable technologies have been marketed specifically as responses to the COVID-19 crisis, with a number focused solely on tracking the location of their users for social distancing or quarantining enforcement. “RightCrowd” is a lanyard employees can wear to help companies enforce social distancing and contact tracing at the office. “SafeZone” is a wearable sensor that emits a light when people get within six feet of one another, and is currently being used by the NFL. And, as reported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), “Courts in Kentucky and West Virginia have mandated electronic ankle shackles for individuals who refused to submit to quarantine procedures after testing positive for COVID-19.”

The Oura Ring biometric tracker. Source: https://ouraring.com/

Yet many of today’s new wearables are capable of accessing data that goes far beyond one’s location. The Oura Ring, a finger worn sleep tracker, monitors your temperature in order to predict the onset of fever in COVID-19, and is currently being used by the NBA. Amazon’s Halo, a wristband, will soon be able to detect COVID-19 symptoms. Halo scans the user’s body and voice, monitors blood pressure, and is meant to “report back on your emotional state throughout the day.” And, in March 2020, the US FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization to armbands made by a company called Tiger Tech. The bands are designed to monitor blood flow and analyze pulse rate and hypercoagulation, an onset symptom of COVID-19.

Another company, BioIntellisense, calls itself a “new era of wearable devices that are medical grade that will allow doctors and nurses to collect data from patients that are outside of a hospital.” Its first product, the BioSticker, is the “first FDA-cleared single-use device for up to 30 days of continuous vital signs monitoring.” It’s a patch designed to be worn on the chest for what the company calls an “effortless remote data capture” experience. The company received $2.8 million from the DoD in December 2020 to make these wearable products available to both the military and the public.

As the New York Times put it last November, “the hot new covid tech is wearable and constantly tracks you.”

“The necessity to address the pandemic with any means available removed some of the regulatory and legislative impediments related to the adoption of telemedicine,” Klaus Schwab and French economist Thierry Malleret wrote in their book “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” published in July 2020. “In the future, it is certain that more medical care will be delivered remotely. It will in turn accelerate the trend towards more wearable[s],” they continue.

Policy alignment between the WEF and the current Biden administration here is clear. Former Secretary of State John Kerry – Biden’s special presidential envoy for climate – firmly declared in December that the Biden administration will support the Great Reset and that the Great Reset ‘will happen with greater speed and with greater intensity than a lot of people might imagine.’”

Alignment between the WEF and the U.S. federal government in this area can also be seen at the FDA. In September 2020, the U.S. FDA launched The Digital Health Center of Excellence, with the objective of “innovat[ing] regulatory approaches to provide efficient and least burdensome oversight.”

The head director of this new FDA project is Bakul Patel, who’s been “leading regulatory and scientific efforts related to digital health devices at the FDA since 2010,” according to the FDA.

Like many figures in the US federal government, Patel has close ties to the very industries he’s been tasked with regulating. He currently leads the Scientific Leadership Board of the Medicine Society (DMS), an organization which exemplifies the objective of the ruling class to integrate wearable technology into people’s daily lives. The group recently moderated a WEF panel on the “Wearable Data Trove” and is sponsoring an upcoming conference called “Wearable injectors and Connected Devices.”

The FDA’s Bakul Patel, Source: YouTube

One way the FDA’s new Digital Health Center of Excellence’s propensity towards wearables can be inferred is by examining the activity of some of the DMS’, and thus Patel’s, corporate funders – Deloitte, Takeda, Biogen, and Pfizer – all “strategic partners” of the WEF.

Takeda is piloting an app that functions on consumer wearables that collects cognitive and behavioral data to assess people for depression. Biogen recently began working with Apple to “test the value” of consumer wearables to collect and transmit biometric data on cognitive performance and brain activity to predict future ailments.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla authored an article featured on the WEF site, writing that wearable devices are “poised to become a valuable tool for incentivising healthy behavior,” and citing the examples of ‘smart’ eye contact lenses, skin patches, and “ear worn trackers.”

Bourla also wrote:

“Our Oncology business recently launched a free app, LivingWith, that helps cancer patients connect with loved ones, manage appointments and record how they’re feeling. The app also syncs with fitness wearables, allowing patients to share a more complete portrait of their health with doctors. And for patients with haemophilia, our Rare Disease business developed HemMobile Striiv Wearable, a device for tracking activity and heart rate, and logging infusions and bleeding episodes. Such detailed information will truly allow healthcare providers to deliver personalised care, and also empower patients to assume a more active role in managing their own health.”

In 2019, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer went as far as calling wearable tech a revolution, via sponsored content on STAT News. The company also collaborated with IBM and Amazon to develop an IoT (Internet of Things) system of wearable sensors that can measure patient indicators 24/7 “with the same clinical accuracy that a doctor collects in the office.”

As such, aside from rolling out wearables through programs targeting prisoners and drug users, the ruling class has indicated a desire to “mainstream” wearables by marrying them with the “future of healthcare.” In “COVID-19: The Great Reset,”Schwab and Malleret write that eventually, the use of AI and wearable technology will cause the distinction between public health systems and “personalized health creation systems” to break down.

Digital Serfdom as Prison Reform

Given that industry players like Pfizer and Biogen are at the forefront of the push for wearables, and that these players have traditionally been profit-centric in their motives, the trend towards wearable technology is virtually guaranteed to come at a cost.

Perhaps the most obvious cost will be the further degradation of privacy. Without a doubt, the adoption of these technologies will intensify the tendency for governments and corporations to spy on citizens and consumers.

For some, the ongoing public health crisis has mitigated much of the negative stigma around ‘wearing technology.’ “As tech analyst Rajit Atwal told ZDNET in October, “what may have been a market for this pre-COVID, there’s likely to be a potentially bigger market post-COVID or even during COVID in terms of people wanting to be more active in monitoring their health.”

“Do you give access to what is happening inside your body and brain in exchange for far better healthcare? People will give up their privacy in exchange for healthcare,” said Yuval Noah Harari, a history professor frequently featured at the WEF, in 2018. “And in many places, they won’t have a choice.” However, two years later, at the 2020 annual meeting of the WEF, Harari stated that the mass use of wearables would be a “watershed” moment that would herald the beginning of the era of “digital dictatorships.”

Source: The WEF’s Internet of Bodies Briefing Paper

The potential misuse of wearables by the public and private sectors have led critics to argue that the appeal of monitoring your own health shouldn’t detract from the fact that wearables are essentially wearable trackers. “It should not feel normal to be tracked everywhere or to have to prove your location,” wrote the EFF in June 2020.

From the New York Times:

“Civil rights and privacy experts warn that the spread of such wearable continuous-monitoring devices could lead to new forms of surveillance that outlast the pandemic — ushering into the real world the same kind of extensive tracking that companies like Facebook and Google have instituted online. They also caution that some wearable sensors could enable employers, colleges or law enforcement agencies to reconstruct people’s locations or social networks, chilling their ability to meet and speak freely. And they say these data-mining risks could disproportionately affect certain workers or students, like undocumented immigrants or political activists.”

“It’s chilling that these invasive and unproven devices could become a condition for keeping our jobs, attending school or taking part in public life,” Albert Fox Cahn, executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, told the New York Times.

Furthermore, wearables that track and contain one’s health data carry a particular threat. “Wearable technologies risk generating burdens of anxiety and stigma for their users and reproducing existing health inequalities,” wrote John Owens and Alan Cribb in the journal “Philosophy & Technology” in 2017. “Wearable technologies that subject their users to biomedical and consumerist epistemologies, norms and values also risk undermining processes of genuinely autonomous deliberation.”

What’s more, critics say that while ‘digital incarceration’ may seem like a desirable alternative to ‘mass incarceration,’ it’s simply incarceration by another name.

As author Michelle Alexander wrote in the New York Times in response to similar ‘e-carceration’ models that were popping up in 2018:

“Even if you’re lucky enough to be set “free” from a brick-and-mortar jail thanks to a computer algorithm, an expensive monitoring device likely will be shackled to your ankle — a GPS tracking device provided by a private company that may charge you around $300 per month, an involuntary leasing fee. Your permitted zones of movement may make it difficult or impossible to get or keep a job, attend school, care for your kids or visit family members. You’re effectively sentenced to an open-air digital prison, one that may not extend beyond your house, your block or your neighborhood. One false step (or one malfunction of the GPS tracking device) will bring cops to your front door, your workplace, or wherever they find you and snatch you right back to jail.”

“I find it difficult to call this progress,” Alexander explains. “As I see it, digital prisons are to mass incarceration what Jim Crow was to slavery … If the goal is to end mass incarceration and mass criminalization, digital prisons are not an answer. They’re just another way of posing the question.”

Some even see digital incarceration as a system worse than the physical system, in terms of privacy. “At first glance, these alternatives may seem like a win-win,” wrote Maya Schenwar in Truthout. “Instead of taking place in a hellish institution, prison happens “in the comfort of your own home” (the ultimate American ad for anything). However, this change threatens to transform the very definition of ‘home’ into one in which privacy, and possibly ‘comfort’ as well, are subtracted from the equation.”

“In a world of electronic monitors, predictive policing, interagency data sharing, hidden cameras, and registries, imprisonment extends not only beyond the walls of the jail or penitentiary, but beyond any contained space,” Schenwar continues. “In the new world of incarceration, your house is your prison. Your block is your prison. Your school is your prison. Your neighborhood… your city… your state… your country is your prison.”

Surveillance Stakeholder Capitalism

Still from the Wearable Data Troves presentation at the WEF’s Global Technology Governance Summit.

Aside from privacy concerns, a less obvious side-effect of the wearables ‘revolution’ is its potential to fuel and propel the WEF’s broader vision for the future – something it calls stakeholder capitalism.

The WEF is committed to “advancing stakeholder capitalism,” a system in which private corporations are the “trustees of society.” (According to Schwab, the very reason he created the WEF in the first place was to “help business and political leaders implement [stakeholder capitalism].”)

Schwab’s model dictates that corporations should start expanding their definition of “value” away from shareholder returns. As such, the cornerstone to ‘stakeholder capitalism’ is data. In order for corporations to start making decisions that ‘benefit society,’ they need comprehensive metrics on what decisions would prove ‘valuable.’

Naturally, having people walking around wearing technology with one’s location data, medical history, real time vital signs, oral conversations, current emotional state and thus their “behavior” is a dream come true for the model.

And while the most marginalized populations, i.e. those likely to be locked up for drug offenses in the US, will be the first to be hit by this pervasive surveillance, the WEF network sees this as the vision of the future for us all.

Featured image: Still from RAND video “What is the Internet of Bodies”

• biometrics
• WEF

• World Economic Forum

  

Author

Jeremy Loffredo

Jeremy Loffredo is a journalist and researcher based in Washington, DC. He is formerly a segment producer for RT AMERICA and is currently an investigative reporter for Children’s Health Defense.

On June 24, 1717, representatives of English Masonic lodges established the Grand Lodge of England. From this day on they use to trace the history of modern Freemasonry.

It should be noted that the corporation of masons (“Freemason”, «le maçon» in French means "stonecraft worker", “builder”) were known in the Middle Ages, as well as representatives of other professions, united in closed corporations - the workshops. These corporations were secret and could be reached only by passing a special initiation.

In addition to the masons themselves, there were secret lodges of shoemakers, painters, casters, wine-makers, glassblowers, and even scavengers and beggars. They were sometimes called by generic term “companionship”, “le compagnonage”.

Each profession had its own rituals and symbols, most often traced back to biblical history, but often in its apocryphal version. In addition, pre-Christian symbolism could easily be found everywhere.

They main feature of Masons and companions was their belongness to the Third Estate. Priests and aristocracy had their own special orders and secret unions. At the same time, medieval corporations of artisans, living mostly in cities, differed also from peasant communities, which in this period also sometimes united in mystical groups with their legends, symbols, rites and doctrines.

On June 24, 1717, the ancient Freemasonry, previously called “operative masonry”, that is, associated with a particular profession - the construction of temples, castles and palaces - was reformed. Now it became “speculative”. And it could be joined by representatives of any class - all the rites were henceforth considered allegories, and the secrets of craftsmanship - mystical metaphors. But even in this state Freemasonry retained the main thing - orientation on the Third Estate, the Tiers -État.

Thus it became the vanguard of the new capitalist class, rushing to power. Among the Masonic lodges were both moderate and quite radical. For example, the Bavarian Illuminati or the French Masonic lodges responsible for the great French revolution and the bloody terror associated with it.

This radical revolutionary Freemasonry rejected God and became the main ideological and political enemy of the whole traditional order in Europe. The Third Estate under the Masonic leadership and guidance destroyed the Church, overthrew the Monarchy and still more enslaved the peasants. The materialistic science of the Encyclopedists all directly connected with Masonry and inspired by it replaced sublime idealism of the Christian Middle Ages.

True Europe fought a desperate battle in the Vendée, where the priesthood, the aristocracy loyal to the monarch, and the peasantry – all three classical functions of Indo-European society (according to G.Dumezil) united against bloody Masonic terrorism, the vanguard of liberal-capitalist materialist civilization, which was advancing on Europe. And, in the end, conquered it.

The modern West has followed the Masonic path of development.

In the 20th century, almost all the plans of speculative Freemasonry came to fruition. The lodges themselves, with their archaic rituals, moralism and symbolism, became from now on obsolete. But the Masonic ideology of progress, evolution, human rights, materialistic science, the secular State, and civil society have become principles and norms for virtually all of humanity.

Ideas that originally originated in secret Masonic ateliers are now openly inculcated in the minds of schoolchildren and define the agenda of science and culture policy.

And it is no accident that almost all U.S. presidents, starting from the first - George Washington, were activists of Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry and held leadership positions in it.

Today, those who call themselves Freemasons (and there are some) are either atavistic rudiments or clowns. They have no reason more to exist. Their historical program is accomplished on the planetary scale:

All of humanity has gradually become one Masonic lodge.

It's just a matter of time before the last step of the Masonic program will become the reality: the establishment of a worldwide dictatorship of the World Government.

But we see certain obstacles along the way. And I hope you know what I mean.

We are this obstacle. You and I.

The new coming race – the race of Awakening.

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

SASKATCHEWAN: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms represents Dr. Francis Christian, Clinical Professor of General Surgery at the University of Saskatchewan and a practising surgeon in Saskatoon. Dr. Christian was called into a meeting today, suspended from all teaching responsibilities effective immediately, and fired from his position with the University of Saskatchewan as of September 2021.

There is a recording of Dr. Christian’s meeting today between Dr. Christian and Dr. Preston Smith, the Dean of Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan, College of Medicine, Dr. Susan Shaw, the Chief Medical Officer of the Saskatchewan Health Authority, and Dr. Brian Ulmer, Head of the Department of Surgery at the Saskatchewan College of Medicine.

In addition, the Justice Centre will represent Dr. Christian in his defence of a complaint that was made against him and an investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. The complaint objects to Dr. Christian having advocated for the informed consent of Covid vaccines for children.

Dr. Christian has been a surgeon for more than 20 years and began working in Saskatoon in 2007. He was appointed Director of the Surgical Humanities Program and Director of Quality and Patient Safety in 2018 and co-founded the Surgical Humanities Program. Dr. Christian is also the Editor of the Journal of The Surgical Humanities.

On June 17, Dr. Christian released a statement to over 200 doctors which contained his concerns regarding giving the Covid shots to children. In it he noted that he is pro-vaccine, and that he did not represent any group, the Saskatchewan Health Authority, or the University of Saskatchewan. “I speak to you directly as a physician, a surgeon, and a fellow human being.” Dr. Christian noted that the principle of informed consent was sacrosanct and noted that a patient should always be “fully aware of the risks of the medical intervention, the benefits of the intervention, and if any alternatives exist to the intervention.”

“This should apply particularly to a new vaccine that has never before been tried in humans… before the vaccine is rolled out to children, both children and parents must know the risks of m-RNA vaccines,” he wrote.

Dr. Christian expressed concern that he had not come across “a single vaccinated child or parent who has been adequately informed” about Covid vaccines for children.

Among his points, he stated that:

1. The m-RNA vaccine, is a new, experimental vaccine never used by humans before.
2. The m-RNA vaccines have not been fully authorized by Health Canada or the US CDC, and are in fact under “interim authorization” in Canada and “emergency use authorization” in the US. He noted that “full vaccine approval takes several years and multiple safety considerations – this has not happened.”
3. That in order to qualify for “emergency use authorization” there must be an emergency. While he said there is a strong case for vaccinating the elderly, the vulnerable and health care workers, he said, “Covid does not pose a threat to our kids. The risk of them dying of Covid is less than 0.003% – this is even less than the risk of them dying of the flu. There is no emergency in children.”
4. Children do not readily transmit the Covid virus to adults.
5. M-RNA vaccines have been “associated with several thousand deaths” in the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System in the US. “These appear to be unusual, compared to the total number of vaccines administered.” He called it a “strong signal that should not be ignored.”
6. He noted that vaccines have already caused “serious medical problems for kids” worldwide, including “a real and significantly increased risk” of myocarditis, inflammation of the heart. Dr. Christian notes the German national vaccine agency and the UK vaccine agency are not recommending the vaccine for healthy children and teenagers.

The Saskatchewan Health Authority/College of Medicine wrote a letter to Dr. Christian on June 21, 2021, alleging that they had “received information that you are engaging in activities designed to discourage and prevent children and adolescents from receiving Covid-19 vaccination contrary to the recommendations and pandemic-response efforts of Saskatchewan and Canadian public health authorities.”

Dr. Christian’s concerns regarding underage Covid vaccinations are not isolated to him. The US Centre for Disease Control had an “emergency meeting” today to discuss the growing cases of myocarditis (heart inflammation) in younger males after receiving the Covid-19 vaccines.

The CDC released new data today that the risk of myocarditis after the Pfizer vaccine is at least 10 times the expected rate in 12 – 17 year old males and females. The German government has issued public guidance against vaccinating those under the age of 18.

The World Health Organization posted an update to its website on Monday, June 21, which contained the statement in respect of advice for Covid-19 vaccination that “Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.” Within 24 hours, this guidance was withdrawn and new guidance was posted which stated that “Covid vaccines are safe for those over 18 years of age.”

Dr. Christian says there is a large, growing “network of ethical, moral physicians and scientists” who are urging caution in recommending vaccines for all children without informed consent. He said, physicians must “always put their patients and humanity first.”

Dr. Byram Bridle, a prominent immunologist at the University of Guelph with a sub-speciality in vaccinology, recently participated in a Press Conference on Parliament Hill on CPAC organized by MP Derek Sloan, where he discussed the censorship of scientists and physicians. Dr. Bridle expressed his safety concerns with vaccinating children with experimental MRNA vaccines.

Justice Centre Litigation Director Jay Cameron also has concern over the growing censorship of medical professionals when it comes to questioning the government narrative on Covid. “We are seeing a clear pattern of highly competent and skilled medical doctors in very esteemed positions being taken down and censored or even fired, for practicing proper science and medicine,” says Mr. Cameron.

The Justice Centre represented Dr. Chris Milburn in Nova Scotia, who faced professional disciplinary proceedings last year after a group of activists took exception to an opinion column he wrote in a local paper. The Justice Centre provided submissions to the College on Dr. Milburn’s behalf, defending the right of physicians to express their opinions on matters of policy in the public square and arguing that everyone is entitled to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – including doctors. The Justice Centre noted that attempting to have a doctor professionally disciplined for his opinions and commentary on matters of public interest amounts to bullying and intimidation for speaking out against the government.

Last week, Dr. Milburn also faced punishment for speaking out with his concerns about public health policies, as he was removed from his position as the Head of Emergency for the eastern zone with the Nova Scotia Health Authority. In an unusual twist, a petition has been started to have Dr. Milburn replace Dr. Strang as the province’s Chief Medical Officer.

“Censoring and punishing scientists and doctors for freely voicing their concerns is arrogant, oppressive and profoundly unscientific”, states Mr. Cameron.

“Both the western world and the idea of scientific inquiry itself is built to a large extent on the principles of freedom of thought and speech. Medicine and patient safety can only regress when dogma and an elitist orthodoxy, such as that imposed by the Saskatchewan College of Medicine, punishes doctors for voicing concerns,” Mr. Cameron concludes.

It’s said that, when asked why he had escalated America’s military campaign in Vietnam, US president Lyndon Johnson pulled down his trousers, whipped out his male member, and said “That’s why!’

I have no idea if this is true, but it’s quite plausible. For LBJ, Vietnam was nothing if not a test of manhood. As he told his biographer Doris Kearns: “If I left that way and let the communists take over South Vietnam, then I would be seen as a coward … an unmanly man, a man without spine.”

It’s perhaps too harsh to say that 58,000 Americans died so that LBJ could feel like a man. But there’s something to it. And as I detailed in my 2006 book Military Honour and the Conduct of War, LBJ is hardly unique. Throughout the ages, war – like international politics generally – has been powerfully influenced by the search for honour, and perhaps even more by the desire to avoid dishonour.

One you realize this, a lot of international politics suddenly makes sense. Modern Westerners tend to be a bit uncomfortable with the language of honour. It sounds a bit archaic. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not relevant – just that we’re not very good at recognizing it in ourselves. A case in point is the incident last week when a British warship sailed through what Russia claims are its territorial waters off Crimea. But before we get onto that, we first need to take a little diversion into academic theory.

Honour, as Aristotle put it, is “the reward for virtue.” What virtue consists of is something we’ll come onto in a moment, but the key point is that honour comes from displaying virtue. Honour also comes in two forms – external and internal, otherwise expressed by words such as prestige, reputation, face, etc. in the first instance, or like conscience and integrity in the second. Seen this way, honour is, according to a well-known definition, the worth of a person in his/her own eyes as well as the worth of a person in the eyes of others. Either way, it’s a measurement of worth. But of the two forms (internal and external) the first is the most important – the reason one wants to be considered worthy in the eyes of others is because it makes you feel worthy in your own eyes. Ultimately, honour is all about feeling good about yourself.

Another way of looking at honour is to divide it into two other types. The first is absolute, and is often associated with female honour. This type you either have or you don’t – you’re pure, and so honourable, until you aren’t and you’re not. The second type is relative and competitive – or “agonistic” in the technical jargon. This type is traditionally associated with male virtues – strength, courage, prowess, and so on. Honour of this type has to be perpetually defended, lest one loses one’s relative position. It requires one both to challenge others and to defend oneself any time one is challenged.

This latter type of honour tends to flourish where governance is weak, and people or institutions feel that they need to exert themselves in order to survive. This gives it an instrumental purpose. But it also tends to get detached from this purpose. Strength, courage, prowess etc are considered important in the sense of being necessary to defend against threats. Because of that, societies tend to promote them as virtues, rewarding their display. The result is that people internalize them and feel a need to display these virtues even when it’s not appropriate. Because virtue and worth have become associated with strength, courage, prowess etc, showing strength, courage, prowess, etc becomes almost an end in itself – or at least, a psychological necessity to avoid the sense of shame that comes from failing to live up to the standard of virtue.

The result is a lot of utterly unnecessary conflict, as individuals, including state leaders, feel the need to challenge one another and respond forcibly to anything that is perceived to be a challenge.

Which brings us on to the shenanigans of the Royal Navy last week off the coast of Crimea.

In a recent post, I speculated as to what inspired this particular piece of foolish derring-do. Now we have an answer, courtesy of some waterlogged Ministry of Defence documents found abandoned behind a bus stop in Kent. In these, anonymous defence officials predicted that the Russian response to a British incursion into Crimean waters might be fairly forceful. But they also concluded that this was no reason not to direct the British warship HMS Defender to sail through the waters in question. Were that to happen, said the documents, people might get the impression of “the UK being scared/running away.”

At which point, I hope, the connection with what I said earlier becomes clear. One might imagine that the Russian-British spat was a matter of high principle or national interest. In reality, it’s about not wanting to look cowardly.

In effect, the Russian annexation of Crimea was a “challenge” to the West. As such, the logic of honour requires a response. Failing to face up to the challenge by sailing around Crimea would have meant ducking the challenge, and as such was unacceptable. The fact that the Russians might respond forcefully made meeting the challenge even more essential. If there was no chance of a forceful response, there wouldn’t be any cowardice in failing to meet it. It was precisely the possibility that things might turn violent that made the escapade necessary.

This seems strange, but the logic is entirely in keeping with the perverse incentives provided by the honour code. The possibility that an incident might escalate into war isn’t a reason to back off; it’s actually all the more reason to press on.

The thing about this, though, is that the challenge in question was purely imaginary. It existed in the minds of the Royal Navy, but not anywhere else. People weren’t actually going to think that the British were a bunch of cowards if they decided to sail from Odessa to Georgia by some other route. In fact, nobody would have noticed, let alone cared.

Thus, going back to what I said earlier, the internal aspect of honour is what matters here – it’s all about self-perception rather than the perception of others. What’s driving this is a feeling in the British establishment that their status in the world isn’t what it was. The sense of internal dishonour this provokes makes them feel bad about themselves. And so they incite a conflict in order to boost their self-esteem.

If you have a spare hour, I recommend Bill Moyer’s documentary LBJ’s Road to War. A lot of it consists of recordings of President Johnson’s phone calls with his advisors about Vietnam. What comes out of it is that all concerned knew that escalating the war was a bad idea and wouldn’t succeed. But more important from LBJ’s point of view was that he didn’t want to look weak. And the rest as they say, is history. The lesson is obvious, and its one that the Brits – and everybody else – would do well to learn.

On June 23rd, Britain’s Royal Academy of Arts put out a carefully worded five-paragraph media statement regarding German-born textile artist Jess de Wahls. “We have apologised to Jess de Wahls for the way we have treated her and do so again publicly now,” read the RA communiqué. “We had no right to judge her views … This betrayed our most important core value—the protection of free speech.”

The controverted speech in question was contained in a 2019 blog post, in which de Wahls wrote that “a woman is an adult human female (not an identity or feeling),” and that trans women are “biological males [who] choose to live as a woman, or believe they actually are women.” These are statements that almost every person knows to be true, but which have become unfashionable to say out loud in highly progressive subcultures. And so, when a handful of people raised a fuss about de Wahls’ work being sold in the RA gift shop, Academy officials not only purged de Wahl from their inventory earlier this month, but peacocked their reasons for doing so.

“Thank you to all those for bringing an item in the RA Shop by an artist expressing transphobic views to our attention,” read the June 17th post on RA’s Instagram feed. “We were unaware of [de Wahls’s] stated views, and their work will not be stocked in the future. We appreciate you holding us to account on this issue, and we would like to reiterate that we stand with the LGBTQ+ community.”

In backing down from its attempted cancelation of de Wahls, the RA now claims that “[a] plurality of voices, tolerance, and free thinking are at the core of what we stand for and seek to protect.” Whether or not this Road-to-Damascus conversion is sincere, these high-flown words glide over the fact that de Wahls’s views were never remotely “transphobic” to begin with, no matter what standard of “tolerance” one might choose to apply. Moreover, RA’s expressed conceit that punishing the artist had been a good-faith gesture intended to demonstrate solidarity with the “LGBTQ+ community” was always farcical: Some of the most prominent critics of progressive gender orthodoxy are themselves gay, lesbian, or trans.

De Wahls was fortunate: Her case attracted widespread sympathy, and the RA was attacked sharply on social media. (Even Britain’s ruling political party appeared to be on the artist’s side.) But the very fact that she had to defend her reputation in this way shows how deeply embedded gender dogma has become in the world of arts and letters. This includes journalism, too: Even after the Academy apologized to de Wahls, news reports described the artist as being marked by “accusations of transphobia,” without plainly noting that these accusations are baseless. And thanks to Google, these smears will follow de Wahls throughout her career.

In recent months, the issue of where to draw the line on trans rights has been front-page news thanks to the case of Laurel Hubbard, a formerly washed up 1990s-era junior-level New Zealand male weightlifter who transitioned to a female identity in 2012, and now is set to compete in this year’s Olympics—at age 43. The prospect of biological males making a mockery of female sports in this way has spurred many formerly cowed public figures to point out the abundantly obvious physical differences between biological women and biological men. And in some recent cases, as with scholar Grace Lavery at University of California, Berkeley, trans activists’ sweeping claims that we can alter our biological sex (or that the whole concept of biological sex is a mere myth) are now being properly ridiculed. Popular writers and podcasters such as Debra Soh, Abigail Shrier, Kathleen Stock, Graham Linehan, Helen Joyce, and Meghan Murphy have by now spent years raising the alarm against gender extremism, and there is some evidence their efforts are bearing fruit. A milestone of sorts was observed last month when even the New York Times, an early and regular signal booster of gender-bending maximalism, called out the ACLU (however gingerly) for its over-the-top trans jingoism. All secular movements built on pseudoscience persist on borrowed time, and this one is proving no exception.

But even amid the apparent decay of “gender supremacism” (to borrow a phrase from Quillette contributor Allan Stratton), its mantras remain embedded as holy writ in many professional subcultures—largely because gender activists have successfully entrenched themselves amid the various oversight bodies, trade associations, and unions that serve as gatekeepers in these fields. In many professions, these authorities possess the power to end a person’s career.

In the UK, for instance, a trans schoolteacher named Debbie Hayton was threatened with expulsion from the Trades Union Congress for acknowledging that trans women (such as Hayton, in fact) are biologically male. In Scotland, a whole slew of politicians and activists have been excommunicated by their own cadres following accusations of gender wrongthink. In British Columbia, a small group of lawyers operating within the bar association’s Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Committee have rewritten court procedures so that lawyers are now effectively required to act out pronoun recitals as a condition to exercise their duties as litigators.

In the same province, a nurse is being dragged through a lengthy investigation process originally sparked by the fact that she’d publicly supported the erection of a billboard stating, “I Heart JK Rowling.” According to a report prepared by an investigator for the province’s College of Nurses and Midwives, “the Complainant [Alex Turriff] stated that this billboard was created to show support for author JK Rowling after she publicly came out with transphobic views,” and so casts into doubt “how [Hamm] can be trusted to provide safe, non-judgmental care, and wonders how transgender and gender diverse patients can be safe in her care.” This report is 332 pages long, and Hamm’s ordeal continues to this day, with her professional future resting, in part, on the question of whether a person can simultaneously be a competent medical professional and a fan of a woman who wrote popular children’s books. Hamm is represented legally by a group that supports constitutional freedoms, but others in her situation have had trouble finding a lawyer to take their cases: In the UK, as Maya Forstater has noted, some law firms have allegedly been encouraged to turn away non-ideologically compliant clients lest these firms lose their stamp of approval from trans activist groups such as Stonewall UK.

One reason these milieus have succumbed so readily to gender cultism is that activists have successfully weaponized a definition of “transphobia” that now encompasses virtually any acknowledgment of the biological facts concerning human sexual dimorphism. Moreover, their case often is made in apocalyptic terms, with whole legions of trans children allegedly being set on extinguishing themselves if even the slightest ideological deviation is permitted in public discourse. Through such rhetorical methods, even this essay can be regarded as dangerous (and perhaps even deadly) propaganda. One of the few liberal journalists who’s taken pains to map out these tactics, Jesse Singal, has been subject to a campaign of lies and personal attacks that resembles Scientologists’ treatment of “Suppressive Persons.”

Indeed, even tautological descriptions of biological reality now are cast as thought crimes. In 2017, world-renowned Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie told an interviewer: “When people talk about, ‘Are trans women women?’ my feeling is trans women are trans women.” This perfectly sensible statement was predictably denounced on that basis that, as Vox put it, “these remarks implied that trans women aren’t ‘real women’—a stereotype that transgender people constantly struggle against and find deeply offensive.” And in a searing June 15th essay, Adichie describes the Kafkaesque ordeal she’s endured in the four years since, during which time literary rivals (especially her former protégé, Akwaeke Emezi) have orchestrated an often sociopathic-seeming campaign of defamation—capped by Emezi’s ghoulish tweet expressing “trust that there are other people who will pick up machetes to protect us from the harm transphobes like Adichie & Rowling seek to perpetuate.”

As Adichie suggests, what started as a well-intentioned movement to fight actual transphobia has morphed into a viciously guarded orthodoxy that demands primacy over all other commitments and loyalties, including personal friendship. She catalogs the sadists who’ve come out to attack her as:

People who claim to love literature—the messy stories of our humanity—but are also monomaniacally obsessed with whatever is the prevailing ideological orthodoxy. People who demand that you denounce your friends for flimsy reasons in order to remain a member of the chosen puritan class. People who ask you to ‘educate’ yourself while not having actually read any books themselves, while not being able to intelligently defend their own ideological positions, because by “educate,” they actually mean “parrot what I say, flatten all nuance, wish away complexity.” People who do not recognize that what they call a sophisticated take is really a simplistic mix of abstraction and orthodoxy—sophistication in this case being a showing-off of how au fait they are on the current version of ideological orthodoxy. People who wield the words “violence” and “weaponize” like tarnished pitchforks.

Last month, Quillette broadcast a podcast interview with Bernard Lane, a writer and editor at the Australian who has documented the risks associated with rushing gender dysphoric children into aggressive medical treatments. In any other pediatric medical context, this kind of journalistic investigation would be seen as laudatory. But such is the ideological climate surrounding this issue that special rules apparently apply. On May 24th, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation presented viewers with what purported to be a profile of Michelle Telfer, head of the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne’s Gender Clinic, but whose main purpose seems to have been the denunciation of the Australian’s coverage of gender transition.

Telfer complains that the newspaper is “one-sided” and that it has quoted experts of whom Telfer disapproves. At one point in the feature, a public-health official attacks the Australian for having “continued to publish articles” that challenge the preferred narrative—thus echoing Telfer’s own public complaints about her work being criticized. The public broadcaster’s overall message is that the journalistic community should get on board with the received wisdom, and stop creating trouble for those seeking to reflexively “affirm” any child who claims to be born in the wrong body.

As Keira Bell’s stunning legal victory in the UK shows, the journalistic establishment has much to answer for when it comes to either ignoring, or even actively suppressing, well-founded concerns in this area. In Britain, Ms. Bell’s case and related developments have set in motion a much-needed process of soul-searching among policy-makers (with the UK government now severing ties with Stonewall UK’s infamously cynical diversity-training program). But this process is less advanced in other English-speaking countries such as Canada. In the United States, meanwhile, the policy landscape is increasingly polarized between progressives who seek total censorship of “gender-critical” viewpoints, and red-state social conservatives enacting overly broad laws that, in some cases, would go too far by banning transition therapies completely.

As for Lane and the Australian, they are now the subject of a 42-page complaint to the country’s Press Council, a fact implicitly celebrated by ABC’s producers, who film Telfer’s partner describing how “since putting in the complaint to the press council, she’s just felt in control now … less of a victim.” While the text of the complaint is not in the public domain, one can read Telfer’s 2020 submission to the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications in regard to media diversity, in which she lists her complaints about the Australian at considerable length. In that submission, Telfer claims that rapid onset gender dysphoria, as described by Brown University scholar Lisa Littman in 2018, does not exist; blithely dismisses concerns over the growing ranks of detransitioners such as Bell; and downplays concerns about the experimental nature of puberty-blocking drugs—despite the fact these concerns had become the subject of scandal in the UK even by the time of Telfer’s 2020 submission.

The Australian has been one of the few media outlets that has dared challenge the approved narrative on gender. And Lane, in particular, often has been a lonely voice of reason. But theirs is an uphill battle that will likely continue for years, as gender ideologues draw from the tall stack of institutional cards they’ve accumulated in recent years. While each of the controversies discussed herein may seem small and inconsequential—the contents of a museum gift store, a deleted Twitter account, a canceled university event, a muzzled author—the larger issue at play is not. The “final, most essential command” of any coercive movement is, as George Orwell once put it, “to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.” Once you sweep aside all the glitter showers, animated unicorns, and rainbow emojis, that is ultimately what gender supremacism is truly about.

Featured image: Art by Jess de Wahls

Black Sea: U.S., Ukraine to lead naval exercise with 32 nations from six continents
Rick Rozoff

The annual U.S.-led multinational naval exercise in the Black Sea, Sea Breeze, will begin on June 28 and continue until July 10. As with previous iterations this year’s exercise will be co-hosted by the U.S. and Ukraine.

Though as the name indicates primarily a series of maritime drills, Sea Breeze also includes air and land components.

Currently there are three warships from NATO nations in the Black Sea: the U.S. interceptor missile/guided-missile destroyer USS Laboon, the British destroyer HMS Defender and Dutch frigate HNLMS Evertsen. The first is part of the carrier strike group attached to the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier and the latter two to the new HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier.

As the massive Defender Europe 21 war games wrapped up this week, several components of which were held in the Black Sea, the public relations bureau of U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa and U.S. Sixth Fleet announced that this year’s Sea Breeze will include military personnel, ships, planes and equipment from the most nations ever: 32. From six continents. Participating countries are: Albania, Australia, Brazil, Britain, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Morocco, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Spain, South Korea, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates and the U.S. All are NATO members or partners except for Brazil and Senegal, but Brazil has been contributing to war games held by the U.S. in Africa and Europe lately and may well soon join its neighbor Colombia as a NATO partner; and Senegal, which is also now participating in the U.S./NATO African Lion military exercise, may join fellow African NATO partners Algeria, Egypt, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia.

U.S. Navy graphic

The war games will include 5,000 troops, 32 ships, 40 aircraft and 18 special operations and diving teams.

The American chargé d’affaires to Ukraine, Kristina Kvien (a graduate of the U.S. Army War College), was quoted by U.S. Navy stating: “The United States is proud to partner with Ukraine in co-hosting the multinational maritime exercise Sea Breeze, which will help enhance interoperability and capabilities among participating nations. We are committed to maintaining the safety and security of the Black Sea.”

Interoperability is a NATO catchword for military integration. This year’s maneuvers will include amphibious warfare, land warfare, air defense, special operations and anti-submarine warfare facets.

Only one of the six (recognized) nations on the Black Sea is not a NATO member (Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey) or a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner (Georgia and Ukraine): Russia. It is that country that troops, ships and military aircraft from 32 nations on six continents will be deployed against in a few days.

A UK nonprofit with ties to global corruption throughout the COVID-19 crisis as well as historical and current ties to the UK eugenics movement launched a global health-focused DARPA equivalent last year. The move went largely unnoticed by both mainstream and independent media.

The Wellcome Trust, which has arguably been second only to Bill Gates in its ability to influence events during the COVID-19 crisis and vaccination campaign, launched its own global equivalent of the Pentagon’s secretive research agency last year, officially to combat the “most pressing health challenges of our time.” Though first conceived of in 2018, this particular Wellcome Trust initiative was spun off from the Trust last May with $300 million in initial funding. It quickly attracted two former DARPA executives, who had previously served in the upper echelons of Silicon Valley, to manage and plan its portfolio of projects.

This global health DARPA, known as Wellcome Leap, seeks to achieve “breakthrough scientific and technological solutions” by or before 2030, with a focus on “complex global health challenges.” The Wellcome Trust is open about how Wellcome Leap will apply the approaches of Silicon Valley and venture capital firms to the health and life science sector. Unsurprisingly, their three current programs are poised to develop incredibly invasive tech-focused, and in some cases overtly transhumanist, medical technologies, including a program exclusively focused on using artificial intelligence (AI), mobile sensors, and wearable brain-mapping tech for children three years old and younger.

This Unlimited Hangout investigation explores not only the four current programs of Wellcome Leap but also the people behind it. The resulting picture is of an incredibly sinister project that poses not only a great threat to current society but to the future of humanity itself. An upcoming Unlimited Hangout investigation will examine the history of the Wellcome Trust along with its role in recent and current events.

Leap’s Leadership: Merging Man and Machine for the Military and Silicon Valley

Regina Dugan’s Keynote at Facebook F8 2017. Source: YouTube

The ambitions of the Wellcome Leap are made clear by the woman chosen to lead it, former director of the Pentagon’s DARPA, Regina Dugan. Dugan began her career at DARPA in 1996; she led a counterterrorism task force in 1999 before leaving DARPA about a year later. After departing DARPA, she cofounded her own venture capital firm, Dugan Ventures, and then became special adviser to the US Army’s vice chief of staff from 2001 to 2003, which coincided with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2005, she created a defense-focused tech firm called RedXDefense, which contracts with the military and specifically for DARPA.

In 2009, under the Obama administration, Dugan was appointed director of DARPA by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Much was made over her being the first female director of the agency, but she is best remembered at the agency for her so-called “Special Forces” approach to innovation. During her tenure, she created DARPA’s now defunct Transformational Convergence Technology Office, which focused on social networks, synthetic biology, and machine intelligence. Many of the themes previously managed by that office are now overseen by DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office, which was created in 2014 and focuses on everything “from programmable microbes to human-machine symbiosis.” The Biological Technologies Office, like Wellcome Leap, pursues a mix of “health-focused” biotechnology programs and transhumanist endeavors.

Right before leaving the top role at DARPA, Dugan greenlighted the agency’s initial investments in mRNA vaccine technology, which led to DARPA’s investments in Pfizer and Moderna shortly thereafter. The DARPA scientist who lobbied Dugan to back the program, Dan Wattendorf, now works as the director of Innovative Technology Solutions at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

While Dugan’s efforts at DARPA are remembered fondly by those in the national-security state, and also by those in Silicon Valley, Dugan was investigated for conflicts of interest during her time as DARPA’s director, as her firm RedXDefense acquired millions in Department of Defense contracts during her tenure. Though she had recused herself from any formal role at the company while leading DARPA, she continued to hold a significant financial stake in the company, and a military investigation later found she had violated ethics rules to a significant degree.

Instead of being held accountable in any way, Dugan went on to become a top executive at Google, where she was brought on to manage Google’s Advanced Technology and Products Group (ATAP), which it had spun out of Motorola Mobility after Google’s acquisition of that company in 2012. Google’s ATAP was modeled after DARPA and employed other ex-DARPA officials besides Dugan.

At Google, Dugan oversaw several projects, including what is now the basis of Google’s “augmented reality” business, then known as Project Tango, as well as “smart” clothing in which multitouch sensors were woven into textiles. Another project that Dugan led involved the use of a “digital tattoo” to unlock smartphones. Perhaps most controversially, Dugan was also behind the creation of a “digital authentication pill.” According to Dugan, when the pill is swallowed, “your entire body becomes your authentication token.” Dugan framed the pill and many of her other efforts at Google as working to fix “the mechanical mismatch between humans and electronics” by producing technology that merges the human body with machines to varying degrees. While serving in this capacity at Google, Dugan chaired a panel at the 2013 Clinton Global Initiative called “Game-Changers in Technology” and attended the 2015 Bilderberg meeting where AI was a main topic of discussion.

In 2016, Dugan left Google for Facebook where she was chosen to be the first head of Facebook’s own DARPA-equivalent research agency, then known as Building 8. DARPA’s ties to the origins of Facebook were discussed in a recent Unlimited Hangout report. Under Dugan, Building 8 invested heavily in brain-machine interface technology, which has since produced the company’s “neural wearable” wristbands that claim to be able to anticipate movements of the hand and fingers from brain signals alone. Facebook showcased prototypes of the project earlier this year.

Dugan left Facebook just eighteen months after joining Building 8, announcing her plans “to focus on building and leading a new endeavor,” which was apparently a reference to Wellcome Leap. Dugan later said it was as if she had been training for her role at Wellcome Leap ever since entering the workforce, framing it as the pinnacle of her career. When asked in an interview earlier this year who the clients of Wellcome Leap are, Dugan gave a long-winded answer but essentially responded that the project serves the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, international organizations such as the UN, and public-private partnerships.

In addition to her role at Wellcome, Dugan is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored taskforce on US Technology and Innovation policy, which was formed in 2019. Other members include LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman, McKinsey Institute Global Chairman James Manyika, former head of Google Eric Schmidt and President Biden’s controversial top science adviser Eric Lander.

The other executive at Wellcome Leap, chief operating officer Ken Gabriel, has a background closely tied to Dugan’s. Gabriel, like Dugan, is a former program manager at DARPA, where he led the agency’s microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) research from 1992 to 1996. He served as deputy director of DARPA from 1995 to 1996 and became director of the Electronics Technology Office from 1996 to 1997, where he was reportedly responsible for about half of all federal electronics-technology investments. At DARPA, Gabriel worked closely with the FBI and the CIA.

Ken Gabriel – COO of Wellcome Leap. Source: Wellcome Leap

Gabriel left DARPA for Carnegie Mellon University, where he was in charge of the Office for Security Technologies in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. That office was created after 9/11 specifically to help meet the national-security needs of the federal government, according to Carnegie Mellon’s announcement of the program. Around that same time, Gabriel became regarded as “the architect of the MEMS industry” due to his past work at DARPA and his founding of the MEMS-focused semiconductor company Akustica in 2002. He served as Akustica’s chairman and chief technology officer until 2009, at which time he returned to work at DARPA where he served as the agency’s deputy director, working directly under Regina Dugan.

In 2012, Gabriel followed Dugan to Google’s Advanced Technology and Products Group, which he was actually responsible for creating. According to Gabriel, Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin tasked Gabriel with creating “a private sector ground-up model of DARPA” out of Motorola Mobility. Regina Dugan was placed in charge, and Gabriel again served as her deputy. In 2013, Dugan and Gabriel co-wrote a piece for the Harvard Business Review about how DARPA’s “Special Forces” innovation approach could revolutionize both the public and private sectors if more widely applied. Gabriel left Google in 2014, well before Dugan, to serve as the president and CEO of Charles Stark Draper Laboratories, better known as Draper Labs, which develops “innovative technology solutions” for the national-security community, with a focus on biomedical systems, energy, and space technology. Gabriel held that position until he abruptly resigned in 2020 to co-lead Wellcome Leap with Dugan.

In addition to his role at Wellcome, Gabriel is also a World Economic Forum “technology pioneer” and on the board of directors of Galvani Bioelectronics, a joint venture of GlaxoSmithKline, which is intimately linked to the Wellcome Trust, and the Google subsidiary Verily. Galvani focuses on the development of “bioelectronic medicines” that involve “implant-based modulation of neural signals” in an overt push by the pharmaceutical industry and Silicon Valley to normalize transhumanist “medicines.” The longtime chairman of the board of Galvani, on which Gabriel serves, was Moncef Slaoui, who led the US COVID-19 vaccine development and distribution program Operation Warp Speed. Slaoui was relieved of his position at Galvani this past March over well-substantiated claims of sexual harassment.

Jeremy Farrar, Pandemic Narrative Manager

While Dugan and Gabriel ostensibly lead the outfit, Wellcome Leap is the brainchild of Jeremy Farrar and Mike Ferguson, who serve as its directors. Farrar is the director of the Wellcome Trust itself, and Ferguson is deputy chair of the Trust’s board of governors. Farrar has been director of the Wellcome Trust since 2013 and has been actively involved in critical decision making at the highest level globally since the beginning of the COVID crisis. He is also an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum and cochaired the WEF’s Africa meeting in 2019.

Farrar’s Wellcome Trust is also a WEF strategic partner and cofounded the COVID Action Platform with the WEF. Farrar was more recently behind the creation of Wellcome’s COVID-Zero initiative, which is also tied to the WEF. Farrar has framed that initiative as “an opportunity for companies to advance the science which will eventually reduce business disruption.” Thus far it has convinced titans of finance, including Mastercard and Citadel, to invest millions in research and development at organizations favored by the Wellcome Trust.

Wellcome Trust Director Jeremy Farrar with NTI Co-Chairman Sam Nunn, who led the 2001 Dark Winter exercise.
Source: NTI.com

Some of Wellcome’s controversial medical-research projects in Africa, as well as its ties to the UK eugenics movement, were explored in a December article published at Unlimited Hangout. That report also explores the intimate connections of Wellcome to the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, the use of which has now been restricted or banned in several countries. As mentioned in the introduction, the Wellcome Trust itself is the subject of an upcoming Unlimited Hangout investigation (Part 2).

Jeremy Farrar, who was born in Singapore in 1961, had previously been director of the Oxford University Clinical Research Unit in Ho Chi Minh City, beginning in 1998. During that time, he authored numerous epidemiological research papers. He claimed in a 2014 Financial Times article that his decision to move to Vietnam was due to his disdain for conference halls full of white men. Southeast Asia was obviously a much less regulated environment for someone in the medical-research industry wishing to indulge in groundbreaking research. Although based in Vietnam, Farrar was sent by Oxford to various locations around the globe to study epidemics happening in real time. In 2009, when swine flu was wreaking havoc in Mexico, Farrar jumped on a plane to dive right into the action, something he also did for subsequent global outbreaks of Ebola, MERS, and avian flu.

Over the past year, many questions have arisen regarding exactly how much power Farrar wields over global public health policy. Recently, the US president’s chief medical adviser, Anthony Fauci, was forced to release his emails and correspondence from March and April 2020 at the request of the Washington Post. The released emails reveal what appears to be a high-level conspiracy by some of the top medical authorities in the US to falsely claim that COVID-19 could only have been of zoonotic origin, despite indications to the contrary. The emails were heavily redacted as such emails usually are, supposedly to protect the information of the people involved, but the “(b)(6)” redactions also protect much of Jeremy Farrar’s input into these discussions. Chris Martenson, economic researcher and post-doctorate student of neurotoxicology and founder of Peak Prosperity, has had some insightful comments on the matter, including asking why such protection has been offered to Farrar given that he is the director of a “charitable trust.” Martenson went on to question why the Wellcome Trust was involved at all in these high-level discussions.

One Fauci email, dated February 25, 2020, and sent by Amelie Rioux of the WHO, stated that Jeremy Farrar’s official role at that time was “to act as the board’s focal point on the COVID-19 outbreak, to represent and advise the board on the science of the outbreak and the financing of the response.” Farrar had previously chaired the WHO’s Scientific Advisory Council. The emails also show the preparation, within a ten-day period, of the SARS-CoV-2 “‘origins” paper, which was entitled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” and was accepted for publication by Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020. The paper claimed that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could only have come from natural origins as opposed to gain-of-function research, a claim once held as gospel in the mainstream but which has come under considerable scrutiny in recent weeks.

Shaping the presentation of an origin story for a virus of global significance is something Farrar has been involved with before. In 2004–5, it was reported that Farrar and his Vietnamese colleague Tran Tinh Hien, the vice director at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, were the first to identify the re-emergence of the avian flu (H5N1) in humans. Farrar has recounted the origin story on many occasions, stating: “It was a little girl. She caught it from a pet duck that had died and she’d dug up and reburied. She survived.” According to Farrar, this experience prompted him to found a global network in conjunction with the World Health Organization to “improve local responses to disease outbreaks.”

An article published by Rockefeller University Press’s Journal of Experimental Medicine in 2009 is dramatically titled, “Jeremy Farrar: When Disaster Strikes.” Farrar, when referring to the H5N1 origin story stated: “The WHO people—and this is not a criticism—decided it was unlikely that the child had SARS or avian influenza. They left, but Professor Hien stayed behind to talk with the child and her mum. The girl admitted that she had been quite sad in the previous days with the death of her pet duck. The girl and her brother had fought over burying the duck and, because of this argument, she had gone back, dug up the duck, and reburied it—probably so her brother wouldn’t know where it was buried. With that history, Professor Hien phoned me at home and said he was worried about the child. He took some swabs from the child’s nose and throat and brought them back to the hospital. That night the laboratory ran tests on the samples, and they were positive for Influenza A.”

With Farrar now having been revealed as an instrumental part of the team that crafted the official story regarding the origins of SARS-CoV-2, his previous assertions about the origin of past epidemics should be scrutinized.

As the director of a “charitable trust,” Jeremy Farrar is almost completely unaccountable for his involvement in crafting controversial narratives related to the COVID crisis. He continues to be at the forefront of the global response to COVID, in part by launching the Wellcome Leap Fund for “unconventional projects, funded at scale” as an overt attempt to create a global and “charitable” version of DARPA. Indeed, Farrar, in conceiving Wellcome Leap, has positioned himself to be just as, if not more, instrumental in building the foundation for the post-COVID era as he was in building the foundation for the COVID crisis itself. This is significant as Wellcome Leap CEO Regina Dugan has labeled COVID-19 this generation’s “Sputnik moment” that will launch a new age of “health innovation,” much like the launching of Sputnik started a global technological “space age.” Wellcome Leap fully intends to lead the pack.

“Rulers” of the Gene-Sequencing Industry

In contrast to the overt DARPA, Silicon Valley, and Wellcome connections of the others, the chairman of the board of directors of Wellcome Leap, Jay Flatley, has a different background. Flatley is the long-time head of Illumina, a California-based gene-sequencing hardware and software giant that is believed to currently dominate the field of genomics. Though he stepped down from the board of Illumina in 2016, he has continued to serve as the executive chairman of its board of directors. Flatley was the first to be chosen for a leadership position at Wellcome Leap, and he was responsible for suggesting Regina Dugan for the organization’s chief executive officer, according to a recent interview given by Dugan.

Illumina Campus. Source: Glassdoor

As a profile on Illumina in the business magazine Fast Company notes, Illumina “operates behind the scenes, selling hardware and services to companies and research institutions,” among them 23andMe. 23andMe’s CEO, Anne Wojcicki, the sister of YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki and the wife of Google cofounder Sergey Brin, told Fast Company, _“_It’s crazy. Illumina is like the ruler of this whole universe and no one knows that.” The report notes that 23andMe, like most companies that offer DNA sequencing and analysis to consumers, uses machines produced by Illumina.

In 2016, Illumina launched an “aggressive” five-year plan to “bring genomics out of research labs and into doctors’ offices.” Given the current state of things, particularly the global push toward gene-focused vaccines and therapies, that plan, which concludes this year, could not have been any better timed. Illumina’s current CEO, Francis DeSouza, previously held key posts at Microsoft and Symantec. Also in 2016, Illumina’s executive teams forecast a future in which humans are gene tested from birth to grave for both health and commercial purposes.

Whereas most companies have struggled financially during the coronavirus pandemic, some have seen a massive increase in profits. Illumina has witnessed its share price double since the start of the COVID crisis. The company’s $1 billion plus in profits during the last tax year was obviously helped by the quick approval of the NovaSEQ 6000 machines, which can test a large number of COVID samples more quickly than other devices. An individual machine has a hefty price tag of almost $1 million, and thus they are mostly found at elite facilities, private labs, and top-tier universities.

Jay Flatley, Executive Chairman, Illumina, speaking at World Economic Forum in Davos 2018. Source: WEF

In addition to his long-standing leadership role at Illumina, Jay Flatley is also a “digital member” of the World Economic Forum as well as the lead independent director of Zymergen, a WEF “tech pioneer” company that is “rethinking biology and reimagining the world.” Flatley, who has also attended several Davos meetings, has addressed the WEF on the “promise of precision [i.e., gene-specific] medicine.” At another WEF panel meeting, Flatley, alongside UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock, promoted the idea of making genomic sequencing of babies at birth the norm, claiming it had “the potential to shift the healthcare system from reactive to preventative.” Some at the panel called for the genomic sequencing of infants to eventually become mandatory.

Aside from Flatley as an individual, Illumina as a company is a WEF partner and plays a key role in its platform regarding the future of health care. A top Illumina executive also serves on the WEF’s Global Future Council on Biotechnology.

A New HOPE

Wellcome Leap currently has four programs: Multi-Stage Psych, Delta Tissue, 1KD, and HOPE. HOPE was the first program to be announced by Wellcome Leap and stands for Human Organs, Physiology and Engineering. According to the full program description, HOPE aims “to leverage the power of bioengineering to advance stem cells, organoids, and whole organ systems and connections that recapitulate human physiology in vitro and restore vital functions in vivo.”

Source: Wellcome Leap, https://wellcomeleap.org/hope/

HOPE consists of two main program goals. First, it seeks to “bioengineer a multiorgan platform that recreates human immunological responses with sufficient fidelity to double the predictive value of a preclinical trial with respect to efficacy, toxicity and immunogenicity for therapeutic interventions.” In other words, this bioengineered platform mimicking human organs would be used to test the effects of pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, which could create a situation in which animal trials are replaced with trials on gene-edited and farmed organs. Though such an advance would certainly be helpful in the sense of reducing often unethical animal experimentation, trusting such a novel system to allow medical treatments to go straight to the human-testing phase would also require trusting the institutions developing that system and its funders.

As it stands now, the Wellcome Trust has too many ties to corrupt actors in the pharmaceutical industry, having originally begun as the “philanthropic” arm of UK drug giant GlaxoSmithKline, for anyone to trust what they are producing without actual independent confirmation, given the histories of some of their partners in fudging both animal and human clinical trial data for vaccines and other products.

The second goal of HOPE is to open up the use of machine-human hybrid organs for transplantation into human beings. That goal focuses on restoring “organ functions using cultivated organs or biological/synthetic hybrid systems” with the later goal of bioengineering a fully transplantable human organ after several years.

Later on in the program description, however, the interest in merging the synthetic and biological becomes clearer when it states: “The time is right to foster synergies between organoids, bioengineering and immunoengineering technologies, and advance the state-of-the-art of in vitro human biology . . . by building controllable, accessible and scalable systems.” The program description document also notes the interest of Wellcome in genetic-engineering approaches for the “enhancement of desired properties and insertion of traceable markers” and Wellcome’s ambition to reproduce the building blocks of the human immune system and human organ systems through technological means.

Transhumanist Toddlers?

The second program to be pursued by Wellcome Leap is called “The First 1000 Days: Promoting Healthy Brain Networks,” which is abbreviated as 1KD by the organization. It is arguably the most unsettling program because it seeks to use young children, specifically infants from three months to three-year-old toddlers, as its test subjects. The program is being overseen by Holly Baines, who previously served as strategy development lead for the Wellcome Trust before joining Wellcome Leap as the 1KD program leader.

Source: Wellcome Leap, [https://wellcomeleap.org/1kd/](http:// https://wellcomeleap.org/1kd/)

1KD is focused on developing “objective, scalable ways to assess a child’s cognitive health” by monitoring the brain development and function of infants and toddlers, allowing practitioners to “risk-stratify children” and “predict responses to interventions” in developing brains.

The program description document notes that, up to this point in history, “our primary window into the developing brain has been neuroimaging techniques and animal models, which can help identify quantitative biomarkers of [neural] network health and characterise network differences underlying behaviours.” It then states that advances in technology “are opening additional possibilities in young infants.”

The program description goes on to say that artificial neural networks, a form of AI, “have demonstrated the viability of modelling network pruning process and the acquisition of complex behaviours in much the same way as a developing brain,” while improvements in machine learning, another subset of AI, can now be used to extract “meaningful signals” from the brains of infants and young children. These algorithms can then be used to develop “interventions” for young children deemed by other algorithms to be in danger of having underdeveloped brain function.

The document goes on to note the promise of “low-cost mobile sensors, wearables and home-based systems” in “providing a new opportunity to assess the influence and dependency of brain development on natural physical and social interactions.” In other words, this program seeks to use “continuous visual and audio recordings in the home” as well as wearable devices on children to collect millions upon millions of data points. Wellcome Leap describes these wearables as “relatively unobtrusive, scalable electronic badges that collect visual, auditory and motion data as well as interactive features (such as turn-taking, pacing and reaction times).” Elsewhere in the document there is a call to develop “wearable sensors that assess physiological measures predictive of brain health (e.g., electrodermal activity, respiratory rate, and heart rate) and wireless wearable EEG or eye-tracking technology” for use in infants and children three and under.

Like other Wellcome Leap programs, this technology is being developed with the intention of making it mainstream in medical science within the next five to ten years, meaning that this system—although framed as a way to monitor children’s brain functioning to improve cognitive outcomes—is a recipe for total surveillance of babies and very young children as well as a means for altering their brain functioning as algorithms and Leap’s programmers see fit.

1DK has two main program goals. The first is to “develop a fully integrated model and quantitive measurement tools of network development in the first 1000 days [of life], sufficient to predict EF [executive function] formation before a child’s first birthday.” Such a model, the description reads, “should predict contributions of nutrition, the microbiome and the genome” on brain formation as well as the effects of “sensimotor and social interactions [or lack thereof] on network pruning processes” and EF outcomes. The second goal makes it clear that widespread adoption of such neurological-monitoring technologies in young children and infants is the endgame for 1DK. It states that the program plans to “create scalable methods for optimising promotion, prevention, screening and therapeutic interventions to improve EF by at least 20% in 80% of children before age 3.”

True to the eugenicist ties of the Wellcome Trust (to be explored more in-depth in Part 2), Wellcome Leap’s 1DK notes that “of interest are improvements from underdeveloped EF to normative or from normative to well-developed EF across the population to deliver the broadest impact.” One of the goals of 1DK is thus not treating disease or addressing a “global health public challenge” but instead experimenting on the cognitive augmentation of children using means developed by AI algorithms and invasive surveillance-based technology.

Another unsettling aspect of the program is its plan to “develop an in vitro 3D brain assembloid that replicates the time formation” of a developing brain that is akin to the models developed by monitoring the brain development of infants and children. Later on, the program description calls this an “in-silico” model of a child’s brain, something of obvious interest to transhumanists who see such a development as a harbinger of the so-called singularity. Beyond that, it appears that this in-silico and thus synthetic model of the brain is planned to be used as the “model” to which infant and children brains are shaped by the “therapeutic interventions” mentioned elsewhere in the program description.

It should be clear how sinister it is that an organization that brings together the worst “mad scientist” impulses of both the NGO and military-research worlds is openly planning to conduct such experiments on the brains of babies and toddlers, viewing them as datasets and their brains as something to be “pruned” by machine “intelligence.” Allowing such a program to advance unimpeded without pushback from the public would mean permitting a dangerous agenda targeting society’s youngest and most vulnerable members to potentially advance to a point where it is difficult to stop.

A “Tissue Time Machine”

The third and second-most recent program to join the Wellcome Leap lineup is called Delta Tissue, abbreviated by the organization as ΔT. Delta Tissue aims to create a platform that monitors changes in human-tissue function and interactions in real time, ostensibly to “explain the status of a disease in each person and better predict how that disease would progress.” Referring to this platform as a “tissue time machine,” Wellcome Leap sees Delta Tissue as being able to predict the onset of disease before it occurs while also allowing for medical interventions that “are targeted to the individual.”

Source: Wellcome Leap, https://wellcomeleap.org/delta-tissue/

Well before the COVID era, precision medicine or medicine “targeted or tailored to the individual” has been a code phrase for treatments based on patients’ genetic data and/or for treatments that alter nucleic acid (e.g., DNA and RNA) function itself. For instance, the US government defines “precision medicine” as “an emerging approach for disease treatment and prevention that takes into account individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle for each person.” Similarly, a 2018 paper published in Technology notes that, in oncology, “precision and personalized medicine . . . fosters the development of specialized treatments for each specific subtype of cancer, based on the measurement and manipulation of key patient genetic and omic data (transcriptomics, metabolomics, proteomics, etc.).”

Prior to COVID-19 and the vaccine roll outs, the mRNA vaccine technology used by the DARPA-funded companies Moderna and Pfizer were marketed as being precision medicine treatments and were largely referred to as “gene therapies” in media reports. They were also promoted heavily as a revolutionary method of treating cancer, making it unsurprising that the Delta Tissue program at Wellcome Leap would use a similar justification to develop a program that aims to offer tailored gene therapies to people before the onset of a disease.

This Delta Tissue platform works to combine “the latest cell and tissue profiling technologies with recent advances in machine learning,” that is, AI. Given Wellcome Leap’s connections to the US military, it is worth noting that the Pentagon and Google, both former employers of Wellcome Leap CEO Regina Dugan and COO Ken Gabriel, have been working together since last September on using AI to predict disease in humans, first focusing on cancer before expanding to COVID-19 and every disease in between. The Delta Tissue program appears to have related ambitions, as its program description makes clear that the program ultimately aims to use its platform for a host of cancers and infectious diseases.

The ultimate goal of this Wellcome Leap program is “to eradicate the stubbornly challenging diseases that cause so much suffering around the world.” It plans to do this through AI algorithms, however, which are never 100 percent accurate in their predictive ability, and with gene-editing treatments, nearly all of which are novel and have not been well tested. That latter point is important given that one of the main methods for gene-editing in humans, CRISPR, has been found in numerous studies to cause considerable damage to the DNA, damage that is largely irreparable (see here, here and here). It seems plausible that a person placed on such a hi-tech medical treatment path will continue to need a never-ending series of gene-editing treatments and perhaps other invasive hi-tech treatments to mitigate and manage the effects of clumsy gene splicing.

Total Surveillance to Treat “Depression”

Wellcome Leap’s most recent program, launched just this week, is called “Multi-Channel Psych: Revealing Mechanisms of Anhedonia” and is officially focused on creating “complex, biological” treatments for depression.

Source: Wellcome Leap, [https://wellcomeleap.org/mcpsych/](http:// https://wellcomeleap.org/mcpsych/)

Those behind Wellcome Leap frame the problem they aim to tackle with this program as follows:

“We understand that synaptic connections serve as the currency of neural communication, and that strengthening or weakening these connections can facilitate learning new behavioral strategies and ways of looking at the world. Through studies in both animal models and humans, we have discovered that emotional states are encoded in complex neural network activity patterns, and that directly changing these patterns via brain stimulation can shift mood. We also know that disruption of these delicately balanced networks can lead to neuropsychiatric illness.” (emphasis added)

They add that “biologically based treatments” for depression “are not being matched to the biology of the human beings they’re being used in,” and, thus, treatments for depression need to be tailored “to the specific biology” of individual patients. They clearly state that what needs to be addressed in order to make such personal modifications to treatment is to gain “easy access to the biological substrate of depression—i.e. the brain.”

Wellcome Leap’s program description notes that this effort will focus specifically on anhedonia, which it defines as “an impairment in the effort-based reward system” and as a “key symptom of depression and other neuropsychiatric illnesses.” Notably, in the fine print of the document, Wellcome Leap states:

“While there are many definitions of anhedonia, we are less interested in the investigation of reduced consummatory pleasure, the general experience of pleasure, or the inability to experience pleasure. Rather, as per the description above, we will prioritize investigations of anhedonia as it relates to impairments in the effort-based reward system—e.g. reduced motivation to complete tasks and decreased capacity to apply effort to achieve a goal.”

In other words, Wellcome Leap is only interested in treating aspects of depression that interfere with an individual’s ability to work, not in improving an individual’s quality or enjoyment of life.

Leap notes, in discussing its goals, that it seeks to develop models for how patients respond to treatments that include “novel or existing behavior modification, psychotherapy, medication, and neurostimulation options” while also capturing an individual’s “genome, phenome [the sum of an individual’s phenotypic traits], [neural] network connectivity, metabolome [the sum of an individual’s metabolic traits], microbiome, reward processing plasticity levels,” among others. It ultimately aims to predict the relationship between an individual’s genome to how “reward processing” functions in the brain. It implies that the data used to create this model should involve the use of wearables, stating that researchers “should seek to leverage high frequency patient-worn or in-home measurements in addition to those obtained in the clinic, hospital or laboratory.”

One of the main research areas included in the program looks to “develop new scalable measurement tools for reliable and high-density quantification of mood (both subjectively reported and objectively quantified via biometrics such as voice, facial expression, etc.), sleep, movement, reward system functioning, effort/motivation/energy levels, social interaction, caloric intake, and HPA axis output in real-world situations.” The HPA (hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal) axis is mentioned throughout the document, and this is significant as it is both a negative and positive feedback system regulating the mechanisms of stress reactions, immunity, and also fertility in the human body. The latter is especially important given the Wellcome Trust’s ties to the UK eugenics movement. It is also worth noting that some commercially available wearables, such as Amazon’s Halo, already quantify mood, sleep, and movement.

The program’s authors go even further than the above in terms of what they wish to monitor in real time, stating, “We specifically encourage the development of non-invasive technology to directly interrogate human brain state.” Examples include “a non-invasive spinal tap equivalent,” “behavioral or biomarker probes of neural plasticity,” and “single-session neural monitoring capabilities that define a treatment-predictive brain state.”

In other words, this Wellcome Leap program and its authors seek to develop “non-invasive” and, likely, wearable technology capable of monitoring an individual’s mood, facial expressions, social interactions, effort and motivation, and potentially even thoughts in order to “directly interrogate human brain state.” To think that such a device would stay only in the realm of research is naive, especially given that WEF luminaries have openly spoken at Davos meetings about how governments plan to use such technology widely on their populations as a means of pre-emptively targeting would-be dissent and ushering in an era of “digital dictatorships.”

The focus on treating only the aspects of depression that interfere with a person’s work further suggests that such technology, once developed, would be used to ensure “perfect worker” behavior in industries where human workers are rapidly being replaced with AI and machines, meaning the rulers can be more selective about which people continue to be employed and which do not. Like other Wellcome Leap programs, if completed, the fruits of the Multi-Channel Psych program will likely be used to ensure a population of docile automatons whose movements and thoughts are heavily surveilled and monitored.

The Last Leap for an Old Agenda

Wellcome Leap is no small endeavor, and its directors have the funding, influence, and connections to make their dreams reality. The organization’s leadership includes the key force behind Silicon Valley’s push to commercialize transhumanist tech (Regina Dugan), the “architect” of the MEMS industry (Ken Gabriel), and the “ruler” of the burgeoning genetic-sequencing industry (Jay Flatley). It also benefits from the funding of the world’s largest medical-research foundation, the Wellcome Trust, which is also one of the leading forces in shaping genetics and biotechnology research as well as health policy globally.

A 1994 Sunday Times investigation into the Trust noted that “through [Wellcome Trust] grants and sponsorships, government agencies, universities, hospitals and scientists are influenced all over the world. The trust distributes more money to institutions than even the British government’s Medical Research Council.”

It then notes:

“In offices on the building’s first floor, decisions are reached that affect lives and health on scales comparable with minor wars. In the conference room, high above the street, and in the meeting hall, in the basement, rulings in biotechnology and genetics are handed down that will help shape the human race.”

Little has changed regarding the Trust’s influence since that article was published. If anything, its influence on research paths and decisions that will “shape the human race” has only grown. Its ex-DARPA officials, who have spent their careers advancing transhumanist technology in both the public and private sectors, have overlapping goals with those off Wellcome Leap. Dugan’s and Gabriel’s commercial projects in Silicon Valley reveal that Leap is led by those who have long sought to advance the same technology for profit and for surveillance. This drastically weakens Wellcome Leap’s claim to now be pursuing such technologies to only improve “global health.”

Regina Dugan’s Keynote at Facebook F8 2017. Source: YouTube

Indeed, as this report has shown, most of these technologies would usher in a deeply disturbing era of mass surveillance over both the external and internal activities of human beings, including young children and infants, while also creating a new era of medicine based largely on gene-editing therapies, the risks of which are considerable and also consistently downplayed by its promoters.

When one understands the intimate bond that has long existed between eugenics and transhumanism, Wellcome Leap and its ambitions make perfect sense. In a recent article written by John Klyczek for Unlimited Hangout, it was noted that the first director general of UNESCO and former president of the UK Eugenics Society was Julian Huxley, who coined the term “transhumanism” in his 1957 book New Bottles for New Wine. As Klyczek wrote, Huxley argued that “the eugenic goals of biologically engineering human evolution should be refined through transhumanist technologies, which combine the eugenic methods of genetic engineering with neurotech that merges humans and machines into a new organism.”

Earlier, in 1946, Huxley noted in his vision for UNESCO that it was essential that “the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable,” an astounding statement to make so soon after the end of World War II. Thanks in large part to the Wellcome Trust and its influence on both policy and medical research over the course of several decades, Huxley’s dream of rehabilitating eugenics-infused science in the post–World War II era could soon become reality. Unsurprisingly, the Wellcome Trust hosts the archive of the formerly Huxley-led Eugenics Society and still boasts close ties to its successor organization, the Galton Institute.

The over-riding question is: Will we allow ourselves to continue to be manipulated into allowing transhumanism and eugenics to be openly pursued and normalized, including through initiatives like those of Wellcome Leap that seek to use babies and toddlers as test subjects to advance their nightmarish vision for humanity? If well-crafted advertising slogans and media campaigns painting visions of utopia such as “a world without disease” are all that is needed to convince us to give up our future and our children’s future to military operatives, corporate executives, and eugenicists, then there is little left of our humanity to surrender.

Author’s note: Johnny Vedmore contributed to this report.

Featured photo: Antonio Cabrera for Unlimited Hangout

The ultimate goal of every totalitarian system is to establish complete control over society and every individual within it in order to achieve ideological uniformity and eliminate any and all deviation from it. This goal can never be achieved, of course, but it is the raison d’être of all totalitarian systems, regardless of what forms they take and ideologies they espouse. You can dress totalitarianism up in Hugo Boss-designed Nazi uniforms, Mao suits, or medical-looking face masks, its core desire remains the same: to remake the world in its paranoid image … to replace reality with its own “reality.”

We are right in the middle of this process currently, which is why everything feels so batshit crazy. The global capitalist ruling classes are implementing a new official ideology, in other words, a new “reality.” That’s what an official ideology is. It’s more than just a set of beliefs. Anyone can have any beliefs they want. Your personal beliefs do not constitute “reality.” In order to make your beliefs “reality,” you need to have the power to impose them on society. You need the power of the police, the military, the media, scientific “experts,” academia, the culture industry, the entire ideology-manufacturing machine.

There is nothing subtle about this process. Decommissioning one “reality” and replacing it with another is a brutal business. Societies grow accustomed to their “realities.” We do not surrender them willingly or easily. Normally, what’s required to get us to do so is a crisis, a war, a state of emergency, or … you know, a deadly global pandemic.

During the changeover from the old “reality” to the new “reality,” the society is torn apart. The old “reality” is being disassembled and the new one has not yet taken its place. It feels like madness, and, in a way, it is. For a time, the society is split in two, as the two “realities” battle it out for dominance. “Reality” being what it is (i.e., monolithic), this is a fight to the death. In the end, only one “reality” can prevail.

This is the crucial period for the totalitarian movement. It needs to negate the old “reality” in order to implement the new one, and it cannot do that with reason and facts, so it has to do it with fear and brute force. It needs to terrorize the majority of society into a state of mindless mass hysteria that can be turned against those resisting the new “reality.” It is not a matter of persuading or convincing people to accept the new “reality.” It’s more like how you drive a herd of cattle. You scare them enough to get them moving, then you steer them wherever you want them to go. The cattle do not know or understand where they are going. They are simply reacting to a physical stimulus. Facts and reason have nothing to do with it.

And this is what has been so incredibly frustrating for those of us opposing the roll-out of the “New Normal,” whether debunking the official Covid-19 narrative, or “Russiagate,” or the “Storming of the US Capitol,” or any other element of the new official ideology. (And, yes, it is all one ideology, not “communism,” or “fascism,” or any other nostalgia, but the ideology of the system that actually rules us, supranational global capitalism. We’re living in the first truly global-hegemonic ideological system in human history. We have been for the last 30 years. If you are touchy about the term “global capitalism,” go ahead and call it “globalism,” or “crony capitalism,” or “corporatism,” or whatever other name you need to. Whatever you call it, it became the unrivaled globally-hegemonic ideological system when the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s. Yes, there are pockets of internal resistance, but it has no external adversaries, so its progression toward a more openly totalitarian structure is logical and entirely predictable.)

Anyway, what has been so incredibly frustrating is that many of us have been operating under the illusion that we are engaged in a rational argument over facts (e.g., the facts of Russiagate, Literal-Hitlergate, 9/11, Saddam’s WMDs, Douma, the January 6 “insurrection,” the official Covid narrative, etc.) This is not at all what is happening. Facts mean absolutely nothing to the adherents of totalitarian systems.

You can show the New Normals the facts all you like. You can show them the fake photos of people dead in the streets in China in March of 2020. You can show them the fake projected death rates. You can explain how the fake PCR tests work, how healthy people were deemed medical “cases.” You can show them all the studies on the ineffectiveness of masks. You can explain the fake “hospitalization” and “death” figures, send them articles about the unused “emergency hospitals,” the unremarkable age-and-population-adjusted death rates, cite the survival rates for people under 70, the dangers and pointlessness of “vaccinating” children. None of this will make the slightest difference.

Or, if you’ve bought the Covid-19 narrative, but haven’t completely abandoned your critical faculties, you can do what Glenn Greenwald has been doing recently. You can demonstrate how the corporate media have intentionally lied, again and again, to whip up mass hysteria over “domestic terrorism.” You can show people videos of the “violent domestic terrorists” calmly walking into the Capitol Building in single file, like a high-school tour group, having been let in by members of Capitol Security. You can debunk the infamous “fire-extinguisher murder” of Brian Sicknik that never really happened. You can point out that the belief that a few hundred unarmed people running around in the Capitol qualifies as an “insurrection,” or an “attempted coup,” or “domestic terrorism,” is delusional to the point of being literally insane. This will also not make the slightest difference.

I could go on, and I’m sure I will as the “New Normal” ideology becomes our new “reality” over the course of the next several years. My point, at the moment, is … this isn’t an argument. The global-capitalist ruling classes, government leaders, the corporate media, and the New Normal masses they have instrumentalized are not debating with us. They know the facts. They know the facts contradict their narratives. They do not care. They do not have to. Because this isn’t about facts. It’s about power.

I’m not saying that facts don’t matter. Of course they matter. They matter to us. I’m saying, let’s recognize what this is. It isn’t a debate or a search for the truth. The New Normals are disassembling one “reality” and replacing it with a new “reality.” (Yes, I know that reality exists in some fundamental ontological sense, but that isn’t the “reality” I’m talking about here, so please do not send me angry emails railing against Foucault and postmodernism.)

The pressure to conform to the new “reality” is already intense and it’s going to get worse as vaccination passes, public mask-wearing, periodic lockdowns, etc., become normalized. Those who don’t conform will be systematically demonized, socially and/or professionally ostracized, segregated, and otherwise punished. Our opinions will be censored. We will be “canceled,” deplatformed, demonitized, and otherwise silenced. Our views will be labeled “potentially harmful.” We will be accused of spreading “misinformation,” of being “far-right extremists,” “racists,” “anti-Semites,” “conspiracy theorists,” “anti-vaxxers,” “anti-global-capitalist violent domestic terrorists,” or just garden variety “sexual harassers,” or whatever they believe will damage us the most.

This will happen in both the public and personal spheres. Not just governments, the media, and corporations, but your colleagues, friends, and family will do this. Strangers in shops and restaurants will do this. Most of them will not do it consciously. They will do it because your non-conformity represents an existential threat to them … a negation of their new “reality” and a reminder of the reality they surrendered in order to remain a “normal” person and avoid the punishments described above.

This is nothing new, of course. It is how “reality” is manufactured, not only in totalitarian systems, but in every organized social system. Those in power instrumentalize the masses to enforce conformity with their official ideology. Totalitarianism is just its most extreme and most dangerously paranoid and fanatical form.

So, sure, keep posting and sharing the facts, assuming you can get them past the censors, but let’s not kid ourselves about what we’re up against. We’re not going to wake the New Normals up with facts. If we could, we would have done so already. This is not a civilized debate about facts. This is a fight. Act accordingly.

Far from being a war against “white supremacy,” the Biden administration’s new “domestic terror” strategy clearly targets primarily those who oppose US government overreach and those who oppose capitalism and/or globalization.

In the latest sign that the US government’s War on Domestic Terror is growing in scope and scale, the White House on Tuesday revealed the nation’s first ever government-wide strategy for confronting domestic terrorism. While cloaked in language about stemming racially motivated violence, the strategy places those deemed “anti-government” or “anti-authority” on a par with racist extremists and charts out policies that could easily be abused to silence or even criminalize online criticism of the government.

Even more disturbing is the call to essentially fuse intelligence agencies, law enforcement, Silicon Valley, and “community” and “faith-based” organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, as well as unspecified foreign governments, as partners in this “war,” which the strategy makes clear will rely heavily on a pre-crime orientation focused largely on what is said on social media and encrypted platforms. Though the strategy claims that the government will “shield free speech and civil liberties” in implementing this policy, its contents reveal that it is poised to gut both.

Indeed, while framed publicly as chiefly targeting “right-wing white supremacists,” the strategy itself makes it clear that the government does not plan to focus on the Right but instead will pursue “domestic terrorists” in “an ideologically neutral, threat-driven manner,” as the law “makes no distinction based on political view—left, right or center.” It also states that a key goal of this strategic framework is to ensure “that there is simply no governmental tolerance . . . of violence as an acceptable mode of seeking political or social change,” regardless of a perpetrator’s political affiliation.

Considering that the main cheerleaders for the War on Domestic Terror exist mainly in establishment left circles, such individuals should rethink their support for this new policy given that the above statements could easily come to encompass Black Lives Matter–related protests, such as those that transpired last summer, depending on which political party is in power.

Once the new infrastructure is in place, it will remain there and will be open to the same abuses perpetrated by both political parties in the US during the lengthy War on Terror following September 11, 2001. The history of this new “domestic terror” policy, including its origins in the Trump administration, makes this clear.

It’s Never Been Easier to Be a “Terrorist”

In introducing the strategy, the Biden administration cites “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists” as a key reason for the new policy and a main justification for the War on Domestic Terror in general. This was most recently demonstrated Tuesday in Attorney General Merrick Garland’s statement announcing this new strategy. However, the document itself puts “anti-government” or “anti-authority” “extremists” in the same category as violent white supremacists in terms of being a threat to the homeland. The strategy’s characterization of such individuals is unsettling.

AG Merrick Garland: “In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethically motivated violent extremists specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race.”
pic.twitter.com/4JtruuMSv2

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 15, 2021

For instance, those who “violently oppose” “all forms of capitalism” or “corporate globalization” are listed under this less-discussed category of “domestic terrorist.” This highlights how people on the left, many of whom have called for capitalism to be dismantled or replaced in the US in recent years, could easily be targeted in this new “war” that many self-proclaimed leftists are currently supporting. Similarly, “environmentally-motivated extremists,” a category in which groups such as Extinction Rebellion could easily fall, are also included.

In addition, the phrasing indicates that it could easily include as “terrorists” those who oppose the World Economic Forum’s vision for global “stakeholder capitalism,” as that form of “capitalism” involves corporations and their main “stakeholders” creating a new global economic and governance system. The WEF’s stakeholder capitalism thus involves both “capitalism” and “corporate globalization.”

The strategy also includes those who “take steps to violently resist government authority . . . based on perceived overreach.” This, of course, creates a dangerous situation in which the government could, purposely or otherwise, implement a policy that is an obvious overreach and/or blatantly unconstitutional and then label those who resist it “domestic terrorists” and deal with them as such—well before the overreach can be challenged in court.

Another telling addition to this group of potential “terrorists” is “any other individual or group who engages in violence—or incites imminent violence—in opposition to legislative, regulatory or other actions taken by the government.” Thus, if the government implements a policy that a large swath of the population finds abhorrent, such as launching a new, unpopular war abroad, those deemed to be “inciting” resistance to the action online could be considered domestic terrorists.

Such scenarios are not unrealistic, given the loose way in which the government and the media have defined things like “incitement” and even “violence” (e. g., “hate speech” is a form of violence) in the recent past. The situation is ripe for manipulation and abuse. To think the federal government (including the Biden administration and subsequent administrations) would not abuse such power reflects an ignorance of US political history, particularly when the main forces behind most terrorist incidents in the nation are actually US government institutions like the FBI (more FBI examples here, here, here, and here).

Furthermore, the original plans for the detention of American dissidents in the event of a national emergency, drawn up during the Reagan era as part of its “continuity of government” contingency, cited popular nonviolent opposition to US intervention in Latin America as a potential “emergency” that could trigger the activation of those plans. Many of those “continuity of government” protocols remain on the books today and can be triggered, depending on the whims of those in power. It is unlikely that this new domestic terror framework will be any different regarding nonviolent protest and demonstrations.

Yet another passage in this section of the strategy states that “domestic terrorists” can, “in some instances, connect and intersect with conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation and misinformation.” It adds that the proliferation of such “dangerous” information “on Internet-based communications platforms such as social media, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, all of these elements can combine and amplify threats to public safety.”

Thus, the presence of “conspiracy theories” and information deemed by the government to be “misinformation” online is itself framed as threatening public safety, a claim made more than once in this policy document. Given that a major “pillar” of the strategy involves eliminating online material that promotes “domestic terrorist” ideologies, it seems inevitable that such efforts will also “connect and intersect” with the censorship of “conspiracy theories” and narratives that the establishment finds inconvenient or threatening for any reason.

Pillars of Tyranny

The strategy notes in several places that this new domestic-terror policy will involve a variety of public-private partnerships in order to “build a community to address domestic terrorism that extends not only across the Federal Government but also to critical partners.” It adds, “That includes state, local, tribal and territorial governments, as well as foreign allies and partners, civil society, the technology sector, academic, and more.”

The mention of foreign allies and partners is important as it suggests a multinational approach to what is supposedly a US “domestic” issue and is yet another step toward a transnational security-state apparatus. A similar multinational approach was used to devastating effect during the CIA-developed Operation Condor, which was used to target and “disappear” domestic dissidents in South America in the 1970s and 1980s. The foreign allies mentioned in the Biden administration’s strategy are left unspecified, but it seems likely that such allies would include the rest of the Five Eyes alliance (the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and Israel, all of which already have well-established information-sharing agreements with the US for signals intelligence.

The new domestic-terror strategy has four main “pillars,” which can be summarized as (1) understanding and sharing domestic terrorism-related information, including with foreign governments and private tech companies; (2) preventing domestic terrorism recruitment and mobilization to violence; (3) disrupting and deterring domestic terrorism activity; and (4) confronting long-term contributors to domestic terrorism.

The first pillar involves the mass accumulation of data through new information-sharing partnerships and the deepening of existing ones. Much of this information sharing will involve increased data mining and analysis of statements made openly on the internet, particularly on social media, something already done by US intelligence contractors such as Palantir. While the gathering of such information has been ongoing for years, this policy allows even more to be shared and legally used to make cases against individuals deemed to have made threats or expressed “dangerous” opinions online.

Included in the first pillar is the need to increase engagement with financial institutions concerning the financing of “domestic terrorists.” US banks, such as Bank of America, have already gone quite far in this regard, leading to accusations that it has begun acting like an intelligence agency. Such claims were made after it was revealed that the BofA had passed to the government the private banking information of over two hundred people that the bank deemed as pointing to involvement in the events of January 6, 2021. It seems likely, given this passage in the strategy, that such behavior by banks will soon become the norm, rather than an outlier, in the United States.

The second pillar is ostensibly focused on preventing the online recruitment of domestic terrorists and online content that leads to the “mobilization of violence.” The strategy notes that this pillar “means reducing both supply and demand of recruitment materials by limiting widespread availability online and bolstering resilience to it by those who nonetheless encounter it.“ The strategy states that such government efforts in the past have a “mixed record,” but it goes on to claim that trampling on civil liberties will be avoided because the government is “consulting extensively” with unspecified “stakeholders” nationwide.

Regarding recruitment, the strategy states that “these activities are increasingly happening on Internet-based communications platforms, including social media, online gaming platforms, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, even as those products and services frequently offer other important benefits.” It adds that “the widespread availability of domestic terrorist recruitment material online is a national security threat whose front lines are overwhelmingly private-sector online platforms.”

The US government plans to provide “information to assist online platforms with their own initiatives to enforce their own terms of service that prohibits the use of their platforms for domestic terrorist activities” as well as to “facilitate more robust efforts outside the government to counter terrorists’ abuse of Internet-based communications platforms.”

Given the wider definition of “domestic terrorist” that now includes those who oppose capitalism and corporate globalization as well as those who resist government overreach, online content discussing these and other “anti-government” and “anti-authority” ideas could soon be treated in the same way as online Al Qaeda or ISIS propaganda. Efforts, however, are unlikely to remain focused on these topics. As Unlimited Hangout reported last November, both UK intelligence and the US national-security state were developing plans to treat critical reporting on the COVID-19 vaccines as “extremist” propaganda.

Another key part of this pillar is the need to “increase digital literacy” among the American public, while censoring “harmful content” disseminated by “terrorists” as well as by “hostile foreign powers seeking to undermine American democracy.” The latter is a clear reference to the claim that critical reporting of US government policy, particularly its military and intelligence activities abroad, was the product of “Russian disinformation,” a now discredited claim that was used to heavily censor independent media. This new government strategy appears to promise more of this sort of thing.

It also notes that “digital literacy” education for a domestic audience is being developed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Such a policy would have previously violated US law until the Obama administration worked with Congress to repeal the Smith-Mundt Act, thus lifting the ban on the government directing propaganda at domestic audiences.

The third pillar of the strategy seeks to increase the number of federal prosecutors investigating and trying domestic-terror cases. Their numbers are likely to jump as the definition of “domestic terrorist” is expanded. It also seeks to explore whether “legislative reforms could meaningfully and materially increase our ability to protect Americans from acts of domestic terrorism while simultaneously guarding against potential abuse of overreach.” In contrast to past public statements on police reform by those in the Biden administration, the strategy calls to “empower” state and local law enforcement to tackle domestic terrorism, including with increased access to “intelligence” on citizens deemed dangerous or subversive for any number of reasons.

To that effect, the strategy states the following (p. 24):

“The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Department of Homeland Security, with support from the National Counterterrorism Center [part of the intelligence community], are incorporating an increased focus on domestic terrorism into current intelligence products and leveraging current mechanisms of information and intelligence sharing to improve the sharing of domestic terrorism-related content and indicators with non-Federal partners. These agencies are also improving the usability of their existing information-sharing platforms, including through the development of mobile applications designed to provide a broader reach to non-Federal law enforcement partners, while simultaneously refining that support based on partner feedback.”

Such an intelligence tool could easily be, for example, Palantir, which is already used by the intelligence agencies, the DHS, and several US police departments for “predictive policing,” that is, pre-crime actions. Notably, Palantir has long included a “subversive” label for individuals included on government and law enforcement databases, a parallel with the controversial and highly secretive Main Core database of US dissidents.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made the “pre-crime” element of the new domestic terror strategy explicit on Tuesday when he said in a statement that DHS would continue “developing key partnerships with local stakeholders through the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3) to identify potential threats and prevent terrorism.” CP3, which replaced DHS’ Office for Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention this past May, officially “supports communities across the United States to prevent individuals from radicalizing to violence and intervene when individuals have already radicalized to violence.”

The fourth pillar of the strategy is by far the most opaque and cryptic, while also the most far-reaching. It aims to address the sources that cause “terrorists” to mobilize “towards violence.” This requires “tackling racism in America,” a lofty goal for an administration headed by the man who controversially eulogized Congress’ most ardent segregationist and who was a key architect of the 1994 crime bill. As well, it provides for “early intervention and appropriate care for those who pose a danger to themselves or others.”

In regard to the latter proposal, the Trump administration, in a bid to “stop mass shootings before they occur,” considered a proposal to create a “health DARPA” or “HARPA” that would monitor the online communications of everyday Americans for “neuropsychiatric” warning signs that someone might be “mobilizing towards violence.” While the Trump administration did not create HARPA or adopt this policy, the Biden administration has recently announced plans to do so.

Finally, the strategy indicates that this fourth pillar is part of a “broader priority”: “enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.” In other words, fostering trust in government while simultaneously censoring “polarizing” voices who distrust or criticize the government is a key policy goal behind the Biden administration’s new domestic-terror strategy.

Calling Their Shots?

While this is a new strategy, its origins lie in the Trump administration. In October 2019, Trump’s attorney general William Barr formally announced in a memorandum that a new “national disruption and early engagement program” aimed at detecting those “mobilizing towards violence” before they commit any crime would launch in the coming months. That program, known as DEEP (Disruption and Early Engagement Program), is now active and has involved the Department of Justice, the FBI, and “private sector partners” since its creation.

Barr’s announcement of DEEP followed his unsettling “prediction” in July 2019 that “a major incident may occur at any time that will galvanize public opinion on these issues.” Not long after that speech, a spate of mass shootings occurred, including the El Paso Walmart shooting, which killed twenty-three and about which many questions remain unanswered regarding the FBI’s apparent foreknowledge of the event. After these events took place in 2019, Trump called for the creation of a government backdoor into encryption and the very pre-crime system that Barr announced shortly thereafter in October 2019. The Biden administration, in publishing this strategy, is merely finishing what Barr started.

Indeed, a “prediction” like Barr’s in 2019 was offered by the DHS’ Elizabeth Neumann during a Congressional hearing in late February 2020. That hearing was largely ignored by the media as it coincided with an international rise of concern regarding COVID-19. At the hearing, Neumann, who previously coordinated the development of the government’s post-9/11 terrorism information sharing strategies and policies and worked closely with the intelligence community, gave the following warning about an imminent “domestic terror” event in the United States:

“And every counterterrorism professional I speak to in the federal government and overseas feels like we are at the doorstep of another 9/11, maybe not something that catastrophic in terms of the visual or the numbers, but that we can see it building and we don’t quite know how to stop it.”

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/DHSs-Elizabeth-Neumann-new-911.mp4

This “another 9/11” emerged on January 6, 2021, as the events of that day in the Capitol were quickly labeled as such by both the media and prominent politicians, while also inspiring calls from the White House and the Democrats for a “9/11-style commission” to investigate the incident. This event, of course, figures prominently in the justification for the new domestic-terror strategy, despite the considerable video and other evidence that shows that Capitol law enforcement, and potentially the FBI, were directly involved in facilitating the breach of the Capitol. In addition, when one considers that the QAnon movement, which had a clear role in the events of January 6, was itself likely a government-orchestrated psyop, the government hand in creating this situation seems clear.

It goes without saying that the official reasons offered for these militaristic “domestic terror” policies, which the US has already implemented abroad—causing much more terror than it has prevented—does not justify the creation of a massive new national-security infrastructure that aims to criminalize and censor online speech. Yet the admission that this new strategy, as part of a broader effort to “enhance faith in government,” combines domestic propaganda campaigns with the censorship and pursuit of those who distrust government heralds the end of even the illusion of democracy in the United States.

Keir Simmons: Mr President, it’s been a long time since you sat down with an American television network. Almost three years, I think. Thank you for your time. There’s a lot to discuss. I hope we have time to get to all of the issues.

But I want to begin with some news from the US just today. In the US it’s reported that Russia is preparing, perhaps within months, to supply Iran with an advanced satellite system, enabling Tehran to track military targets. Is that true?

Vladimir Putin: Would you mind repeating the question again, that we are preparing to hack what kind of facilities?

Keir Simmons: No. It’s in the report today that Russia is preparing to give or to offer to Iran a satellite technology which will enable Iran to target military, to make military targets. (Laughter.)

Vladimir Putin: No. We don’t have that kind of programmes with Iran. No, it’s just nonsense all over again, yet again. We have cooperation plans with Iran, including military and technical cooperation. And all of this fits the framework of the decisions that were agreed upon in our programme, in regard to Iran’s nuclear programme in the context of UN decisions together with our partners in the preparation of the JCPOA whereby some point sanctions, including in the area of military and technical cooperation, should be lifted from Iran. We have certain programmes which concern conventional weapons, if it gets that far. However, we haven’t even gone to that stage yet. We don’t even have any kind of real cooperation in the conventional weapons area. So if anybody is inventing something regarding modern space-based technology, this is just plain fiction. This is just fake news. At the very least, I don’t know anything about this kind of thing. Those who are speaking about it probably know more about it. It’s just nonsense, garbage.

Keir Simmons: So, presumably you’d agree that giving Iran satellite technology that might enable it to target US servicemen and women in places like Iraq or to share that information with Hezbollah or the Houthis in Yemen so they could target Israel and Saudi Arabia, that giving Iran that kind of satellite technology would be dangerous?

Vladimir Putin: Look, why are we talking about problems that don’t exist? There is no subject for discussion. Somebody has invented something, has made something up. Maybe this is just a bogus story so as to limit any kind of military and technical cooperation with Iran. I will say once again this is just some fake information that I have no knowledge about. For the first time I’m hearing about this information from you. We don’t have this kind of intentions. And I’m not even sure that Iran is even able to accommodate this kind of technology. This is a separate subject, a very high-tech subject.

We don’t rule out cooperation with many world nations in space. But probably everybody knows very well our position in terms that we are categorically against space militarisation all together. We believe that space should be free from any and all kinds of weapons located in near-Earth orbits. We don’t have this kind of plans or any plans, especially concerning the transfer of technology of the level that you have just described.

Keir Simmons: Ok. Let’s move on to your summit with President Biden.

The context for the summit is that he’s meeting with the G7, a group that you used to belong to, with NATO, with European leaders. President Biden has defined his first trip to Europe as quote, ”about rallying the world’s democracies.“ He views you as a leader of autocrats, who is determined to undermine the liberal democratic order. Is that true?

Vladimir Putin: Well, I don’t know. Somebody presents it from a certain perspective. Somebody looks at the development of this situation and at yours truly in a different manner. All of this is being offered to the public in a way that is found to be expedient for the ruling circles of a certain country.

The fact that President Biden has been meeting up with his allies, there is nothing unusual about it. There’s nothing unusual about a G7 meeting. We know what G7 is. I have been there on numerous occasions. I know what the values are in that forum. When people get together and discuss something, it’s always good. It’s better than not to get together and not to discuss. Because even in the context of the G7 there are matters that require ongoing attention and consideration because there are differences, strange as it may seem. There may be differences in assessments of international events on the international arena and among them. And very well then, let’s get together and discuss it.

As far as NATO, I have said on many occasions, ”This is a Cold War relic.“ It’s something that was born in the Cold War era. I’m not sure why it still continues to exist.

There was a time and there was some talk that this organisation would be transformed. Now it has been kind of forgotten. We presume that it is a military organisation. It is an ally of the United States. Every once in a while, it makes sense to meet up with your allies, although I can have an idea of how the discussion goes on there. Clearly everything is decided by consensus. However, there is just one opinion that is correct. Whereas the other opinions are not quite that right, putting it in careful terms. Well, there we go. Allies are getting together. What’s so unusual about it? I don’t see anything unusual about it. As a matter of fact it’s a sign of respect to the US allies before a summit between the US and Russian presidents. Probably it is being presented as desire to find out their opinion on the key issues of the current agenda, including those issues that President Biden and I will discuss. However, I’m inclined to think that despite all of these niceties, the United States, as far as their relationship with Russia, will be promoting what they consider important and necessary for themselves, above all for themselves, in their economic and military interests. However, to hear what their allies have to say about – it probably never hurts. This is working procedure.

Keir Simmons: So let’s talk about your meeting with President Biden, the summit that will happen after those meetings. President Biden asked you to meet with him. He didn’t make any preconditions. Were you surprised?

Vladimir Putin: No. We have a bilateral relationship that has deteriorated to what is the lowest point in recent years. However, there are matters that need a certain amount of comparing notes and identification and determination of mutual positions, so that matters that are of mutual interest can be dealt with in an efficient and effective way in the interests of both the United States and Russia. So, there is nothing unusual about it. In fact, despite this seemingly harsh rhetoric, we expected those suggestions because the US domestic political agenda made it impossible for us to restore the relationship at an acceptable level. This meeting should have taken place at some point. So, President Biden launched this initiative. Prior to that, as you know, he had supported the extension of the START treaty, which of course was bound to meet with support from our side. We believe that this treaty in the area of containment of strategic offensive weapons has been worked through and thoroughly, and meets our interests, and meets the US interests. So this offer could be expected.

Keir Simmons: Will you go into the summit agreeing to begin more arms control talks immediately after the summit? Because as you mentioned, President Biden has extended New START by five years. Washington would like that to be the beginning, not the end of that conversation.

Vladimir Putin: We know what matters and what problems Americans want to discuss with us, we understand these questions, matters and problems. We’re prepared for this joint work. We have certain if not differences than different understandings of what pace – at what pace and in what directions we need to be moving. We know what constitutes priorities for the US side. And this is, generally speaking, a process that needs to be advanced at the professional level along the lines of the Foreign Ministry and Defence Ministry on the Russian side, the Pentagon and State Department of the US side. We are prepared for this work.

We’ve heard signals that the US side would like to see these negotiations resumed at the expert level of professionals. We will see if the conditions for this have been created following the summit. Of course, we are not saying no. We are ready to do this work.

Keir Simmons: President Biden wants predictability and stability. Is that what you want?

Vladimir Putin: Well, this is the most important thing. This is the most important value, if you will, in international affairs.

Keir Simmons: Sorry to interrupt you. But he would say that you have caused a lot of instability and unpredictability.

Vladimir Putin: Well, he says one thing. I say another thing. But maybe at some point in certain ways our rhetoric varies and is different. But if you ask my opinion now, I am telling you what it is. The most important value in international affairs is predictability and stability. And I believe that on the part of our US partners, this is something that we haven’t seen in recent years. What kind of stability and predictability could there be if we remember the 2011 events in Libya where the country was essentially taken apart, broken down? What kind of stability and predictability was there?

There has been talk of a continued presence of troops in Afghanistan. And then all of a sudden, boom!, the troops are being withdrawn from Afghanistan. Is this predictability and stability again?

Now the Middle East events. Is this predictability and stability, what all of this will lead to? Or in Syria? What is stable and predictable about this?

I’ve asked my US counterparts, ”You want Assad to leave? Who will replace him? What will happen when he’s replaced with somebody?“ The answer is odd. The answer is, ”I don’t know.“ Well, if you don’t know what will happen next, why change what there is? It could be a second Libya or another Afghanistan. Do we want this? No. Let us sit down together, talk, look for compromise solutions that are acceptable for all the parties. That is how stability is achieved. It cannot be achieved by imposing one particular point of view, the ”correct“ point of view, whereby all the other ones are incorrect. That’s not how stability is achieved.

Keir Simmons: Let’s get to some other issues. I want to just talk a little bit more about your relationship with President Biden. This will not be the Helsinki summit. President Biden is not President Trump. You once described President Trump as a bright person, talented. How would you describe President Biden?

Vladimir Putin: Well, even now, I believe that former US President Mr Trump is an extraordinary individual, a talented individual, otherwise he would not have become US President. He is a colourful individual. You may like him or not. And he didn’t come from the US establishment. He had not been part of big time politics before, and some like it, some don’t like it but that is a fact.

President Biden, of course, is radically different from Mr Trump because President Biden is a career man. He has spent virtually his entire adulthood in politics. He has been doing it for a great deal of years and I have already said that and that is an obvious fact. Just think of the number of years he spent in the Senate, and how many years he was involved in the matters of international politics and disarmament, virtually at the expert level. That’s a different kind of person, and it is my great hope that yes, there are some advantages, some disadvantages, but there will not be any knee-jerk reactions on behalf of the sitting US President, that we will be able to comply with certain rules of engagement, certain rules of communications and will be able to find points of contact and common points.

Keir Simmons: Well, President Biden said one time when you met, you were inches away from each other, close to each other. And he said to you, ”I’m looking into your eyes, and I can’t see a soul.“ And you said, ”We understand each other.“ Do you remember that exchange?

Vladimir Putin: As far as soul, I’m not sure. One has to think about what soul is. But I do not remember this particular part of our conversations, to be honest with you. I do not remember. We all, when we meet, when we get together, when we talk, when we work and strive and achieve some solutions, we all proceed from the interests of our nations and our states. And this is fundamental and is the bedrock of all our actions and intentions. And this is the driving force and the motive for organising meetings of this kind. And as far as soul goes, that’s something for the church.

Keir Simmons: Yeah. You are a religious man. President Biden is saying he told you to your face, ”You don’t have a soul.“ (Laughter.)

Vladimir Putin: I do not remember this. ”Something is wrong with my memory.“

Keir Simmons: He says it was about 10 years ago when he was vice president.

Vladimir Putin: Well, he probably has good memory. I do not rule this out, but I don’t remember this. In personal encounters, people try to act appropriately. I do not remember any inappropriate elements of behavior on the part of my counterparts. I don’t think that anything like that has happened. Perhaps he did say something, but I do not remember.

Keir Simmons: Would you have felt that was an inappropriate thing to say?

Vladimir Putin: Well, that depends on the context. It depends on what form they’re said in. One can say this in different ways. It can be presented in different ways. But generally, people meet up in order to establish a relationship and create an environment and conditions for joint work, with a view to achieving some kind of positive results. If one is going to have a fight with somebody else why bother and have a meeting? One’s better off looking into budget and social policies domestically. We have many issues that we have to resolve. What’s the point then? It’s just a waste of time.

Of course, one can present this for domestic political consumption, which I believe is what has been done in the US in the last two years, where the US-Russia relationship was sacrificed for the sake of a fierce political strife inside the US.

We can see that. We know it very well. We have been accused of all kinds of things: election interference, cyberattacks and so on and so forth. And not once, not one time did they bother to produce any kind of evidence or proof. Just unfounded accusations. I’m surprised that we have not yet been accused of provoking the Black Lives Matter movement. That would have been a good line of attack. But we didn’t do that.

With NBC correspondent Keir Simmons.

With NBC correspondent Keir Simmons.

Keir Simmons: What do you think of the Black Lives Matter movement?

Vladimir Putin: I think that, of course, this movement was used by one of the political forces domestically in the course of election campaigns. But there are some grounds for it. Let’s remember Colin Powell who was Secretary of State, was in charge of the Pentagon. He even wrote in his book that even he as a high-ranking official had felt some kind of injustice towards himself his entire life as someone with a dark complexion.

Even from the Soviet days, we in Russia, we have always treated with understanding the fight of African Americans for their rights. And there are certain roots to it. And there is a certain foundation for this. But no matter how noble the goals that somebody is driven by, if it reaches certain extremes, if it spills over into… if it acquires elements of extremism, we cannot approve this. We cannot welcome it. So our attitude to this is very simple. We support African Americans’ fight for their rights, but we are against any types and kinds of extremism, which unfortunately sometimes, regrettably, we witness these days.

Keir Simmons: You mention cyberattacks and deny any involvement by Russia. But Mr President, there is now a weight of evidence, a long list of alleged state-sponsored cyberattacks. Let me give you five.

There’s a lot, but it makes a point. The US intelligence community says Russia interfered with the 2016 election. Election security officials said Russia tried to interfere with the 2020 election. Cybersecurity researchers said government hackers targeted COVID vaccine researchers, hacking for COVID vaccines.

In April, the Treasury Department said the SolarWinds attack was the world’s worst, including nine federal agencies. And just before your summit, Microsoft says it has discovered another attack with targets including organisations that have criticised you, Mr Putin.

Mr President, are you waging a cyber war against America?

Vladimir Putin: Dear Keir, you have said that there is a weight of evidence of cyberattacks by Russia. And then you went on to list those official US agencies that have stated as much. Is that what you did?

Keir Simmons: Well, I’m giving you information about who said it so you can answer.

Vladimir Putin: Right. You are conveying information to me as to who said that. But where is evidence that this was indeed done? I will tell you that this person has said that, that person has said this. But where is the evidence? Where is proof? When there are charges without evidence, I can tell you that you can take your complaint to the International League of Sexual Reform (SIC).

This is a conversation that has no subject. Put something on the table so that we can look and respond. But there isn’t anything like that.

One of the latest attacks, as far as I know, was against the pipeline system in the US. Right, yes. So what?

Keir Simmons: But this is… but you mention…

Vladimir Putin: Just a moment. As far as I know, the shareholders of this company even made a decision to pay the ransom. They paid off the cyber gangsters. If you have listed an entire set of US special services (powerful, global, respectable), after all they can find whoever the ransom was paid. And once they do that, they will realise that Russia has nothing to do with it.

Then there’s the cyberattack against a meat processing plant. Next time they will say there was an attack against some Easter eggs. It’s becoming farcical, like an ongoing farcical thing, never-ending farcical thing. You said ”plenty of evidence,“ but you haven’t cited any proof. But again, this is an empty conversation, a pointless conversation. What exactly are we talking about? There’s no proof.

Keir Simmons: You’ve moved on to this question of ransomware and criminals. Russian-speaking criminals is the allegation, are targeting the American way of life: food, gas, water, hospitals, transport. Why would you let Russian-speaking criminals disrupt your diplomacy? Wouldn’t you want to know who’s responsible?

Vladimir Putin: You know, the simplest thing to do would be for us to sit down calmly and agree on joint work in cyberspace. We did suggest that to Obama’s administration…

Keir Simmons: In September.

Vladimir Putin: In October. We started in September, and during his last year in office. In October at first they didn’t say anything. Then in November, they came back to us and said that, yes, it was interesting. Then the election was lost.

We restated this proposal to Mr Trump’s administration. The response was that it is interesting, but it didn’t come to the point of actual negotiations.

There are grounds to believe that we can build an effort in this area with the new administration, that the domestic political situation in the US will not prevent this from happening. But we have proposed to do this work together. Let’s agree on the principles of mutual work. Let’s find out what we can do together. Let’s agree on how we will structure counterefforts against the process that is gathering momentum. We here in the Russian Federation have cybercrimes that have increased many times over in the last few years. We are trying to respond to it. We are looking for cyber criminals. If we find them, we punish them.

We are willing to engage with international participants, including the United States. You are the ones who have refused to engage in joint work. What can we do? We cannot build this work, we cannot structure this work unilaterally.

Keir Simmons: Well, I’m not the government, Mr Putin. I’m just a journalist asking you questions.

Vladimir Putin: I understand that.

Keir Simmons: But if you clearly want to negotiate, you must have something to negotiate with. You don’t ask for a truce unless you’re fighting in a war.

Vladimir Putin: You know, as far as the war, NATO, and I’d like to draw your attention to that, has officially stated that it considers cyberspace a battlefield, an area of military action, and it conducts exercises in that battlefield.

Keir Simmons: And you are involved in that field.

Vladimir Putin: No.

Keir Simmons: Russia is fighting on that battlefield. Correct?

Vladimir Putin: No, no, that is not correct.

Keir Simmons: Really?

Vladimir Putin: That is not current. Really. If we wanted to do that… NATO said that it considers cyberspace an area of combat. And it prepares and even conducts exercises. What stops us from doing that? If you do that, we will do the same thing. But we don’t want that, just like we don’t want space militarised, in the same manner we don’t want cyberspace militarised. And we have suggested on many occasions, agreeing on mutual work in the cybersecurity area in this area. But your government refuses to.

Keir Simmons: It isn’t, I mean. I saw your proposal from September, from just in September. Isn’t what you’re proposing? That if you can come to an agreement over hacking and election interference, then you’ll call off the hacking and the election interference if America agrees not to comment on your elections and your political opponents?

Vladimir Putin: What we count on is that nobody should interfere in domestic internal affairs of other countries, neither the US in ours nor we in the USA’s political processes or any other nations. All nations of the world should be given an opportunity to develop calmly. Even if there are crisis situations they have to be resolved by the people domestically, without any influence or interference from the outside.

I don’t think that this call by the US administration, today’s administration is worth anything. It appears to me that the US government will still continue to interfere in the political processes in other countries. I don’t think that this process can be stopped, because it has gained a lot of momentum. However, as far as joint work in cyberspace for the prevention of some unacceptable actions on the part of cyber criminals, that is definitely something that can be agreed upon. And it is our great hope that we will be able to establish this process with our US partners.

Keir Simmons: If you were in America, what would you fear might happen next? The lights being switched off the way they were in western Ukraine in 2015?

Vladimir Putin: You mean if I were in America, what I would be afraid of? Is that the question?

Keir Simmons: What should Americans worry about? What might happen next if there’s no agreement on cyber?

Vladimir Putin: You know, this is just like space militarisation. This is a very dangerous area. At some point, in order to achieve something in the nuclear area in terms of confrontation in the area of nuclear weapons, the USSR and the United States did agree to contain this particular arms race. But cyberspace is a very sensitive area. As of today, a great deal of human endeavours rely upon digital technologies, including the functioning of government. And of course interference in those processes can cause a lot of damage and a lot of losses. And everybody understands that. And I am repeating for the third time: Let’s sit down together and agree on joint work on how to achieve security in this area. That is all. What’s bad about it? I don’t even understand.

I’m not asking you. I’m not trying to put you on the spot. But for me as an ordinary citizen, it would not be clear and understandable, why is it that your government refuses to do it? Accusations keep coming, including up to interference, involvement in a cyberattack against some kind of a meat processing plant. But our proposal to start negotiations in this area are being turned down. This is some kind of nonsense, but that’s exactly what’s been happening.

I repeat one more time. It is my hope that we will be able to start engaging in positive work in this area.

In terms of what’s to be afraid of, why is it that we suggest agreeing on something? Because what people can be afraid of in America, are worried about in America, the very same thing can be a danger to us. The US is a high-tech country. NATO has declared cyberspace an area of combat. That means they are planning something. They are preparing something. So obviously this cannot but worry us.

Keir Simmons: Do you fear that American intelligence is deep inside Russian systems and has the ability to do you a lot of damage in cyber?

Vladimir Putin: I’m not afraid, but I bear in mind that it is a possibility.

Keir Simmons: Let me ask you about human rights, an issue that President Biden will raise. Mr President, he’ll raise the issue of Alexei Navalny, targeted for assassination, now in a Russian jail. Mr President, why are you so threatened by opposition?

Vladimir Putin: Who says that I feel threatened by opposition or we are threatened by opposition? Who told you that I’m scared by opposition? It’s just funny.

Keir Simmons: Well, a Russian court has just… Excuse me, I’m sorry. A Russian court has just outlawed organisations connected to Mr Navalny. Literally every non-systemic opposition figure is facing criminal charges. In journalism Meduza and VTimes have been hit with ”foreign agent“ labels and face collapse. Mr President, it’s as if dissent is simply not tolerated in Russia anymore.

Vladimir Putin: You are presenting it as dissent and intolerance towards dissent in Russia. We view it completely differently. You have mentioned the law on foreign agents, but that’s not something that we invented. That law was passed back in the 1930s in the United States. And that law is much harsher than ours, and it is directed and intended, among other things, at preventing interference in the domestic political affairs of the United States.

Keir Simmons: But Mr President…

Vladimir Putin: And on the whole, I believe that it is justified.

Keir Simmons: Look, I’m just going to…

Vladimir Putin: Do you want me to keep answering?

Keir Simmons: In America, we call what you’re doing now ”whataboutism.“ ”What about this? What about that?“ It’s a way of not answering the question. Let me ask you a direct question.

Vladimir Putin: Let me answer. You’ve asked me a question. You are not liking my answer, so you’re interrupting me. This is inappropriate. So there we go. In the United States, this law was adopted a long time ago. It’s working, and sanctions under that law are much harsher than here, up to imprisonment.

Keir Simmons: There you go, still talking about the United States.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, yes. Again you are not letting me… But I will revert to us. I will go back to us. Don’t worry. I will not just be focused on US problems. I will revert and go back, and comment on what’s happening here.

Keir Simmons: Mr President, I thought your belief was that nations shouldn’t intervene in other countries’ domestic affairs, shouldn’t comment on other countries’ politics. But there you are, doing it again.

With NBC correspondent Keir Simmons.

With NBC correspondent Keir Simmons.

Vladimir Putin: No. If you muster patience and let me finish saying what I mean to say, everything will be clear to you. But you are not liking my answer. You don’t want my answer to be heard by your audience. That is the problem. You are shutting me down. Is that free expression? Is that free expression American way?

Keir Simmons: Please, answer.

Vladimir Putin: Here we go. The US adopted this law. We passed this law very recently in order to protect our society against outside interference. When in some of the states, a foreign observer comes to a polling station, the prosecutor says, ”Come a few feet closer, and you’ll go to jail.“ Is that normal? Is that democracy in the modern world? But that is an actual practice in some of the states. We don’t have anything like that.

When I talk about these laws, about non-interference or attempts at interference, what do I mean as applied to Russia? Many entities of the so-called ”civil society“ – the reason I say ”so-called civil society“ is because many of those entities are funded from abroad. Specific relevant action programs are prepared. Their core members are trained abroad. And when our official authorities see that, in order to prevent this kind of interference in our domestic affairs, we make relevant decisions and adopt relevant laws. And they are more lenient than yours.

We have a saying: ”Don’t be mad at the mirror if you are ugly.“ It has nothing to do with you personally. But if somebody blames us for something, what I say is, ”Why don’t you look at yourselves?“ You will see yourselves in the mirror, not us. There is nothing unusual about it.

As far as political activities and the political system, it is evolving. We have 44 registered parties. Well, 34, I think. And 32 are about to participate in various electoral processes across the country in September.

Keir Simmons: Those are the registered.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, yes.

Keir Simmons: We only have a limited amount of time, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: There is also non-systemic opposition. You have said that some people have been detained. Some people are in prison. Yes, that is all true. You mentioned certain names.

Keir Simmons: Those are the ones that are being…

Vladimir Putin: Yes, yes. I will talk about it. Yes. I will not leave any of your questions unattended.

Keir Simmons: Alexei Navalny is his name.

Can I just ask you a direct question? Did you order Alexei Navalny’s assassination?

Vladimir Putin: Of course not. We don’t have this kind of habit, of assassinating anybody. That’s one.

Number two is I want to ask you: Did you order the assassination of the woman who walked into the Congress and who was shot and killed by a policeman? Do you know that 450 individuals were arrested after entering the Congress? And they didn’t go there to steal a laptop. They came with political demands. 450 people…

Keir Simmons: You’re talking about the Capitol riot.

Vladimir Putin: …have been detained. They’re facing a jail time, between 15 and 25 years. And they came to the Congress with political demands. Isn’t that persecution for political opinions? Some have been accused of plotting to topple, to take over government power. Some are accused of robbery. They didn’t go there to rob.

The people who you have mentioned, yes, they were convicted for violating their status, having been previously convicted, given convent, given suspended sentences which were essentially warning to not violate the Russian laws. And they completely ignored the requirements of the law. The court went on and passed and turned the conviction into real jail time. Thousands and thousands of people ignore requirements of the law – and they have nothing to do with political activities – in Russia every year and they go to jail. If somebody is actually using political activities as a shield to deal with their issues, including achieve their commercial goals, then it’s something that they have to be held responsible for.

Keir Simmons: There you go again, Mr President. ”What about America?“ when I’ve asked you about Russia. Let me ask. You mentioned Congress. Let me ask you another direct question that you can answer. And it’s an allegation that has been made, an accusation that has been made again and again now in the United States. The late John McCain in Congress called you a killer. When President Trump was asked, was told that you are a killer, he didn’t deny it. When President Biden was asked whether he believes you are a killer, he said, ”I do.“ Mr President, are you a killer?

Vladimir Putin: Look, over my tenure, I’ve gotten used to attacks from all kinds of angles and from all kinds of areas under all kinds of pretexts and reasons and of different calibre and fierceness. And none of it surprises me. People with whom I work and with whom we argue, we are not bride and groom. We don’t swear everlasting love and friendship. We are partners. And in some areas, we are rivals or competitors.

As far as harsh rhetoric, I think that this is an expression of overall US culture. Of course, in Hollywood, because we mentioned Hollywood at the beginning of our conversation, there are some deep things in Hollywood macho which can be treated as cinematographic art but more often than not it’s macho behavior that is part of US-political culture where it’s considered normal.

By the way, not here. It is not considered normal here. If this rhetoric is followed by a suggestion to meet and discuss bilateral issues and matters of international policies, I see it as desire to engage in joint work. If this desire is serious, we’re prepared to support it.

Keir Simmons: I don’t think I heard you answer the question, the direct question, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: I did answer. I will add, if you let me. I have heard dozens of such accusations, especially during the period of some grave events during our counterterrorism efforts in North Caucasus. And when it happens, I’m always guided by the interests of the Russian people and Russian state. And sentiments in terms of who calls somebody what, what kind of labels, this is not something I worry about in the least.

Keir Simmons: Let me give you some names. Anna Politkovskaya, shot dead. Alexander Litvinenko, poisoned by polonium. Sergei Magnitsky, allegedly beaten and died in prison. Boris Nemtsov, shot moments from the Kremlin, moments from here. Mikhail Lesin died of blunt trauma in Washington, DC. Are all of these a coincidence, Mr President? (Laughter.)

Vladimir Putin: Look, you know, I don’t want to come across as being rude, but this looks like some kind of indigestion, except that it’s verbal indigestion. You mentioned many individuals who indeed suffered and perished at different points in time for various reasons at the hand of different individuals.

You mentioned Lesin. Lesin used to work in my administration. I liked him very much. He died, he perished or died in the United States. I’m not sure if he perished or died. We should ask you how exactly he perished. I regret to this day that he is not with us. In my opinion, he’s a very decent person.

As far as the others, we found some of the criminals who committed those crimes. Some are in prison, and we are prepared to continue to work in this mode and along this avenue, identifying everybody who violate the law and by their actions cause damage, including to the image of the Russian Federation.

However, just piling everything together is meaningless, inappropriate and baseless. If one sees it as a line of attack, then very well. Let me listen to it one more time. But I’d like to repeat that I have heard it many times. But this doesn’t baffle me. I know which direction to move in to secure the interests of the Russian state.

Keir Simmons: Let’s move on to Belarus and Ukraine, two issues that will certainly come up in your summit with President Biden. Did you have prior knowledge that a commercial airliner would be forced to land in Belarus and that a journalist would be arrested?

Vladimir Putin: No, I did not know about this. I didn’t know about any airliner. I didn’t know about the people who were detained there subsequently. I found out about it from the media. I didn’t know, I didn’t have a clue about any detainees. I don’t know. It is of no interest to us.

Keir Simmons: You appear to have approved of it judging by your meeting with President Lukashenko soon afterwards.

Vladimir Putin: Not that I approve of it. Not that I condemn it. But, well, it happened. I said recently in one of the conversations with a European colleague, the version of Mr Lukashenko who told me about it was that information had been given to them that there was an explosive device on board the plane. They informed…

Keir Simmons: And you believe that?

Vladimir Putin: …the pilot without forcing the pilot to land. And the pilot made a decision to land in Minsk. That is all. Why should I not believe him? Ask the pilot. It’s the simplest thing. Ask the chief pilot. Ask the commander of the aircraft. Did you ask him if was he forced to land? Because I have not heard or seen an interview with the commander of the aircraft that landed in Minsk. Why not ask him? Why not ask him if he was forced to land? Why don’t you ask him? It’s actually even odd. Everybody accuses Lukashenko, but the pilot hasn’t been asked.

You know, I cannot but recall another similar situation where the plane of the President of Bolivia was forced to land in Vienna, the order of the US administration.

Air Force One, a presidential plane, was forced to land. The President was taken out of the aircraft. They searched the plane. And you don’t even recall that. Do you think it was normal, that was good, but what Lukashenko did was bad?

Look, let us speak the same language and let us use the same concepts. If, well, Lukashenko is a gangster, how about the situation with the Bolivian President? Was it good? In Bolivia, they viewed it as humiliation of the whole country. But everybody kept mum not to aggravate the situation. Nobody is recalling that. By the way, this is not the only situation…

Keir Simmons: You’re recalling it.

Vladimir Putin: This is not the only situation of this kind.

Keir Simmons: With respect, you’re…

Vladimir Putin: If it’s him, you gave him an example to follow.

Keir Simmons: …recalling it, but it is a completely different example, Mr President. We are talking about (Laughter.) a commercial flight. Shouldn’t people be able to take a commercial flight across Europe without fear of being shot down like in the case of MH-17 or forced down so that a dictator can arrest a journalist?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. Look, I will tell you one more time. What President Lukashenko told me, I don’t have any reason not to believe him. For the third time, I’m telling you: Ask the pilot. Why don’t you ask the pilot: Was he…

Keir Simmons: But you…

Vladimir Putin: …being scared? Was he being threatened? Was he being forced? The fact that information appeared that there was a bomb on the plane, that individuals, people who had nothing to do, who were passengers, who had nothing to do with politics or any kind of domestic conflicts, that they could perceive it negatively, could be worried about it, of course that’s a bad thing. There is nothing good about this. And obviously, we condemn everything that has to do with this, and international terrorism, and the use of aircraft. Of course, we are against this. And you’ve told me that the landing of the aircraft of the President of Bolivia is a completely different matter.

Yes, it is different except that it is ten times worse than what was done, if anything was done in Belarus. But you just won’t acknowledge it. You are ignoring it, and you want millions of people around the world to either not notice it or forget about it tomorrow. You won’t get away with it. It won’t happen.

Keir Simmons: In the case of neighbouring Ukraine earlier this year, the European Union said you had more than 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border. Was that an attempt to get Washington’s attention?

Vladimir Putin: Look, first, Ukraine itself constantly – and I think is still doing that – kept bringing personnel and military equipment to the conflict area in the southeast of Ukraine, Donbass. That’s one. Two is that we conducted exercises in our territory and not just in the south of the Russian Federation but also in the Far East and in the north, in the Arctic.

Simultaneously, military exercises were being held in different parts of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the US was conducting military exercises in Alaska. Do you know anything about it? Probably not. But I’ll tell you that I do know. And that is in direct proximity to our borders. But that’s in your territory, on your land. We didn’t even pay attention to it.

What is happening now? Now, at our southern borders, there is a war game, Defender Europe, 40,000 personnel, 15,000 units of military equipment. Part of them have been airlifted from the US continent directly to our borders. Did we airlift any of our military technology to the US borders? No, we did not.

Keir Simmons: Many of those…

Vladimir Putin: Why are you worried then?

Keir Simmons: But many of those exercises are a response to your actions, Mr President. Do you worry that your opposition to NATO has actually strengthened it? For six years, NATO has spent more on defence.

Vladimir Putin: Some defence. During the USSR era, Gorbachev, who is still, thank God, with us, got a promise, a verbal promise that there would be no NATO expansion to the east. Where is that…

Keir Simmons: Where is that…

Vladimir Putin: …promise? Two ways of expansion.

Keir Simmons: Where is that written down? Where is that promise written down?

Vladimir Putin: Right, right. Well done. Correct. You’ve got a point. Got you good. Well, congratulations. Of course, everything should be sealed and written on paper. But what was the point of expanding NATO to the east and bringing this infrastructure to our borders, and all of this before saying that we are the ones who have been acting aggressively?

Why? On what basis? Did Russia after the USSR collapsed present any threat to the US or European countries? We voluntarily withdrew our troops from Eastern Europe. Leaving them just on empty land. Our people there, military personnel for decades lived there in what was not normal conditions, including their children.

We went to tremendous expenses. And what did we get in response? We got in response infrastructure next to our borders. And now, you are saying that we are threatening somebody. We’re conducting war games on a regular basis, including sometimes surprise military exercises. Why should it worry the NATO partners? I just don’t understand that.

Keir Simmons: Will you commit now not to send any further Russian troops into Ukrainian sovereign territory?

Vladimir Putin: Look, did we say that we were planning to send our armed formations anywhere? We were conducting war games in our territory. How can this not be clear? I’m saying it again because I want your audience to hear it, your listeners to hear it both on the screens of their televisions and on the internet.

We conducted military exercises in our territory. Imagine if we sent our troops into direct proximity to your borders. What would have been your response? We didn’t do that. We did it in our territory. You conducted war games in Alaska. God bless you. But you had crossed an ocean, brought thousands of personnel, thousands of units of military equipment close to our borders, and yet you believe that we are acting aggressively and somehow you’re not acting aggressively. Just look at that. The pot calling the kettle black.

Keir Simmons: Moving on, the Biden administration has said that at your summit they will bring up the case of two US prisoners in Russia, Paul Whelan and Trevor Reed. They are two former Marines. Trevor Reed is suffering from COVID in prison. Why don’t you release them ahead of the summit? Wouldn’t that show goodwill?

Vladimir Putin: I know that we have certain US citizens who are in prison, have been convicted, found guilty. But if one considers the number of Russian Federation citizens who are in US prisons, then these numbers don’t even compare. They cannot be compared. The United States has made a habit in the last few years of catching Russian Federation citizens in third countries and take them to back to the US in violation of all international legal norms and put them in prison.

Keir Simmons: It’s just that there’s a limited amount of time, Mr President. Unless we can have more time, I’d be very happy to have to keep going for another 30 minutes.

Interview to NBC correspondent Keir Simmons.

Interview to NBC correspondent Keir Simmons.

Vladimir Putin: I determine the time here, so don’t worry about time. Your guy, the Marine, he’s just a drunk and a troublemaker. As they say here, he got himself shitfaced and started a fight. Among other things, he hit a cop. It’s nothing. It’s just a common crime. There is nothing to it.

As far as possible negotiations on the subject, sure it can be talked about. Obviously we’ll raise the matter of our citizens who are in prison in the US. Yes, it can be a specific conversation. Sure. We’re happy to do it although it doesn’t seem that the US administration has raised that matter. But we’re prepared to do that.

Our pilot Yaroshenko has been in prison in the US for a good, I don’t know how many years, 15, maybe 20 years. And there also the problem seems to be a common crime. We could and should talk about it. We haven’t been talking about this, but we could. If the US side is prepared to discuss it, so are we.

Keir Simmons: So his family will find that incredibly distressing to hear you talk about him that way. It does sound though as if you would consider some kind of a prisoner swap.

Vladimir Putin: There is nothing offensive about it. He got drunk on vodka and started a fight. He fought a cop. There is nothing offensive about it. These things happen in life. There is nothing horrible about it. It happens to our men as well. Somebody gulps down some vodka and starts a fight. So you violate the law, you go to prison. What would have happened if he’d fought a cop, if he’d hit a cop in your country? He would have been shot dead on that spot, and that’s the end of it. Isn’t that the case?

Keir Simmons: And on the prisoner swap question, is that something that you would consider? Are you looking to negotiate? You’re meeting with the President.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course. Even better would be a discussion of the possibility of entering into an agreement on extradition of individuals who are in prison. This is standard international practice. We have such agreements with several countries. We’re prepared to enter into such an agreement with the United States.

Keir Simmons: Just to be clear so we hear it from you, which Russian prisoners in the US would you be hoping to bring back to Russia by name?

Vladimir Putin: Well, we have a whole list. I just mentioned a pilot, a pilot named Yaroshenko who was taken to the US from a third country and was given a lengthy sentence. He has major health issues, but the prison administration is not paying attention to this. You have mentioned that your citizen has coronavirus, but nobody’s paying attention to the health issues of our citizen.

We’re prepared to discuss these issues. Moreover, it makes sense, as you correctly said, and I completely agree with you, there are matters of humanitarian nature. And why not discuss them as long as they pertain to the health and life of specific individuals and of their families? Of course. Sure thing.

Keir Simmons: Just quickly before I move on, on the subject of prisons, again with Alexei Navalny, will you commit that you will personally ensure that Alexei Navalny will leave prison alive?

Vladimir Putin: Look, such decisions in this country are not made by the President. They’re made by the court whether or not to set somebody free. As far as the health, all individuals who are in prison, that is something that the administration of the specific prison or penitentiary establishment is responsible for.

And there are medical facilities in penitentiaries that are perhaps not in the best condition. And they are the ones whose responsibility it is. And I hope that they do it properly. But to be honest, I have not visited such places for a long time.

I visited one in St Petersburg some time ago and that was a very grave impression that was made on me by the medical facilities in a prison. But since then, I hope, some things have been done to improve the situation. And I proceed from the premise that the person that you have mentioned, the same kind of measures will apply to that person, not in any way worse than to anybody else who happens to be in prison.

Keir Simmons: His name is Alexei Navalny. People will note that you weren’t prepared to say…

Vladimir Putin: Oh, I don’t care.

Keir Simmons: …that he would leave prison alive.

Vladimir Putin: Please, listen to me carefully. His name can be anything. He’s one of the individuals who are in prison. For me, he is one of the citizens of the Russian Federation who has been found guilty by a court of law and is in prison. There are many citizens like that.

By the way, our so-called prison population, the people who are in prison, has in the last few years been reduced by almost 50%, which I consider a big victory for us and a major sign of our legal system becoming more humane.

He will not be treated any worse than anybody else. Nobody should be given any kind of special treatment. It would be wrong. Everybody should be in an equal situation. This is called the most favoured nation treatment. Not worse than anybody else. And the person that you have mentioned, that applies to him as well.

Keir Simmons: Appreciate the extra time, Mr President. The team has been in quarantine for almost two weeks, so this interview is very important to us.

I want to ask you about China. China is working on its fourth aircraft carrier. It has two. Russia has one, and it’s not in service at the moment. China refused to take part in arms control talks last year. You complain so much about NATO to your west. Why do you never complain about China’s militarisation to your east?

Vladimir Putin: The first thing I want to say is that over the last few years, the last few decades, we have developed a strategic partnership relationship between Russia and China that previously had not been achieved in the history of our nations, a high level of trust and cooperation in all areas: in politics, in the economy, in the area of technology, in the area of military and technical cooperation. We do not believe that China is a threat to us. That’s one. China is a friendly nation. It has not declared us an enemy, as the United States has done.

Keir Simmons: China hasn’t…

Vladimir Putin: Don’t you know anything about this? That’s number one.

Number two is that China is a huge, powerful country, 1.5 billion. In terms of purchasing power parity, the Chinese economy has exceeded that of the United States. And in terms of trade for the previous year, last year, China has tied Europe for the first place, whereas the US has dropped to the second position. Do you know about this?

China has been developing. And I understand that what’s beginning is a certain kind of confrontation with China. Everybody understands it. We can see it. Why hide from and be scared of these issues? However, we’re not alarmed by it, including, among other things, by the fact that our defence sufficiency, which is how we describe it, is at a very high level, including because of this. But the most important thing is the nature and level of our relationship with China.

You said China will have four aircraft carriers. How many does the United States have?

Keir Simmons: A lot more.

Vladimir Putin: There you go. That’s my point. Why would we worry about the Chinese aircraft carriers? On top of everything else, we have a hugely vast border with China, but it’s a land border. It’s a land border. What? Do you think the Chinese aircraft carriers will cross our land border? This is just a meaningless conversation.

Keir Simmons: But you also have a Pacific coast.

Vladimir Putin: You are right, that there will be four of them. It is correct that there will be four of them. Right.

Coast? Well, the coast is huge. But the bulk of the border between us and China is a land border. And, yes you’re right that there will be four of them because one needs to be in maintenance, one needs to be on combat duty, one needs to be in repairs. There is nothing excessive here for China.

That is why what you said, that China won’t engage in negotiations on arms control, it refuses to negotiate reductions in nuclear offensive weapons. You should ask the Chinese about it, whether it’s good or bad. It’s for them to decide. But their arguments are simple and understandable: in terms of the amount of ammunition and warheads and delivery vehicles, the United States and Russia are far, far ahead of China. And the Chinese justly say, ”Why would we make reductions if we are already far behind what you have? Or do you want us to freeze our level of nuclear deterrence? Why should we freeze? Why we, a country with a 1.5 billion population, cannot at least set the goal of achieving your levels?“ These are all debatable issues that require thorough consideration. But making us responsible for China’s position is just comical.

Keir Simmons: What do you think of China’s treatment of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I have met certain Uyghurs. It’s always possible to find individuals who criticise the central authorities. I have met Uyghurs on my trips to China, and I assure you at the very least what I heard with my own ears, that on the whole they welcome the policies of the Chinese authorities in this area. They believe that China has done a great deal for people who live in this part of the country from the perspective of the economy, raising the cultural level, and so on and so forth. So why should I offer assessments looking at the situation from outside?

Keir Simmons: You know there are many Uyghurs who do not say that and that America has accused China of genocide. The Secretary of State has accused China of genocide against the Uyghurs. There is the accusation of a million Uyghurs in so-called concentration camps. Is that your message to the Muslim communities in the former Soviet Union? You don’t think anything wrong is happening there?

Vladimir Putin: As far as the Muslim community in Russia, I need to give a message to it through policies of the Russian authorities vis-à-vis Muslims in the Russian Federation. That is how I need to give my message to the Muslim community in the Russian Federation. We’re an observer in the Organisation of Islamic Conference.

About 10% of our population, probably a little more, are Muslims. They are citizens of the Russian Federation who do not have any other fatherland. They’re making a colossal contribution to the development of our country. And that pertains to both clerics and ordinary citizens.

Why should I speak to and build a relationship with this part of our population by reference to the situation in China without understanding thoroughly what is happening there? I think that you’re better off asking about all these problems the foreign minister of the People’s Republic of China or the US State Department.

Keir Simmons: It’s just a question of whether you are prepared to criticise China. China, for example, abstained on Crimea at the Security Council. China’s biggest banks have not contravened American sanctions against Russia. Do you think you get 100% support from China?

Vladimir Putin: You know, we are neighbouring countries. One does not choose one’s neighbours. We are pleased with the level, as I said, – unprecedentedly high level of our relationship as it has evolved over the last few decades, and we cherish it, just like our Chinese friends cherish it, which we can see. Why are you trying to drag us into some kind of matters that you evaluate as you see it fit for building your relationship with China? I will tell you completely… Can I speak…?

Keir Simmons: Please, yeah.

Vladimir Putin: Can I be completely honest? We can see attempts at destroying the relationship between Russia and China. We can see that those attempts are being made in practical policies. And your questions, too, have to do with it.

I have set forth my position for you. I believe that this is sufficient, and I’m confident that the Chinese leadership being aware of the totality of these matters, including the part of their population who are Uyghurs, will find the necessary solution to make sure that the situation remains stable and benefits the entire multi-million-strong Chinese people, including its Uyghur part.

Keir Simmons: You understand, of course, I’m just trying to question you about Russia’s position in relation to China and the United States. Let me ask you in a different way. Are you splitting off from the US space programme and moving forward with China?

Vladimir Putin: No, why? We are prepared to work with the US in space. And I think recently the head of NASA said that he could not imagine development of space programmes without its partnership with Russia. We welcome this statement and we value it.

Keir Simmons: I’ll just explain. Because the head of the Russian space agency has threatened leaving the international space programme in 2025 and specifically talked about sanctions in relation to that threat.

Vladimir Putin: Well, honestly, I don’t think that Mr Rogozin, that is the name of the head of Roscosmos, has threatened anyone in this regard. I’ve known him for many years, and I know that he is a supporter of expanding the relationship with the US in this area, in space.

Recently, the head of NASA spoke in the same vein. And I personally fully support this. And we have been working with great pleasure all of these years, and we’re prepared to continue to work.

For technical reasons though, and that’s a different matter, is that the International Space Station is coming to an end of its service life. And maybe in this regard, Roscosmos does not have plans to continue their work. However based on what I heard from our US partners, they, too, are looking at future cooperation in this particular segment in their certain way. But on the whole, the cooperation between our two countries in space is a great example of a situation where, despite any kind of problems in political relationships in recent years, it’s an area where we have been able to maintain and preserve the partnership and both parties cherish it. I think you just misunderstood what the head of the Russian space programme said.

We are interested in continuing to work with the US in this direction, and we will continue to do so if our US partners don’t refuse to do that. It doesn’t mean that we need to work exclusively with the US. We have been working and will continue to work with China, which applies to all kinds of programmes, including exploring deep space. And I think there is nothing but positive information here. Frankly, I don’t see any contradictions here. I don’t think any mutual exclusivity here.

Keir Simmons: Let me ask you one more way just to understand the relationship between China, Russia and America. If the People’s Liberation Army made a move on Taiwan how would Russia respond to that?

Vladimir Putin: What? Are you aware of China’s plans to militarily solve the Taiwan problem? I don’t know anything about it.

As we frequently say, politics do not require the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood is inappropriate in politics. There is no ”could be“ and ”would be“ in politics.

I cannot comment on anything that is not a current reality of the modern world. Please, bear with me. Don’t be angry with me. But I think this is a question about nothing. This is not happening. Has China stated that it intends to solve the Taiwan problem militarily? It hasn’t happened. For many years, China has been developing its relationship with Taiwan. There are different assessments. China has its own assessment. The US has a different assessment. Taiwan may have its different assessment of the situation. But fortunately, it hasn’t come to a military clash.

Keir Simmons: I’m being told to wrap up. But if I could just ask you a couple more questions.

Vladimir Putin: Sure, please. Go ahead.

Keir Simmons: Our own Andrea Mitchell saw just this month the last border crossing into Syria where supplies literally keep people alive. You’re threatening to close that crossing in July at the Security Council. Why would you do that, knowing that it will cause the death of refugees?

Vladimir Putin: Look, unfortunately, there are a great deal of tragedies there already. And all our actions in their totality need to be geared at stabilising the situation and bringing it into a normal course. And with support of Russia, Syria has been able, the Syrian authorities have been able to bring back under their control over 90% of the Syrian territory.

What needs to be set up now is just humanitarian assistance to people, irrespective of any kind of political context. But our partners in the West, in the West in general, both the US and Europeans have been saying that they’re not going to give help to Assad. What does Assad have to do with it? Help out people who need that assistance. Just the most basic things. They won’t even lift restrictions on supplies of medications and medical equipment even in the context of the coronavirus infection. But that is just inhumane. And this kind of cruel attitude to people cannot be explained in any way.

As far as the border crossings, there is the Idlib area where combatants are still robbing people, killing people, raping people. There is nothing’s happening. There is the Al-Tanf Zone, which by the way is controlled by US military.

Recently there we caught a group of gangsters, bandits who came, who had come from there. And they directly said that they had specific goals as far as Russian military facilities. As far as border crossings, our position is such that assistance needs to be given just as it should be done in the entire world, as it is provided for in the provisions of international humanitarian law. Assistance should be given through the central government. It shouldn’t be discriminated against. And if there are grounds to believe that the central government of Syria will plunder something, well, set up observers on the part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent oversee everything.

I don’t think that anybody in the Syrian government is interested in stealing some part of this humanitarian assistance. It just needs to be done through the central government. And in this sense, we support President Assad because a different mode of behavior would be undermining the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic. And that’s all.

As far as the Idlib zone, the Turkish troops there effectively control the border between Turkey and Syria, and convoys cross the border without any restrictions on their numbers in both directions.

Keir Simmons: Mr President, you extended the Constitution so that you could be President of Russia until 2036. Do you worry that the longer you are in power and without any sign of someone to replace you, the more instability there may be when you finally do choose to leave office?

Vladimir Putin: What will collapse overnight? If we look at the situation in which Russia was in the year 2000, where it was balancing on the brink of preserving its territorial integrity and sovereignty, the number of individuals below the poverty line was colossal. It was catastrophic.

The GDP level had dropped below anything that’s acceptable. Our FX and gold reserves were $12 billion, whereas our foreign debt was $120 billion, if we count it in dollars.

Now, there are many other problems. The situation is completely different. Of course, somebody will come and replace me at some point. Is all of this going to collapse? We’ve been fighting international terrorism. We have nipped it in the bud. Is it supposed to come back to life? I don’t think so. Another matter is that on the political scene, different people can emerge with different points of view. Great. Very good.

You know, I have linked my entire life, my entire fate to the fate of my country to such an extent that there isn’t a more meaningful goal in my life than the strengthening of Russia. If anybody else, and if I see that person, even if that person is critical of some areas of what I have been doing, if I can see that this is an individual who has constructive views, that he or she is committed to this country and is prepared to sacrifice his entire life to this country, nor just some years, no matter his personal attitude to me, I will make sure, I will do everything to make sure that such people will get support.

It is a natural biological process. At some point, someday, we will all be replaced. You will be replaced at where you are. I will be replaced at where I am. But I am confident that the fundamental pillar of the Russian economy and statehood and its political system will be such that Russia will be firmly standing on its feet and look into the future confidently.

Keir Simmons: And would you look from that person for some kind of protection the same way that you offered to Boris Yeltsin when you took over?

Vladimir Putin: I am not even thinking about that. These are third-tier issues. The most important thing, the single most important thing is the fate of the country and the fate of its people.

Keir Simmons: Very good. Thank you very much for your time, Mr President. We’ve gone over, and I really appreciate it. It was a really interesting conversation, so thank you.

The world is in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic. As WHO and partners work together on the response -- tracking the pandemic, advising on critical interventions, distributing vital medical supplies to those in need--- they are racing to develop and deploy safe and effective vaccines.

Vaccines save millions of lives each year. Vaccines work by training and preparing the body’s natural defences – the immune system – to recognize and fight off the viruses and bacteria they target. After vaccination, if the body is later exposed to those disease-causing germs, the body is immediately ready to destroy them, preventing illness.

Read this carefully: The official truth is that the vaccines are claimed only to prevent people from getting seriously ill or dying from COVID-19, and not claimed to prevent or reduce infection, nor to prevent or reduce transmission.

There are several safe and effective vaccines that prevent people from getting seriously ill or dying from COVID-19. This is one part of managing COVID-19, in addition to the main preventive measures of staying at least 1 metre away from others, covering a cough or sneeze in your elbow, frequently cleaning your hands, wearing a mask and avoiding poorly ventilated rooms or opening a window.

As of 3 June 2021, WHO has evaluated that the following vaccines against COVID-19 have met the necessary criteria for safety and efficacy:

• AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine
• Johnson and Johnson
• Moderna
• Pfizer/BionTech
• Sinopharm
• Sinovac

Read our Q&A on the Emergency Use Listing process to find out more about how WHO assesses the quality, safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

Some national regulators have also assessed other COVID-19 vaccine products for use in their countries.

Take whatever vaccine is made available to you first, even if you have already had COVID-19. It is important to be vaccinated as soon as possible once it’s your turn and not wait. Approved COVID-19 vaccines provide a high degree of protection against getting seriously ill and dying from the disease, although no vaccine is 100% protective.

WHO SHOULD GET VACCINATED

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe for most people 18 years and older, including those with pre-existing conditions of any kind, including auto-immune disorders. These conditions include: hypertension, diabetes, asthma, pulmonary, liver and kidney disease, as well as chronic infections that are stable and controlled.

If supplies are limited in your area, discuss your situation with your care provider if you:

And if supplies are not limited, there is no need to consult in these situations?

• Have a compromised immune system
• Are pregnant (if you are already breastfeeding, you should continue after vaccination)

  If pregnant or lactating, and vaccinates, the toxic virus s1 spike protein your body manufactures, will be transmitted to your fetus or baby. Administering the vaccine to pregnant or lactation women is serious medical malpractice.

• Have a history of severe allergies, particularly to a vaccine (or any of the ingredients in the vaccine)
• Are severely frail

Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.

There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults. However, children should continue to have the recommended childhood vaccines.

WHAT SHOULD I DO AND EXPECT AFTER GETTING VACCINATED

Stay at the place where you get vaccinated for at least 15 minutes afterwards, just in case you have an unusual reaction, so health workers can help you.

Check when you should come in for a second dose – if needed. Most of the vaccines available are two-dose vaccines. Check with your care provider whether you need to get a second dose and when you should get it. Second doses help boost the immune response and strengthen immunity.

In most cases, minor side effects are normal. Common side effects after vaccination, which indicate that a person's body is building protection to COVID-19 infection include:

• Arm soreness
• Mild fever
• Tiredness
• Headaches
• Muscle or joint aches

Contact your care provider if there is redness or tenderness (pain) where you got the shot that increases after 24 hours, or if side effects do not go away after a few days.

If you experience an immediate severe allergic reaction to a first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, you should not receive additional doses of the vaccine. It’s extremely rare for severe health reactions to be directly caused by vaccines.

Taking painkillers such as paracetamol before receiving the COVID-19 vaccine to prevent side effects is not recommended. This is because it is not known how painkillers may affect how well the vaccine works. However, you may take paracetamol or other painkillers if you do develop side effects such as pain, fever, headache or muscle aches after vaccination.

Even after you’re vaccinated, keep taking precautions

Again, The official truth is repeated, that the vaccines are claimed only to prevent people from getting seriously ill or dying from COVID-19, and not claimed to prevent or reduce infection, nor to prevent or reduce transmission.
The first sentence below, is directly inconsistent with the the second sentence, an manipulative emotional appeal relying on the anxious layperson assuming what they would wish to be true, that the vaccines prevent infection and transmission.

While a COVID-19 vaccine will prevent serious illness and death, we still don’t know the extent to which it keeps you from being infected and passing the virus on to others. The more we allow the virus to spread, the more opportunity the virus has to change.

Continue to take actions to slow and eventually stop the spread of the virus:

• Keep at least 1 metre from others
• Wear a mask, especially in crowded, closed and poorly ventilated settings.
• Clean your hands frequently
• Cover any cough or sneeze in your bent elbow
• When indoors with others, ensure good ventilation, such as by opening a window

Doing it all protects us all.

Abstract

Background:

After COVID-19 emerged on U.S shores, providers began reviewing the emerging basic science, translational, and clinical data to identify potentially effective treatment options. In addition, a multitude of both novel and repurposed therapeutic agents were used empirically and studied within clinical trials.

Areas of Uncertainty:

The majority of trialed agents have failed to provide reproducible, definitive proof of efficacy in reducing the mortality of COVID-19 with the exception of corticosteroids in moderate to severe disease. Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits. Given some have not passed peer review, several expert groups including Unitaid/World Health Organization have undertaken a systematic global effort to contact all active trial investigators to rapidly gather the data needed to grade and perform meta-analyses.

Data Sources:

Data were sourced from published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts posted to preprint servers, expert meta-analyses, and numerous epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution campaigns.

Therapeutic Advances:

A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes. Numerous prophylaxis trials demonstrate that regular ivermectin use leads to large reductions in transmission. Multiple, large “natural experiments” occurred in regions that initiated “ivermectin distribution” campaigns followed by tight, reproducible, temporally associated decreases in case counts and case fatality rates compared with nearby regions without such campaigns.

Conclusions:

Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

...

A recent data release from a presentation at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides COVID-19 vaccine consumers with some rather concerning data, particularly if they are under the age of 30.

Let's start with some background. Here is a graph from the CDC showing the weekly number of COVID-19 deaths for the age group 15 years to 24 years in brown and 25 years to 34 years in turquoise:

Here is a table showing how many Americans of varying age groups have died from COVID-19, pneumonia or influenza:

Note that only 2,704 Americans under the age of 30 had deaths that "involved COVID-19" or less than 0.46 percent of "COVID-19-involved" deaths for all age groups.

In the latest COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenario from the CDC dated March 19, 2021, we find the following table:

Note that the best estimate infection fatality ratio (IFR) for children between the ages of 0 and 17 years is 0.002 percent (20/1,000,000) and for people between the ages of 18 and 49 years, the best estimate infection fatality ratio is 0.05 percent (500/1,000,000).

Now, let's switch subjects and look at some additional physiological background to help us put this posting into context. Here are two definitions from the Mayo Clinic:

Myocarditis:

Overview - Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle (myocardium). Myocarditis can affect your heart muscle and your heart's electrical system, reducing your heart's ability to pump and causing rapid or abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmias).

A viral infection usually causes myocarditis, but it can result from a reaction to a drug or be part of a more general inflammatory condition. Signs and symptoms include chest pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, and arrhythmias.

Severe myocarditis weakens your heart so that the rest of your body doesn't get enough blood. Clots can form in your heart, leading to a stroke or heart attack.

Complications - Severe myocarditis can permanently damage heart muscles and cause the following:

1.) Heart failure. Untreated, myocarditis can damage your heart's muscle so that it can't pump blood effectively. In severe cases, myocarditis-related heart failure may require a ventricular assist device or a heart transplant.

2.) Heart attack or stroke. If your heart's muscle is injured and can't pump blood, the blood that pools in your heart can form clots. If a clot blocks one of your heart's arteries, you can have a heart attack. If a blood clot in your heart travels to an artery leading to your brain before becoming lodged, you can have a stroke.

3.) Rapid or abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmias). Damage to your heart muscle can cause arrhythmias.

Sudden cardiac death. Certain serious arrhythmias can cause your heart to stop beating (sudden cardiac arrest). It's fatal if not treated immediately.

Here is a graphic showing myocarditis:

Pericarditis:

Overview - Pericarditis is swelling and irritation of the thin, saclike tissue surrounding your heart (pericardium). Pericarditis often causes sharp chest pain and sometimes other symptoms. The chest pain occurs when the irritated layers of the pericardium rub against each other.

Pericarditis is usually mild and goes away without treatment. Treatment for more-severe cases may include medications and, rarely, surgery. Early diagnosis and treatment may help reduce the risk of long-term complications from pericarditis.

Complications - Early diagnosis and treatment of pericarditis usually reduces the risk of the long-term complications. Complications of pericarditis include:

1.) Pericardial effusion. Pericarditis is usually associated with fluid around the heart, which can lead to more serious complications.

2.) Chronic constrictive pericarditis. Some people with long-term (chronic) pericarditis develop permanent thickening and scarring of the pericardium, which prevents the heart from filling and emptying properly. This unusual complication often leads to severe swelling of the legs and abdomen and shortness of breath.

3.) Cardiac tamponade. This life-threatening condition can develop when too much fluid collects in the pericardium. Excess fluid puts pressure on the heart and doesn't allow it to fill properly. Less blood leaves the heart, causing a dramatic drop in blood pressure. Cardiac tamponade requires emergency treatment.

Here is a diagram showing pericarditis:

Now, let's look at the recent data release from the CDC from a COVID-19 vaccine safety update presentation on June 23, 2021by the Vaccine Safety Team. In this presentation, the author is looking at these two issues:

Here is a graph showing the preliminary reports of myocarditis/pericarditis for the mRNA vaccines by age and number of doses of vaccine:

Here are the symptoms experienced by the individuals under the age of 30:

Here is a graphic showing the number of cases of myocarditis/pericarditis following dose 2 of the mRNA vaccines for both males and females for all age groups. Note that the "expected" column is based on a U.S. population-based background incidence rate of myocarditis/pericarditis that was used in the safety assessment of the COVID-19 vaccines:

As you can see, among males under the age of 40 who have received the second mRNA vaccination, there is a significantly higher number of cases of myocarditis/pericarditis than expected, particularly among those between the ages of 12 and 24 (inclusive). The background rate would have predicted between 1 and 12 case of myocarditis/pericarditis for this age group, however, real world reports to the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) observed 347 cases or 28.9 times more cases than predicted.

Let's close this posting with a quote from this recent article found in the British Medical Journal dated June 23, 2021:

"On 23 June the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s safety committee said there was a “likely association” between the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna covid-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis in some young adults. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said there was a higher than expected number of reports of heart inflammation in people aged 16-24 who had received the mRNA vaccines but that the benefits of vaccination still clearly outweighed the risks.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) had received 1226 preliminary reports of myocarditis and pericarditis after about 300 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines up to 11 June. The US Food and Drug Administration said it would add a warning about the risk to information sheets for the mRNA covid vaccines. A joint statement signed by the US Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC, and medical organizations such as the American College of Physicians and American Medical Association emphasized that the side effect was “extremely rare” and that most cases were mild.

In the US the confirmed cases have mostly been seen in male adolescents and young adults and occur more often after the second dose than the first. CDC data showed that after 3 625 574 second doses administered to men aged 18-24 there were 233 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis, when two to 25 would have been expected. After 5 237 262 doses administered to women in this age group 27 cases were seen, against an expected two to 18. Vinay Prasad, a haematologist-oncologist and associate professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California San Francisco, told The BMJ “There is a clear and large safety signal in young men and a clear but small signal in young women as well.”

While the USDA will add a warning to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine information sheets, it is highly unlikely that these sheets will be seen by any of the young Americans being vaccinated.

While this may seem like a small number of cases given the millions of COVID-19 vaccine doses that have been administered to young Americans, the occurrence of myocarditis has the potential to result in a life-changing, negative health situation for an age group that had a negligible risk of dying from COVID-19 in the first place. For the youngest among the mRNA vaccine recipients, the occurrence of vaccine-related myocarditis could have a very palpable impact on their parents as well. While it is still unclear whether this serious adverse event is caused by the mRNA vaccines or merely associated with them, the purpose of vaccines is to benefit the person who gets it and not result in "net harm".

Article by Sergey Lavrov, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, “The Law, the Rights and the Rules”, Moscow, June 28, 2021 - News - The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

The frank and generally constructive conversation that took place at the June 16, 2021 summit meeting between presidents Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden in Geneva resulted in an agreement to launch a substantive dialogue on strategic stability, reaffirming the crucial premise that nuclear war is unacceptable. The two sides also reached an understanding on the advisability of engaging in consultations on cybersecurity, the operation of diplomatic missions, the fate of imprisoned Russian and US citizens and a number of regional conflicts.

The Russian leader made it clear, including in his public statements, that finding a mutually acceptable balance of interests strictly on a parity basis is the only way to deliver on any of these tracks. There were no objections during the talks. However, in their immediate aftermath, US officials, including those who participated in the Geneva meeting, started asserting what seemed to be foregone tenets, perorating that they had “made it clear” to Moscow, “warned it, and stated their demands.” Moreover, all these “warnings” went hand in hand with threats: if Moscow does not accept the “rules of the road” set forth in Geneva in a matter of several months, it would come under renewed pressure.

Of course, it has yet to be seen how the consultations to define specific ways for fulfilling the Geneva understandings as mentioned above will proceed. As Vladimir Putin said during his news conference following the talks, “we have a lot to work on.” That said, it is telling that Washington’s ineradicable position was voiced immediately following the talks, especially since European capitals immediately took heed of the Big Brother’s sentiment and picked up the tune with much gusto and relish. The gist of their statements is that they are ready to normalise their relations with Moscow, but only after it changes the way it behaves.

It is as if a choir has been pre-arranged to sing along with the lead vocalist. It seems that this was what the series of high-level Western events in the build-up to the Russia-US talks was all about: the Group of Seven Summit in Cornwall, UK, the NATO Summit in Brussels, as well as Joseph Biden’s meeting with President of the European Council Charles Michel and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen.

These meetings were carefully prepared in a way that leaves no doubt that the West wanted to send a clear message: it stands united like never before and will do what it believes to be right in international affairs, while forcing others, primarily Russia and China, to follow its lead. The documents adopted at the Cornwall and Brussels summits cemented the rules-based world order concept as a counterweight to the universal principles of international law with the UN Charter as its primary source.

In doing so, the West deliberately shies away from spelling out the rules it purports to follow, just as it refrains from explaining why they are needed. After all, there are already thousands of universal international legal instruments setting out clear national commitments and transparent verification mechanisms. The beauty of these Western “rules” lies precisely in the fact that they lack any specific content. When someone acts against the will of the West, it immediately responds with a groundless claim that “the rules have been broken” (without bothering to present any evidence) and declares its “right to hold the perpetrators accountable.” The less specific they get, the freer their hand to carry on with the arbitrary practice of employing dirty tactics as a way to pressure competitors. During the so-called “wild 1990s” in Russia, we used to refer to such practices as laying down the law.

To the participants in the G7, NATO and US-EU summits, this series of high-level events signalled the return by the United States into European affairs and the restored consolidation of the Old World under the wing of the new administration in Washington. Most NATO and EU members met this U-turn with enthusiastic comments rather than just a sigh of relief. The adherence to liberal values as the humanity’s guiding star provides an ideological underpinning for the reunification of the “Western family.” Without any false modesty, Washington and Brussels called themselves “an anchor for democracy, peace and security,” as opposed to “authoritarianism in all its forms.” In particular, they proclaimed their intent to use sanctions to “support democracy across the globe.” To this effect, they took on board the American idea of convening a Summit for Democracy. Make no mistake, the West will cherry pick the participants in this summit. It will also set an agenda that is unlikely to meet any opposition from the participants of its choosing. There has been talk of democracy-exporting countries undertaking “enhanced commitments” to ensure universal adherence to “democratic standards” and devising mechanisms for controlling these processes.

The revitalised Anglo-American Atlantic Charter approved by Joseph Biden and Boris Johnson on June 10, 2021 on the sidelines of the G7 Summit is also worth noting. It was cast as an updated version of the 1941 document signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill under the same title. At the time, it played an important role in shaping the contours of the post-war world order.

However, neither Washington, nor London mentioned an essential historical fact: eighty years ago, the USSR and a number of European governments in exile joined the 1941 charter, paving the way to making it one of the conceptual pillars of the Anti-Hitler Coalition and one of the legal blueprints of the UN Charter.

By the same token, the New Atlantic Charter has been designed as a starting point for building a new world order, but guided solely by Western “rules.” Its provisions are ideologically tainted. They seek to widen the gap between the so-called liberal democracies and all other nations, as well as legitimise the rules-based order. The new charter fails to mention the UN or the OSCE, while stating without any reservations the adherence by the Western nations to their commitments as NATO members, viewed de facto as the only legitimate decision-making centre (at least this is how former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen described NATO’s role). It is clear that the same philosophy will guide the preparations for the Summit for Democracy.

Labelled as “authoritarian powers,” Russia and China have been designated as the main obstacles to delivering on the agenda set out at the June summits. From a general perspective, they face two groups of grievances, loosely defined as external and internal. In terms of international affairs, Beijing is accused of being too assertive in pursuing its economic interests (the Belt and Road initiative), as well as expanding its military and, in general, technological might with a view to increasing its influence. Russia stands accused of adopting an “aggressive posture” in a number of regions. This is the way they treat Moscow’s policy aimed at countering ultra-radical and neo-Nazi aspirations in its immediate neighbourhood, where the rights of Russians, as well as other ethnic minorities, are being suppressed, and the Russian language, education and culture rooted out. They also dislike the fact than Moscow stands up for countries that became victims to Western gambles, were attacked by international terrorists and risked losing their statehood, as was the case with Syria.

Still, the West reserved its biggest words to the inner workings of the “non-democratic” countries and its commitment to reshape them to fit into the Western mould. This entails bringing society in compliance with the vision of democracy as preached by Washington and Brussels. This lies at the root of the demands that Moscow and Beijing, as well as all others, follow the Western prescriptions on human rights, civil society, opposition treatment, the media, governance and the interaction between the branches of power. While proclaiming the “right” to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries for the sake of promoting democracy as it understands it, the West instantly loses all interest when we raise the prospect of making international relations more democratic, including renouncing arrogant behaviour and committing to abide by the universally recognised tenets of international law instead of “rules.” By expanding sanctions and other illegitimate coercive measures against sovereign states, the West promotes totalitarian rule in global affairs, assuming an imperial, neo-colonial stance in its relations with third countries. They are asked to adopt the democratic rule under the model of the Western choosing, and forget about democracy in international affairs, since someone will be deciding everything for them. All that is asked of these third countries is to keep quiet, or face reprisals.

Clearheaded politicians in Europe and America realise that this uncompromising policy leads nowhere, and are beginning to think pragmatically, albeit out of public view, recognising that the world has more than just one civilisation. They are beginning to recognise that Russia, China and other major powers have a history that dates back a thousand years, and have their own traditions, values and way of life. Attempts to decide whose values are better, and whose are worse, seem pointless. Instead, the West must simply recognise that there are other ways to govern that may be different from the Western approaches, and accept and respect this as a given. No country is immune to human rights issues, so why all this high-browed hubris? Why do the Western countries assume that they can deal with these issues on their own, since they are democracies, while others have yet to reach this level, and are in need of assistance that the West will generously provide.

International relations are going through fundamental shifts that affect everyone without exception. Trying to predict where it will take us is impossible. Still, there is a question: messianic aspirations apart, what is the most effective form of government for coping with and removing threats that transcend borders and affect all people, no matter where they live? Political scientists are beginning to compare the available toolboxes used by the so-called liberal democracies and by “autocratic regimes.” In this context, it is telling that the term “autocratic democracy” has been suggested, even if timidly.

These are useful considerations, and serious-minded politicians who are currently in power, among others, must take heed. Thinking and scrutinising what is going on around us has never hurt anyone. The multipolar world is becoming reality. Attempts to ignore this reality by asserting oneself as the only legitimate decision-making centre will hardly bring about solutions to real, rather than farfetched challenges. Instead, what is needed is mutually respectful dialogue involving the leading powers and with due regard for the interests of all other members of the international community. This implies an unconditional commitment to abide by the universally accepted norms and principles of international law, including respecting the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their domestic affairs, peaceful resolution of conflict, and the right to self-determination.

Taken as a whole, the historical West dominated the world for five hundred years. However, there is no doubt that it now sees that this era is coming to a close, while clinging to the status it used to enjoy, and putting artificial brakes on the objective process consisting in the emergence of a polycentric world. This brought about an attempt to provide a conceptual underpinning to the new vision of multilateralism. For example, France and Germany tried to promote “effective multilateralism,” rooted in the EU ideals and actions, and serving as a model to everyone else, rather than promoting UN’s inclusive multilateralism.

By imposing the concept of a rules-based order, the West seeks to shift the conversation on key issues to the platforms of its liking, where no dissident voices can be herd. This is how like-minded groups and various “appeals” emerge. This is about coordinating prescriptions and then making everyone else follow them. Examples include an "appeal for trust and security in cyberspace”, “the humanitarian appeal for action”, and a "global partnership to protect media freedom." Each of these platforms brings together only several dozen countries, which is far from a majority, as far as the international community is concerned. The UN system offers inclusive negotiations platforms on all of the abovementioned subjects. Understandably, this gives rise to alternative points of view that have to be taken into consideration in search of a compromise, but all the West wants is to impose its own rules.

At the same time, the EU develops dedicated horizontal sanctions regimes for each of its “like-minded groups,” of course, without looking back at the UN Charter. This is how it works: those who join these “appeals” or “partnerships” decide among themselves who violates their requirements in a given sphere, and the European Union imposes sanctions on those at fault. What a convenient method. They can indict and punish all by themselves without ever needing to turn to the UN Security Council. They even came up with a rationale to this effect: since we have an alliance of the most effective multilateralists, we can teach others to master these best practices. To those who believe this to be undemocratic or at odds with a vision of genuine multilateralism, President of France Emmanuel Macron offered an explanation in his remarks on May 11, 2021: multilateralism does not mean necessity to strike unanimity, and the position of those "who do not wish to continue moving forward must not be able to stop ... an ambitious avant-garde" of the world community.

Make no mistake: there is nothing wrong with the rules per se. On the contrary, the UN Charter is a set of rules, but these rules were approved by all countries of the world, rather than by a closed group at a cosy get-together.

An interesting detail: in Russian, the words “law” and “rule” share a single root. To us, a rule that is genuine and just is inseparable from the law. This is not the case for Western languages. For instance, in English, the words “law” and “rule” do not share any resemblance. See the difference? “Rule” is not so much about the law, in the sense of generally accepted laws, as it is about the decisions taken by the one who rules or governs. It is also worth noting that “rule” shares a single root with “ruler,” with the latter’s meanings including the commonplace device for measuring and drawing straight lines. It can be inferred that through its concept of “rules” the West seeks to align everyone around its vision or apply the same yardstick to everybody, so that everyone falls into a single file.

While reflecting on linguistics, worldview, sentiment, and the way they vary from one nation or culture to another, it is worth recollecting how the West has been justifying NATO’s unreserved eastward expansion towards the Russian border. When we point to the assurances provided to the Soviet Union that this would not happen, we hear that these were merely spoken promises, and there were no documents signed to this effect. There is a centuries-old tradition in Russia of making handshake deals without signing anything and holding one’s word as sacrosanct, but it seems unlikely to ever take hold in the West.

Efforts to replace international law by Western “rules” include an immanently dangerous policy of revising the history and outcomes of the Second World War and the Nuremberg trials verdicts as the foundation of today’s world order. The West refuses to support a Russia-sponsored UN resolution proclaiming that glorifying Nazism is unacceptable, and rejects our proposals to discuss the demolition of monuments to those who liberated Europe. They also want to condemn to oblivion momentous post-war developments, such as the 1960 UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, initiated by our country. The former colonial powers seek to efface this memory by replacing it with hastily concocted rituals like taking a knee ahead of sports competitions, in order to divert attention from their historical responsibility for colonial-era crimes.

The rules-based order is the embodiment of double standards. The right to self-determination is recognised as an absolute “rule” whenever it can be used to an advantage. This applies to the Malvinas Islands, or the Falklands, some 12,000 kilometres from Great Britain, to the remote former colonial territories Paris and London retain despite multiple UN resolutions and rulings by the International Court of Justice, as well as Kosovo, which obtained its “independence” in violation of a UN Security Council resolution. However, if self-determination runs counter to the Western geopolitical interests, as it happened when the people of Crimea voted for reunification with Russia, this principle is cast aside, while condemning the free choice made by the people and punishing them with sanctions.

Apart from encroaching on international law, the “rules” concept also manifests itself in attempts to encroach on the very human nature. In a number of Western countries, students learn at school that Jesus Christ was bisexual. Attempts by reasonable politicians to shield the younger generation from aggressive LGBT propaganda are met with bellicose protests from the “enlightened Europe.” All world religions, the genetic code of the planet’s key civilisations, are under attack. The United States is at the forefront of state interference in church affairs, openly seeking to drive a wedge into the Orthodox world, whose values are viewed as a powerful spiritual obstacle for the liberal concept of boundless permissiveness.

The insistence and even stubbornness demonstrated by the West in imposing its “rules” are striking. Of course, domestic politics is a factor, with the need to show voters how tough your foreign policy can get when dealing with “autocratic foes” during every electoral cycle, which happen every two years in the United States.

Still, it was also the West that coined the “liberty, equality, fraternity” motto. I do not know whether the term “fraternity” is politically correct in today’s Europe from a “gender perspective,” but there were no attempts to encroach on equality so far. As mentioned above, while preaching equality and democracy in their countries and demanding that other follow its lead, the West refuses to discuss ways to ensure equality and democracy in international affairs.

This approach is clearly at odds with the ideals of freedom. The veil of its superiority conceals weakness and the fear of engaging in a frank conversation not only with yes-men and those eager to fall in line, but also with opponents with different beliefs and values, not neo-liberal or neo-conservative ones, but those learned at mother’s knee, inherited from many past generations, traditions and beliefs.

It is much harder to accept the diversity and competition of ideas in the development of the world than to invent prescriptions for all of humanity within a narrow circle of the like-minded, free from any disputes on matters of principle, which makes the emergence of truth all but impossible. However, universal platforms can produce agreements that are much more solid, sustainable, and can be subject to objective verification.

This immutable truth struggles to make it through to the Western elites, consumed as they are with the exceptionalism complex. As I mentioned earlier in this article, right after the talks between Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden, EU and NATO officials rushed to announce that nothing has changed in the way they treat Russia. Moreover, they are ready to see their relations with Moscow deteriorate further, they claimed.

Moreover, it is an aggressive Russophobic minority that increasingly sets the EU’s policy, as confirmed by the EU Summit in Brussels on June 24 and 25, 2021, where the future of relations with Russia was on the agenda. The idea voiced by Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron to hold a meeting with Vladimir Putin was killed before it saw the light of day. Observers noted that the Russia-US Summit in Geneva was tantamount to a go-ahead by the United States to have this meeting, but the Baltic states, siding with Poland, cut short this “uncoordinated” attempt by Berlin and Paris, while the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry summoned the German and French ambassadors to explain their governments’ actions. What came out of the debates at the Brussels summit was an instruction to the European Commission and the European Union External Action Service to devise new sanctions against Moscow without referring to any specific “sins,” just in case. No doubt they will come up with something, should the need arise.

Neither NATO, nor the EU intend to divert from their policy of subjugating other regions of the world, proclaiming a self-designated global messianic mission. The North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation is seeking to proactively contribute to America’s strategy for the Indo-Pacific Region, clearly targeted at containing China, and undermining ASEAN’s role in its decades-long efforts to build an inclusive cooperation architecture for Asia-Pacific. In turn, the European Union drafts programmes to “embrace” geopolitical spaces in its neighbourhood and beyond, without coordinating these initiatives even with the invited countries. This is what the Eastern Partnership, as well as a recent programme approved by Brussels for Central Asia, are all about. There is a fundamental difference between these approaches and the ones guiding integration processes with Russia’s involvement: the CIS, the CSTO, EurAsEC and the SCO, which seek to develop relations with external partners exclusively on the basis of parity and mutual agreement.

With its contemptuous attitude towards other members of the international community, the West finds itself on the wrong side of history.

Serious, self-respecting countries will never tolerate attempts to talk to them through ultimatums and will discuss any issues only on an equal footing.

As for Russia, it is high time that everyone understands that we have drawn a definitive line under any attempts to play a one-way game with us. All the mantras we hear from the Western capitals on their readiness to put their relations with Moscow back on track, as long as it repents and changes its tack, are meaningless. Still, many persist, as if by inertia, in presenting us with unilateral demands, which does little, if any, credit to how realistic they are.

The policy of having the Russian Federation develop on its own, independently and protecting national interests, while remaining open to reaching agreements with foreign partners on an equal basis, has long been at the core of all its position papers on foreign policy, national security and defence. However, judging by the practical steps taken over the recent years by the West, they probably thought that Russia did not really mean what it preached, as if it did not intend to follow through on these principles. This includes the hysterical response to Moscow’s efforts to stand up for the rights of Russians in the aftermath of the bloody 2014 government coup in Ukraine, supported by the United States, NATO and the EU. They thought that if they applied some more pressure on the elites and targeted their interests, while expanding personal, financial and other sectoral sanctions, Moscow would come to its senses and realise that it would face mounting challenges on its development path, as long as it did not “change its behaviour,” which implies obeying the West. Even when Russia made it clear that we view this policy by the United States and Europe as a new reality and will proceed on economic and other matters from the premise that we cannot depend on unreliable partners, the West persisted in believing that, at the end of the day, Moscow “will come to its senses” and will make the required concessions for the sake of financial reward. Let me emphasise what President Vladimir Putin has said on multiple occasions: there have been no unilateral concessions since the late 1990s and there never will be. If you want to work with us, recover lost profits and business reputations, let us sit down and agree on ways we can meet each other half way in order to find fair solutions and compromises.

It is essential that the West understands that this is a firmly ingrained worldview among the people of Russia, reflecting the attitude of the overwhelming majority here. The “irreconcilable” opponents of the Russian government who have placed their stakes on the West and believe that all Russia’s woes come from its anti-Western stance advocate unilateral concessions for the sake of seeing the sanctions lifted and receiving hypothetical financial gains. But they are totally marginal in Russian society. During his June 16, 2021 news conference in Geneva, Vladimir Putin made it abundantly clear what the West is after when it supports these marginal forces.

These are disruptive efforts as far as history is concerned, while Russians have always demonstrated maturity, a sense of self-respect, dignity and national pride, and the ability to think independently, especially during hard times, while remaining open to the rest of the world, but only on an equal, mutually beneficial footing. Once we put the confusion and mayhem of the 1990s behind us, these values became the bedrock of Russia’s foreign policy concept in the 21st century. The people of Russia can decide on how they view the actions by their government without getting any prompts from abroad.

As to the question on how to proceed on the international stage, there is no doubt that leaders will always play an important role, but they have to reaffirm their authority, offer new ideas and lead by conviction, not ultimatums. The Group of Twenty, among others, is a natural platform for working out mutually acceptable agreements. It brings together the leading economies, young and old, including the G7, as well as the BRICS and its like-minded countries. Russia’s initiative to form a Greater Eurasian Partnership by coordinating the efforts of countries and organisations across the continent holds a powerful consolidating potential. Seeking to facilitate an honest conversation on the key global stability matters, President Vladimir Putin suggested convening a summit of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council that have special responsibility for maintaining international peace and stability on the planet.

Efforts to bring more democracy to international relations and affirm a polycentric world order include reforming the UN Security Council by strengthening it with Asian, African and Latin American countries, and ending the anomaly with the excessive representation of the West in the UN’s main body.

Regardless of any ambitions and threats, our country remains committed to a sovereign and independent foreign policy, while also ready to offer a unifying agenda in international affairs with due account for the cultural and civilisational diversity in today’s world. Confrontation is not our choice, no matter the rationale. On June 22, 2021, Vladimir Putin published an article “Being Open, Despite the Past,” in which he emphasised: “We simply cannot afford to carry the burden of past misunderstandings, hard feelings, conflicts, and mistakes.” He also discussed the need to ensure security without dividing lines, a common space for equitable cooperation and inclusive development. This approach hinges on Russia’s thousand-year history and is fully consistent with the current stage in its development. We will persist in promoting the emergence of an international relations culture based on the supreme values of justice and enabling all countries, large and small, to develop in peace and freedom. We will always remain open to honest dialogue with anyone who demonstrates a reciprocal readiness to find a balance of interests firmly rooted in international law. These are the rules we adhere to.

I have written many posts relating to the fact that we live in a finite world. At some point, our ability to extract resources becomes constrained. At the same time, population keeps increasing. The usual outcome when population is too high for resources is “overshoot and collapse.” But this is not a topic that the politicians or central bankers or oligarchs who attend the World Economic Forum dare to talk about.

Instead, world leaders find a different problem, namely climate change, to emphasize above other problems. Conveniently, climate change seems to have some of the same solutions as “running out of fossil fuels.” So, a person might think that an energy transition designed to try to fix climate change would work equally well to try to fix running out of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, this isn’t really the way it works.

In this post, I will lay out some of the issues involved.

[1] There are many different constraints that new energy sources need to conform to.

These are a few of the constraints I see:

• Should be inexpensive to produce
• Should work with the current portfolio of existing devices
• Should be available in the quantities required, in the timeframe needed
• Should not pollute the environment, either when created or at the end of their lifetimes
• Should not add CO2 to the atmosphere
• Should not distort ecosystems
• Should be easily stored, or should be easily ramped up and down to precisely match energy timing needs
• Cannot overuse fresh water or scarce minerals
• Cannot require a new infrastructure of its own, unless the huge cost in terms of delayed timing and greater materials use is considered.

If an energy type is simply a small add-on to the existing system, perhaps a little deviation from the above list can be tolerated, but if there is any intent of scaling up the new energy type, all of these requirements must be met.

It is really the overall cost of the system that is important. Historically, the use of coal has helped keep the overall cost of the system down. Substitutes need to be developed considering the overall needs and cost of the system.

The reason why the overall cost of the system is important is because countries with high-cost energy systems will have a difficult time competing in a world market since energy costs are an important part of the cost of producing goods and services. For example, the cost of operating a cruise ship depends, to a significant extent, on the cost of the fuel it uses.

In theory, energy types that work with different devices (say, electric cars and trucks instead of those operated by internal combustion engines) can be used, but a long delay can be expected before a material shift in overall energy usage occurs. Furthermore, a huge ramp up in the total use of materials for production may be required. The system cannot work if the total cost is too high, or if the materials are not really available, or if the timing is too slow.

[2] The major thing that makes an economy grow is an ever increasing supply of inexpensive-to-produce energy products.

Food is an energy product. Let’s think of what happens when agriculture is mechanized, typically using devices that are made and operated using coal and oil. The cost of producing food drops substantially. Instead of spending, for example, 50% of a person’s wages on food, the percentage can gradually drop down to 20% of wages, and then to 10% of wages for food, and eventually even, say, to 2% of wages for food.

As spending on food falls, opportunity for other spending arises, even with wages remaining relatively level. With lower food expenditures, a person can spend more on books (made with energy products), or personal transportation (such as a vehicle), or entertainment (also made possible by energy products). Strangely enough, in order for an economy to grow, essential items need to become an ever decreasing share of everyone’s budget, so that citizens have sufficient left-over income available for more optional items.

It is the use of tools, made and operated with inexpensive energy products of the right types, that leverages human labor so that workers can produce more food in a given period of time. This same approach also makes many other goods and services available.

In general, the less expensive an energy product is, the more helpful it will be to an economy. A country operating with an inexpensive mix of energy products will tend to be more competitive in the world market than one with a high-cost mix of energy products. Oil tends to be expensive; coal tends to be inexpensive. This is a major reason why, in recent years, countries using a lot of coal in their energy mix (such as China and India) have been able to grow their economies much more rapidly than those countries relying heavily on oil in their energy mixes.

[3] If energy products are becoming more expensive to produce, or their production is not growing very rapidly, there are temporary workarounds that can hide this problem for quite a number of years.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, world coal and oil consumption were growing rapidly. Natural gas, hydroelectric and (a little) nuclear were added, as well. Cost of production remained low. For example, the price of oil, converted to today’s dollar value, was less than $20 per barrel.

Once the idyllic 1950s and 1960s passed, it was necessary to hide the problems associated with the rising cost of production using several approaches:

• Increasing use of debt – really a promise of future goods and services made with energy
• Lower interest rates – permits increasing debt to be less of a financial burden
• Increasing use of technology – to improve efficiency in energy usage
• Growing use of globalization – to make use of other countries’ cheaper energy mix and lower cost of labor

After 50+ years, we seem to be reaching limits with respect to all of these techniques:

• Debt levels are excessive
• Interest rates are very low, even below zero
• Increasing use of technology as well as globalization have led to greater and greater wage disparity; many low level jobs have been eliminated completely
• Globalization has reached its limits; China has reached a situation in which its coal supply is no longer growing

[4] The issue that most people fail to grasp is the fact that with depletion, the cost of producing energy products tends to rise, but the selling prices of these energy products do not rise enough to keep up with the rising cost of depletion.

As a result, production of energy products tends to fall because production becomes unprofitable.

As we get further and further away from the ideal situation (oil less than $20 per barrel and rising in quantity each year), an increasing number of problems crop up:

• Both oil/gas companies and coal companies become less profitable.
• With lower energy company profits, governments can collect less taxes from these companies.
• As old wells and mines deplete, the cost of reinvestment becomes more of a burden. Eventually, new investment is cut back to the point that production begins to fall.
• With less growth in energy consumption, productivity growth tends to lag. This happens because energy is required to mechanize or computerize processes.
• Wage disparity tends to grow; workers become increasingly unhappy with their governments.

[5] Authorities with an incorrect understanding of why and how energy supplies fall have assumed that far more fossil fuels would be available than is actually the case. They have also assumed that relatively high prices for alternatives would be acceptable.

In 2012, Jorgen Randers prepared a forecast for the next 40 years for The Club of Rome, in the form of a book, 2052, with associated data. Looking at the data, we see that Randers forecast that world coal consumption would grow by 28% between 2010 and 2020. In fact, world coal consumption grew by 0% in that period. (This latter forecast is based on BP coal consumption estimates for 2010 and 2019 from BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2020, adjusted for the 2019 to 2020 period change using IEA’s estimate from its Global Energy Review 2021.)

It is very easy to assume that high estimates of coal resources in the ground will lead to high quantities of actual coal extracted and burned. The world’s experience between 2010 and 2020 shows that it doesn’t necessarily work out that way in practice. In order for coal consumption to grow, the delivered price of coal needs to stay low enough for customers to be able to afford its use in the end products it provides. Much of the supposed coal that is available is far from population centers. Some of it is even under the North Sea. The extraction and delivery costs become far too high, but this is not taken into account in resource estimates.

Forecasts of future natural gas availability suffer from the same tendency towards over-estimation. Randers estimated that world gas consumption would grow by 40% between 2010 and 2020, when the actual increase was 22%. Other authorities make similar overestimates of future fuel use, assuming that “of course,” prices will stay high enough to enable extraction. Most energy consumption is well-buried in goods and services we buy, such as the cost of a vehicle or the cost of heating a home. If we cannot afford the vehicle, we don’t buy it; if the cost of heating a family’s home rises too high, thrifty families will turn down the thermostat.

Oil prices, even with the recent run-up in prices, are under $75 per barrel. I have estimated that for profitable oil production (including adequate funds for high-cost reinvestment and sufficient taxes for governments), oil prices need to be over $120 per barrel. It is the lack of profitability that has caused the recent drop in production. These profitability problems can be expected to lead to more production declines in the future.

With this low-price problem, fossil fuel estimates used in climate model scenarios are almost certainly overstated. This bias would be expected to lead to overstated estimates of future climate change.

The misbelief that energy prices will always rise to cover higher costs of production also leads to the belief that relatively high-cost alternatives to fossil fuels would be acceptable.

[6] Our need for additional energy supplies of the right kinds is extremely high right now. We cannot wait for a long transition. Even 30 years is too long.

We saw in section [3] that the workarounds for a lack of growing energy supply, such as higher debt and lower interest rates, are reaching limits. Furthermore, prices have been unacceptably low for oil producers for several years. Not too surprisingly, oil production has started to decline:

[

](https://i2.wp.com/ourfiniteworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/World-Crude-Oil-Production-EIA-2020.png?ssl=1)

Figure 1 – World production of crude oil and condensate, based on data of the US Energy Information Administration

What is really needed is sufficient energy of the right types for the world’s growing population. Thus, it is important to look at energy consumption on a per capita basis. Figure 2 shows energy production per capita for three groupings:

• Tier 1: Oil and Coal
• Tier 2: Natural Gas, Nuclear, and Hydroelectric
• Tier 3: Other Renewables, including Intermittent Wind and Solar

[

](https://i1.wp.com/ourfiniteworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/World-per-capita-energy-consumption-by-tier.png?ssl=1)

Figure 2 World per capita energy consumption by Tier. Amounts through 2019 based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2020. Changes for 2020 based on estimates provided by IEA Global Energy Review 2021.

Figure 2 shows that the biggest drop is in Tier 1: Coal and Oil. In many ways, coal and oil are foundational types of energy for the economy because they are relatively easy to transport and store. Oil is important because it is used in operating agricultural machinery, road repair machinery, and vehicles of all types, including ships and airplanes. Coal is important partly because of its low cost, helping paychecks to stretch further for finished goods and services. Coal is used in many ways, including electricity production and making steel and concrete. We use coal and oil to keep electricity transmission lines repaired.

Figure 2 shows that Tier 2 energy consumption per capita was growing rapidly in the 1965 to 1990 period, but its growth has slowed in recent years.

The Green Energy sources in Tier 3 have been growing rapidly from a low base, but their output is still tiny compared to the overall output that would be required if they were to substitute for energy from both Tier 1 and Tier 2 sources. They clearly cannot by themselves power today’s economy.

It is very difficult to imagine any of the Tier 2 and Tier 3 energy sources being able to grow without substantial assistance from coal and oil. All of today’s Tier 2 and Tier 3 energy sources depend on coal and oil at many points in the chain of their production, distribution, operation, and eventual recycling. If we ever get to Tier 4 energy sources (such as fusion or space solar), I would expect that they too will need oil and/or coal in their production, transport and distribution, unless there is an incredibly long transition, and a huge change in energy infrastructure.

[7] It is easy for energy researchers to set their sights too low.

[a] We need to be looking at the extremely low energy cost structure of the 1950s and 1960s as a model, not some far higher cost structure.

We have been hiding the world’s energy problems for years behind rising debt and falling interest rates. With very high debt levels and very low interest rates, it is becoming less feasible to stimulate the economy using these approaches. We really need very inexpensive energy products. These energy products need to provide a full range of services required by the economy, not simply intermittent electricity.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the ratio of Energy Earned to Energy Investment was likely in the 50:1 range for many energy products. Energy products were very profitable; they could be highly taxed. The alternative energy products we develop today need to have similar characteristics if they truly are to play an important role in the economy.

[b] A recent study says that greenhouse gas emissions related to the food system account for one-third of the anthropogenic global warming gas total. A way to grow sufficient food is clearly needed.

We clearly cannot grow food using intermittent electricity. Farming is not an easily electrified endeavor. If we do not have an alternative, the coal and oil that we are using now in agriculture really needs to continue, even if it requires subsidies.

[c] Hydroelectric electricity looks like a good energy source, but in practice it has many deficiencies.

Some of the hydroelectric dams now in place are over 100 years old. This is nearing the lifetime of the concrete in the dams. Considerable maintenance and repair (indirectly using coal and oil) are likely to be needed if these dams are to continue to be used.

The water available to provide hydroelectric power tends to vary greatly over time. Figure 3 shows California’s hydro electricity generation by month.

[

](https://i2.wp.com/ourfiniteworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Californa-Hydroelectric-Generation-by-Month.png?ssl=1)

Figure 3. California hydroelectric energy production by month, based on data of the US Energy Information Administration.

Thus, as a practical matter, hydroelectric energy needs to be balanced with fossil fuels to provide energy which can be used to power a factory or heat a home in winter. Battery storage would never be sufficient. There are too many gaps, lasting months at a time.

If hydroelectric energy is used in a tropical area with dry and wet seasons, the result would be even more extreme. A poor country with a new hydroelectric power plant may find the output of the plant difficult to use. The electricity can only be used for very optional activities, such as bitcoin mining, or charging up small batteries for lights and phones.

Any new hydroelectric dam runs the risk of taking away the water someone else was depending upon for irrigation or for their own electricity generation. A war could result.

[d] Current approaches for preventing deforestation mostly seem to be shifting deforestation from high income countries to low income countries. In total, deforestation is getting worse rather than better.

[

](https://i1.wp.com/ourfiniteworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Forest-Area-Percentage-by-Income-Group.png?ssl=1)

Figure 4. Forest area percentage of land area, by income group, based on data of the World Bank.

Figure 4 shows that deforestation is getting rapidly worse in Low Income countries with today’s policies. There is also a less pronounced trend toward deforestation in Middle Income countries. It is only in High Income countries that land areas are becoming more forested. In total (not shown), the forested area for the world as a whole falls, year after year.

Also, even when replanting is done, the new forests do not have the same characteristics as those made by natural ecosystems. They cannot house as many different species as natural ecosystems. They are likely to be less resistant to problems like insect infestations and forest fires. They are not true substitutes for the forest ecosystems that nature creates.

[e] The way intermittent wind and solar have been added to the electric grid vastly overpays these providers, relative to the value they add to the system. Furthermore, the subsidies for intermittent renewables tend to drive out more stable producers, degrading the overall condition of the grid.

If wind and solar are to be used, payments for the electricity they provide need to be scaled back to reflect the true value that they add to the overall system. In general, this corresponds to the savings in fossil fuel purchases that electricity providers need to make. This will be a small amount, perhaps 2 cents per kilowatt hour. Even this small amount, in theory, might be reduced to reflect the greater electricity transmission costs associated with these intermittent sources.

We note that China is making a major step in the direction of reducing subsidies for wind and solar. It has already dramatically cut its subsidies for wind energy; new subsidy cuts for solar energy will become effective August 1, 2021.

A major concern is the distorting impact that current pricing approaches for wind and solar have on the overall electrical system. Often, these approaches produce very low, or negative, wholesale prices for other providers. Nuclear providers are especially harmed by such practices. Nuclear is, of course, a low CO2 electricity provider.

It seems to me that in each part of the world, some utility-type provider needs to be analyzing what the overall funding of the electrical system needs to be. Bills to individuals and businesses need to reflect these actual expected costs. This approach might avoid the artificially low rates that the current pricing system often generates. If adequate funding can be achieved, perhaps some of the corner cutting that leads to electrical outages, such as recently encountered in California and Texas, might be avoided.

[8] When I look at the requirements for a successful energy transition and the obstacles we are up against, it is hard for me to see that any of the current approaches can be successful.

Unfortunately, it is hard for me to see how intermittent electricity can save the world economy, or even make a dent in our problems. We have searched for a very long time, but haven’t yet found solutions truly worth ramping up. Perhaps a new “Tier 4 approach” might be helpful, but such solutions seem likely to come too late.

What follows is the seventh and final instalment of When Sons Become Daughters, a Quillette series that explores how parents react when a son announces he wants to be a girl—and explains why so many of these mothers and fathers believe they can’t discuss their fears and concerns with their own children, therapists, doctors, friends, and relatives. To find out more about how the author collected and reported information, please refer to his introductory essay in this series.

“What are your preferred pronouns?” I ask Rene Jax, somewhat in jest. The answer: “Your Imperial Majesty. Look, you call me what you want. I don’t care. My friends say I’m half this and half that.” Rene (a real name, unlike the pseudonyms I’ve generally been using to describe others) is a 60-year-old male-to-female post-operative transsexual who looks both like a woman (hair, clothing, style of glasses) and a man (hands, Adam’s apple, jawline). My question felt farcical to both of us because Rene has written openly about the pathway that led to transition—and then to regret.

I decide on “he,” since the more we talk, the more I become convinced that our points of agreement and dispute are grounded in the common experience of male sexuality. In some ways, it’s a coin toss. But he likes to tease me, and we’re becoming friends, so I think we can both live with the potential impoliteness of male pronouns.

Rene’s prolific output has included not only autobiographical fare, but also polemics on a wide array of subjects. Perhaps his most well-known work is Don’t Get on the Plane, a 2017 book that implores those toying with the idea of sex reassignment to accept the fundamentals of their biology. (The subtitle is “Why a sex change will ruin your life.”)

Rene even extends his mantra of biological determinism to homosexuality. (He tells me I should find myself a nice girl, which I find a little rude given that he hasn’t even met the more-than-nice guy I’ve already found.) On plenty of issues, we disagree, often profoundly. But if anything, I find our exchanges invigorating: we can both engage in these conceptual debates without taking offence, which is refreshing in an era of misgendering and hate speech. Rene also happens to be a gold mine of knowledge on transgenderism, having spoken to (by his count) more than 2,000 parents whose children were planning to take hormones and have surgery.

In progressive circles—and even among many doctors—it’s become taboo to mention the negative medical consequences of sex reassignment. American detransitioner Sydney Wright puts the situation in stark terms: “I tried my best to find books that discussed the issue critically and offered opposing views, but all I found were pro-transgender authors. That left me with the obvious conclusion: If all the ‘experts’ were in favor of transition, why not do it?” (A detransitioner is someone who reverses his or her former transgender identification or transition.)

Leigh, the female detransitioner who educated me on trans anime culture (as discussed in a previous essay in this series), told me that the clinicians who treat young people too often say little to nothing about the future hurdles they might encounter. In her case, she was told that a synthetic phallus is indistinguishable from its organic counterpart. Many interviewee parents told me that having a candid discussion with their sons regarding the risks and downsides associated with transition is almost impossible; as the sons’ baseline knowledge tends to come from Internet activists who prime teenagers to regard any form of hesitation or caution as thinly disguised transphobia.

When I ask Rene about what these risks entail, he does not trade in euphemisms. Transsexuals who have undergone vaginoplasty (the creation of an artificial vagina) often suffer fistula, the rupture of the colon. This can be triggered by vigorous sex, or simply by a bowel movement, and results in fecal matter being discharged via the neo-vagina. It is a serious medical problem that sometimes is discussed in the media in the context of obstetric fistulas, which typically afflict women in extremely poor areas of Africa and Asia; but whose gruesome details are very much off-message from the glamorous, made-to-order bodies that young men think about when they imagine their transition. How many of them would hesitate if they knew they might defecate—in extraordinary pain—from their neo-vaginas during sex?

The neo-vagina is made from the inverted skin of the penis, presenting another sexual problem: Unless the young man has been especially blessed by nature, there probably won’t be enough material to create an orifice with enough depth to accommodate the average man, making sex painful, even in the absence of a fistula. The neo-vagina lacks elasticity. Nor can transsexuals orgasm, unless the word “orgasm” is defined very abstractly as a general wave of sexual pleasure. Without the sense of release that accompanies ejaculation, the act of coitus can be not only agonizing but unsatisfying.

Then there’s the issue of breasts, which typically develop following the introduction of estrogen into a transitioner’s body. But they often don’t look like normal female breasts, and instead seem more like large swellings around the nipples. They also tend to be in the wrong place for breasts, being closer to the edges of the torso in men than they would be in women. (“They look okay in a sweater,” says Rene. “Not so much without one.”) And so many MtF (male-to-female) transsexuals then go on to get silicone implants, which come with their own costs and medical risks. Overall, the transsexual body tends to require constant attention, updates, and corrections. That’s why Rene wrote his book. “Why increase the chances of your body failing?” he asks.

In many—perhaps most—cases, it should be said, trans-identifying young men don’t have any interest in interfering with anything below the waistline. (An example here is Ellen’s son, Sam, whom I discussed way back in part two of this series.) But it isn’t just surgery that puts the body at risk. “I was speaking at an event with three male-to-females,” Rene recounts. “Every single one of us had a retina come loose at some point or another. It can’t be a coincidence.” He explains that estrogen doesn’t protect the male body from decay in the same way as it protects the female body. “It’s like putting gasoline in a diesel tank,” is his analogy.

Rene is now almost entirely blind in his left eye. He keeps an eyepatch in the glovebox of his car, as the blurry images from his left side are more a distraction than anything else. His retina has detached no fewer than five times; and each time, he’s needed a general anaesthetic to repair it. The process is invasive, and the period of recuperation painful. This isn’t an obvious consequence of reassignment (as opposed to, say, infertility). And it’s important to note that there haven’t yet been any long-range studies on the phenomenon, so the link I am reporting here is strictly anecdotal. But what’s notable is that 20- and 30-something influencers on YouTube don’t even seem to want more medical information. They aren’t thinking about fistulas or fading vision. After all, the most popular figures are the ones living through their early period of euphoric transition into exciting new, female forms. And in any case, young people (trans or not) tend to behave as though they’ll live forever.

Rene is scathing about the contradictions and hypocrisies at play here. “Half of these parents won’t even let their kids eat chickens reared on hormones,” he says. “But they’re seriously considering them for their kids.” He points out the risks of hypertension, which also happens to be a serious comorbidity factor when it comes to COVID-19. “You have to remember,” he says, “We’re dealing with [one of the rare] medical treatments that doesn’t try to return the body to its original state of health.” Cosmetic surgery is another exception, of course. But even in that case, the results are expected to be stable, and not to cause a lifetime of medical follow-up and pharmaceutical dependence.

Our conversation moves from the biological downsides to the social downsides, which, for Rene, are equally worrisome. The transsexual dating pool is vastly reduced; he believes that the resulting relationships are fragile, as they’re built on the knowledge that one of the two bodies is compromised. I find this point a bit bleak; but, as my interview with Menno showed (he was the 40-something gay Dutch man with the cheeky YouTube channel), many people just can’t find the physical form of the transsexual to be alluring, particularly once the underwear is off.

Rene urges me to delve deeper into the social downsides he lists, including the elevated rates of prostitution among transsexuals. But I can only cover so much ground, and many parents are too concerned with the urgent medical risks associated with transition to turn their mind to a child’s later romantic and professional life. But whether the risks we’re discussing are medical or sociological, the same principle applies: candid guidance is in short supply.

This marks out transgenderism as an outlier. Elsewhere in the practice of medicine, there is an expectation that all data will be considered before a patient makes a life-altering decision. Young men questioning their gender are therefore trapped between two extremes: true transphobes who dismiss them as freaks and deviants, and those who are so eager to “affirm” their trans identity that they skip over the health consequences. Each of these two groups poses a risk to trans-identified youth, and each deserves to be held to account.

* * *

Many of the parents I’ve spoken to describe their children as though they were becoming members of a different species. Their sons are renaming themselves after fictional anime characters, and planning to remodel their bodies in acts of homage. The language of transgenderism is often starkly spiritual, suggesting that we are disembodied spirits whose relationship to one’s body is that of mere tenant. Puberty has become a countable noun—“I don’t want to be put through a puberty I don’t want”—as though it’s the soup option on a table d’hôte menu. “If you didn’t like male puberty, what makes you think you’re gonna like the female version?” one mother asked her son. She never got an answer.

Teenagers are being told that puberty is a time for them to make decisions about sex and gender, this at a time when they have none of the life experience that would be necessary to make such existential choices. The fixation on identity labels, coupled with the social isolation and sexual delay that often go along with distress about gender, sometimes results in paralysis. Gender-questioning males who are “hyper-ruminative” (as I described them in the sixth instalment) are often perpetually stuck in setup mode, defensive in regard to whatever tentative decisions they’ve made, but never quite decisive enough to get on with the actual business of living the life they say they want.

This brittleness and delicacy isn’t confined to trans-identifying children, but is a defining quality of this whole generation. And who can blame them for being fearful in the social-media age? A girl in Utah tweets out a picture of herself in a Chinese-style dress and faces hundreds of thousands of micro-acts of disapproval in response. A Scottish teenage lad meets a girl online—except that it turns out not to be a girl. It turns out to be an online blackmail gang, which threatens to release compromising videos of him performing sexual acts on camera, and so he throws himself off a bridge, to his death. Even those of us who are still in our 30s and 40s—hardly senior citizens—will find it almost impossible to imagine what kind of pressures these children face.

Many of the parents I interviewed did manage to bridge the divide, and had relationships with their children which are mostly healthy. When they’re not talking about gender, these parents get along with their children, who inspire and entertain them, and are often great sources of pride. But even in these cases, the parents still feel an underlying sense of anger and frustration. They can’t take on their kids’ schools, even when the schools go against their wishes. They don’t feel like they’ll be fairly treated if they talk to a local journalist covering the gender beat. When their workplaces go in for LGBT consciousness-raising sessions, they’re walking on eggshells, even though none can be described as homophobic (nor anything-phobic, for that matter). They feel that there’s not much point in contacting their political representatives. Aside from anything else, they don’t want a lecture.

This fear can have terrible and unexpected consequences. A Scottish detransitioner called Sinéad Watson has recently written about the effect of her journey on her mother. While Sinéad was going through her original reassignment process, her mother was deep in grief, yet couldn’t articulate this, being afraid that their relationship might deteriorate if she did so. So Sinéad’s mother put a brave face on it, supporting her daughter even as she was doing what she believed was the wrong thing. As Sinéad writes:

She was a grieving mother with nobody and nowhere to turn to, because her grief was painted as transphobic and hateful, when in fact it was the opposite. It was unconditional love for her daughter that forced her to support me and stay by my side even though it hurt her. Nobody ever asked her how she was. Nobody ever checked in to see how she was handling the loss of her youngest daughter. People just kept saying “good for her,” while she cried herself to sleep after looking at my baby pictures. My mum didn’t question or challenge me because she didn’t want to lose me. [But] the gender clinic had no such pressure. It was their job to question and challenge me—to evaluate my (clearly) poor mental health and treat me accordingly. Instead, they handed me HRT [hormone replacement therapy] and surgery … The parents of trans people receive so little support or compassion. It is not transphobic for you to grieve, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

There seems to be little point in blaming either parent or child in this situation. If Sinéad and her mother had been living in a culture where the prospect of such drastic medical changes could be discussed freely, the outcome for their family—and for Sinéad’s body—might have been radically different.

In an online study I conducted, 185 parents answered a range of questions about their children, all of whom had declared a new gender identity of some kind, such as “trans,” “non-binary,” or “gender fluid.” This was a self-selecting group, I should note, as these were all parents who were at least somewhat sceptical enough of the received wisdom in this area, and had taken steps to seek out web resources to help them to understand the phenomenon. But the results are worrying nonetheless. Only 18 percent of parents answered no when asked whether they believed their children saw sexual relations and romantic love as separate or even unrelated concepts. Nearly half attributed their children’s changes in identity, at least in part, to a desire to be part of a positive social movement. Nearly half suspected that their children were trying to get attention. Four-fifths thought that their children had been influenced by spending too much time online. Parents have been complaining about their kids’ lifestyle choices and political convictions since the dawn of time, of course. But rarely have such choices involved committing oneself to the possibility of sterility and a lifetime of medical therapies.

The findings are striking when it comes to differences between males and females. On one hand, there was no statistically significant difference between the sexes in regard to the influence that parents attributed to pornography, sexual abuse, or eating disorders. But the parents of sons were far more likely to describe their child’s dysphoria as being linked, in some way, to online gaming culture. More than one young man told his parents he wanted to be a woman so he wouldn’t end up wielding straight male privilege. Of all the parents of boys who participated in the survey, only half thought their sons actually believed they could really become a member of the opposite sex; and the boys who did believe that such a literal transition was possible were significantly more likely to have received an autism-spectrum diagnosis. Overall, more than 80 percent of boys’ parents reported that their sons were typical boys—in terms of gender norms—in their earlier years, displaying no particularly effeminate traits. Neuro-atypicality, emotional detachment, and fear of sexual development are common characteristics. But contrary to some of the more lurid examples of trans women discussed on social media, these are not sex-obsessed males, let alone budding predators. Just the opposite: they seem terrified of sex.

The typical hyper-ruminative gender-questioning boy, as psychotherapist Stella O’Malley and I call him, is smart, with communication and intellect out of proportion to his social skills. He’s excellent at mathematics in particular, and often in academic pursuits more generally, although this isn’t always reflected in grades. As noted above, he’s likely to have a diagnosis of autism, Asperger’s syndrome or ADHD. He’s sometimes irritated by certain types of clothing; by people yelling; by ticking clocks or rustling noises. As puberty progresses, his psychosexual development lags. He’s very imaginative, and able to construct an alter-ego with extraordinary levels of detail. His Internet usage is even higher than that of his peers, and his online activity causes him to spend even more time thinking about himself. He’s obsessed with anime, and especially anime-themed gaming. But he’s also interested in big questions: Who am I? What could I be? What’s right and what’s wrong? He has a mixed-sex peer group, and often one particularly influential female friend who is even more motivated by social justice and gender revisionism than he is. He seeks approval, not only from friends and online contacts, but also from schoolteachers, counsellors, and therapists. He seems scared of sexual activity and exploration, and sometimes even scared of romance. Maybe he’s been bullied. And he wants an explanation for why he doesn’t fit in, especially one that comes in a form that his friends and classmates will readily understand. Not all of these features are present in every case, of course. But the prototype I am describing will ring true for most of the parents I’ve spoken with, all of whom have come to believe that instantly affirmed sex reassignment is the wrong pathway for their sons.

I stated in my introductory essay, back in early April, that my role was that of a “storyteller.” But in the story I am telling, I am also something of a protagonist manqué: Like Menno, I believe I would have been tempted to follow this same transition pathway had I been born a few decades later than I was.

I had strongly dysphoric feelings in my teenage years, as a consequence of the trauma of parental bereavement. These feelings took well over a decade to process, and perhaps even closer to two. For many years, I could not look in a mirror (I still shave with my eyes closed, by habit). Had the option of quitting my own sex been available to me when I was 14 or 15, I would—in Stella’s words—“have swum across seven oceans” to seize it. As a young man, my misguided efforts to understand what I was suffering took me into the most lightless corners of the Internet, where I made myself the target of grooming at the hands of older, predatory males who encouraged my self-destructive urges, much like Natalie’s son Luke (whom I described in the fourth instalment).

Over the years, I have seen remarkably little effort undertaken by tech giants to stamp out this phenomenon (even as they have moved with lightning speed to censure anyone accused of misgendering). It’s depressing to watch detransitioners who have been exposed to grooming—as well as their parents—doggedly reporting social media account after social media account while billionaires kick back their heels and pronounce themselves LGBT “allies.” It’s equally depressing to hear the political Right blame parents for their intelligent kids’ foolish adventures in the wild west of the online world. These days, a child’s academic success is increasingly predicated on Internet access. Several of the parents I’ve discussed in this series have tried to limit their sons’ online presence. It rarely worked out. (And when it did, the required effort was Herculean.)

There is no doubt that my own experiences biased my approach to the subjects I have explored—though I also think I have been forthright and self-aware about the nature of those biases. In any case, a blindness to the dangers of online grooming is only one of the many unforeseen consequences of affirming all things “trans” on a no-questions-asked basis. It isn’t just predatory behaviour in Internet communities that gets papered over by the most militant trans-advocacy groups; but also depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and early-years trauma, not to mention the profits made by surgeons and hormone providers.

When people who once had dysphoria interact with trans-rights activists, we often are told that we are “jealous” that we didn’t have the “courage” to change sex. To be instructed that the dysphoric ideas that stalked us for years were actually correct all along is insulting, especially coming from strangers: Not only does it imply that the bodies and faces we have come to love are indeed the “wrong” bodies and faces; it also speaks to the spirit of ruthless narcissism that animates many of these activists. Yet it is to these individuals that our media often turns when it is time to “celebrate trans lives.”

If you know parents going through this, talk to them. More importantly, listen to them; provide them with an opportunity to articulate, in Diane’s words, their right to their own souls. If you know a teacher or a doctor or a counsellor or a therapist who feels bound by affirmation dogmas, encourage them to read this series of essays, or Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage, or any of the various excellent analyses that Quillette has made available to the public.

There is a middle ground between dismissing trans-identifying youths as “deviants” and celebrating invasive medical practices as though their consequences were trivial. I would urge everyone to help us reclaim this middle ground, a process that will involve putting aside differences of opinion about what is causing this surge in trans identification. Regardless of what one thinks about Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, autogynephilia or any other related issues, one thing is becoming clear about the way we are addressing transgenderism among today’s teenage boys: We have made a mistake.

With thanks to Rene and everyone else who took the time to speak to me—and to Ioana for her help with data analysis. The choice of pronoun I made to refer to Rene in this essay turned out to be prophetic: since writing this final instalment, Rene has surgically detransitioned, and is starting to live again as a man.

Angus Fox (a pseudonym) is an academic working in an unrelated field of study. He can be contacted at gcri@protonmail.com.

A compendium of clinically validated and effective pharmaceutical (non-vaccine) treatment protocols for prevention, early phase disease, and long Covid disease.

Sunday’s edition of the New York Times had an interesting little piece by the newspaper’s token conservative op-ed writer Ross Douthat, entitled ‘The Strange Death of Liberal Russophobia’, a by-line echoing the title of George Dangerfield’s famous 1935 book The Strange Death of Liberal England. Douthat notes that between 2016 and 2020, when Donald Trump was president of the USA, among American liberals,

[Russian president Vladimir] Putin was a figure of extraordinary menace whose tentacles extended everywhere, from Brexit to the NRA. He had hacked American democracy, placed a Manchurian candidate in the White House, sowed the internet with misinformation, placed bounties on our soldiers in Afghanistan, extended Russian power across the Middle East and threatened Eastern Europe with invasion or subversion. In this atmosphere ever rumor about Russian perfidy was pre-emptively believed, and the defense of liberal democracy required recognizing that we had been thrust into Cold War 2.0.

Douthat isn’t wrong about that. For a period of four years, Putin derangement syndrome, allied to an overarching Russophobia, became a centrepiece of the Democratic party’s identity. It was to be expected that once Joe Biden became president, US policy towards Russia would become even more hardline. But, Douthat notes, the opposite has happened:

Now comes Biden, making moves in Russia policy that are essentially conciliatory – freezing a military aid package to Ukraine, ending US sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline linking Germany to Russia, a return of ambassadors – and setting a summit that can reasonably be regarded as a modest propaganda coup for Putin.

And yet, all this – which if Trump had done it, would have led to screams of betrayal and have been seen as proof that Trump was working on behalf of the Kremlin – has passed by with nary of a squeak of protest from the same American liberals who just a short while ago were portraying Moscow as the source of all evil.

What gives?

Douthat argues that it’s a sign of ‘the wisdom of the Biden administration in recognizing that certain Trump-era hysterias within its party can be safely put to sleep.’ According to Douthat, the Russophobic lunacy was the purview of one particular part of the Democratic party – what George Packer calls ‘Smart America’ (‘which is basically meritocratic elites’). This group ‘wanted to blame all its own failures on Russian disinformation’, but it isn’t Biden’s core constituency. He therefore feels free to ignore it and to pursue an essentially Realist policy towards the Russian Federation.

There maybe something to this theory. But I suggest another – the ‘strange’ death of liberal Russophobia isn’t so ‘strange’ at all. Its rise and fall indicates that it was always a tactic more than anything else. Russia-bashing was a method chosen by elements in the Democratic party as a means of undermining Trump and so winning back power. It wasn’t in my view a very good method, and I don’t think that Biden’s victory owed much if anything to it, but it was always a method not an end in itself. That doesn’t mean that ‘Smart America’ didn’t come to believe its own Russophobic propaganda – I get a strong sense that its members repeated its claims so often that in due course they became true believers. But from Biden’s point of view, once Trump was gone, the method had served its purpose. There is no longer any reason to make a central point of Democratic rhetoric.

And so, having outlived its usefulness, it has been discarded. Or at least, one hopes it has. I’m not convinced that it’s exactly suffered a ‘death’, as Douthat put it. It’s still there, with a strong hold on parts of the liberal establishment in the USA. But it seems that at least for now, Biden is prepared to largely ignore it. In that sense, when Douthat speaks of the ‘wisdom of the Biden administration’, one has to agree.

Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with Federal Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Angela Merkel, at the German side’s initiative, on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, and the Day of Memory and Sorrow marked in Russia on that day.

June 22, 2021

17:35

Angela Merkel Merkel AngelaFederal Chancellor of Germany expressed sympathy for the innumerable hardships and suffering brought about by the war that was launched by the Nazi regime. Both leaders emphasised the importance of preserving the historical memory of the tragic events of that period. Vladimir Putin mentioned Russia’s appreciation of Angela Merkel and Federal President of Germany Frank-Walter Steinmeier Steinmeier Frank-WalterPresident of the Federal Republic of Germany ’s participation in the commemoration events held in Germany. It was pointed out that overcoming mutual hostility and achieving reconciliation between the Russian and German people was of crucial significance for the post-war future of Europe, and that ensuring security on our common continent now is only possible through joint efforts.

At the request of the Federal Chancellor, the President of Russia updated Angela Merkel on the main results of the Russia-US summit held in Geneva on June 16.

The parties agreed on further personal contacts.

An article by the President of Russia has been published in the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit and is timed to coincide with the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the Great Patriotic war.

June 22, 2021

10:30

Being Open, Despite the Past

On June 22, 1941, exactly 80 years ago, the Nazis, having conquered practically the whole of Europe, attacked the USSR. For the Soviet people the Great Patriotic War – the bloodiest one in the history of our country – began. Tens of millions of people lost their lives, the economic potential of the country and its cultural property were severely damaged.

We are proud of the courage and steadfastness of the heroes of the Red Army and home front workers who not only defended the independence and dignity of our homeland, but also saved Europe and the world from enslavement. Despite attempts to rewrite the pages of the past that are being made today, the truth is that Soviet soldiers came to Germany not to take revenge on the Germans, but with a noble and great mission of liberation. We hold sacred the memory of the heroes who fought against Nazism. We remember with gratitude our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition, participants in the Resistance movement, and German anti-fascists who brought our common victory closer.

Having lived through the horrors of the world war, the peoples of Europe were nevertheless able to overcome alienation and restore mutual trust and respect. They set a course for integration in order to draw a final line under the European tragedies of the first half of the last century. And I would like to emphasize that the historical reconciliation of our people with the Germans living both in the east and the west of modern united Germany played a huge role in the formation of such Europe.

I would also like to remind that it was German entrepreneurs who became ”pioneers“ of cooperation with our country in the post-war years. In 1970, the USSR and the Federal Republic of Germany concluded a ”deal of the century“ on long-term natural gas supplies to Europe that laid the foundation for constructive interdependence and initiated many future grand projects, including the construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline.

We hoped that the end of the Cold War would be a common victory for Europe. It seemed that just a little more effort was needed to make Charles de Gaulle's dream of a single continent – not even geographically ”from the Atlantic to the Urals“, but culturally and civilizationally ”from Lisbon to Vladivostok“ – become a reality.

It is exactly with this logic in mind – the logic of building a Greater Europe united by common values and interests – that Russia has sought to develop its relations with the Europeans. Both Russia and the EU have done a lot on this path.

But a different approach has prevailed. It was based on the expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance which was itself a relic of the Cold War. After all, it was specifically created for the confrontation of that era.

It was the bloc's movement eastwards – which, by the way, began when the Soviet leadership was actually persuaded to accept the united Germany's accession to NATO – that turned into the main reason for the rapid increase in mutual mistrust in Europe. Verbal promises made in that time such as ”this is not directed against you“ or ”the bloc's borders will not get closer to you“ were quickly forgotten. But a precedent was set.

And since 1999, five more “waves” of NATO expansion have followed. Fourteen new countries, including the former Soviet Union republics, joined the organization, effectively dashing hopes for a continent without dividing lines. Interestingly, this was warned about in the mid-1980s by Egon Bahr, one of the SPD leaders, who proposed a radical restructuring of the entire European security system after German unification, involving both the USSR and the United States. But no one in the USSR, the USA or Europe was willing to listen to him at the time.

Moreover, many countries were put before the artificial choice of being either with the collective West or with Russia. In fact, it was an ultimatum. The Ukrainian tragedy of 2014 is an example of the consequences that this aggressive policy has led to. Europe actively supported the unconstitutional armed coup in Ukraine. This was where it all started. Why was it necessary to do this? Then incumbent president Yanukovych had already accepted all the demands of the opposition. Why did the USA organize the coup and the European countries weak-heartedly support it, provoking a split within Ukraine and the withdrawal of Crimea?

The whole system of European security has now degraded significantly. Tensions are rising and the risks of a new arms race are becoming real. We are missing out on the tremendous opportunities that cooperation offers – all the more important now that we are all facing common challenges, such as the pandemic and its dire social and economic consequences.

Why does this happen? And most importantly, what conclusions should we draw together? What lessons of history should we recall? I think, first and foremost, that the entire post-war history of Greater Europe confirms that prosperity and security of our common continent is only possible through the joint efforts of all countries, including Russia. Because Russia is one of the largest countries in Europe. And we are aware of our inseparable cultural and historical connection to Europe.

We are open to honest and constructive interaction. This is confirmed by our idea of creating a common space of cooperation and security from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean which would comprise various integration formats, including the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union.

I reiterate that Russia is in favour of restoring a comprehensive partnership with Europe. We have many topics of mutual interest. These include security and strategic stability, healthcare and education, digitalization, energy, culture, science and technology, resolution of climate and environmental issues.

The world is a dynamic place, facing new challenges and threats. We simply cannot afford to carry the burden of past misunderstandings, hard feelings, conflicts, and mistakes. It is a burden that will prevent us from concentrating on the challenges at hand. We are convinced that we all should recognize these mistakes and correct them. Our common and indisputable goal is to ensure security on the continent without dividing lines, a common space for equitable cooperation and inclusive development for the prosperity of Europe and the world as a whole.

Given the ever-changing narrative on COVID-19 vaccines, it is almost impossible for a layperson to understand exactly what is safe and what is part of the ongoing Phase 3 trials. A recent graphic found on the website of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Waterloo adds to that confusion, particularly given that mixing and matching of vaccines was NOT part of the original vaccine program.

Here is the graphic which is supposed to allow vaccine consumers to determine whether they are fully vaccinated:

Basically, the graphic is telling laypeople that they should not be getting the AstraZeneca vaccine as their second dose unless they received it as their first dose and that either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines are suitable as a second dose if they received the AstraZeneca vaccine as their first dose.

Given that these vaccines are still being rolled out and that the final phase three trials for the stand-alone products (i.e. without mixing and matching) will not end until the following dates:

1.) Pfizer:

2.) AstraZeneca:

3.) Moderna:

...and that the medium- and long-term side effects and efficacy of each of the vaccines on a stand-alone basis have yet to be fully understood and shared with governments, public health officials and consumers, it is concerning that governments are basically allowing Big Pharma to continue their unprecedented vaccine experiment on humanity by both extending the period of time between doses far beyond what the manufacturer recommended and allowing the mixing and matching of COVID-19 vaccines all in the name of vaccinating as much of the world as possible as quickly as possible.

Joanna Sharp

I had not planned to travel abroad this year, especially after the UK government’s announcement in early 2021 that foreign holidays were forbidden. Even heading towards the airport with an intent to go on a foreign holiday could result in a £5000 fine or imprisonment! Surreal.

Where we live in London under a flight path to Heathrow, we notice that although there are fewer flights, they have not ceased completely. So how do people travel? It’s not something I have thought about.

One day at the end of April I receive a message that my elderly father’s condition is critical. Within an hour I am looking at flights back home in Eastern Europe and checking the UK government travel ‘advice’ webpages.

I say ‘advice’ but that word belongs to the past. Today, ‘command’ might be more appropriate. According to the government, only “essential” international travel is permitted for named valid reasons; ‘medical and compassionate’ is the category which applies to me.

I wonder whose compassion this is a reference to: mine, for wanting to be with my sick father, or the government’s for including this as a possibility. Reassured that I can go, it is now a question of buying the plane tickets, checking in and packing, right? Not quite.

Wading through the red tape

Since holiday travel has effectively been banned, the government created intricate webpages full of information on what is and what is not allowed, where citizens cannot travel, and if they must, what documents they need to prepare. So complicated travel advice alone has become that the webpage now includes a step by step flowchart with endless links within each step to be followed.

Getting through this information would take at least a day. It’s like a cross between a maze and a vortex. I soon understand that I cannot buy my tickets until I have uploaded the right Covid related paperwork onto the airline website!

First, I need to fill a Declaration for International Travel (since the 17th May it is no longer required) which asks for personal details including my date of birth, passport number, home address and destination.

The key question is the reason for international travel – and in the actual online questions, the phrase is: ‘What is your excuse for travel?’ My excuse? What kind of language is that? Am I asking a teacher to let me leave the classroom? Am I asked to explain why I haven’t done my homework?

That really shocks me, although I have already noticed my own reaction to the very idea that I need permission to leave the country, as if I was back in Eastern Europe before 1989…I read the following declaration and tick the right box out of the given options.

I hereby declare that my reason for being outside my home to travel internationally is for:

– Work
– Volunteering
– Education
– Medical or compassionate reasons
– Funeral
– Ending a temporary visit (non-UK resident)
– Allowing access to parents with children who do not live in the same country
– Other reasonable excuse – please specify

Next, I am required to sign to ‘certify that the information I have provided is true. I understand that if I provide false or misleading information, I may be issued with a fixed penalty notice and/or a direction to return home or be arrested’.

So, by signing this, and I have no choice not to if I want to get my ticket, I have given the UK authorities permission to arrest or fine me should my excuse to travel turn out to be incorrect. What if my father is not that ill, then what?

But of course, that is not enough. I now need to provide evidence of my father’s illness. How do you do that when the whole of the world is still in lockdown; imagine having to get a doctor’s note on demand. I am still just trying to get a ticket.

I want to travel tomorrow morning, my sister-in-law tells me, Dad is given a couple of days. I ask my brother to send me an email confirming the family crisis, he does that within an hour. He is also trying to copy the notes from my father’s last doctor’s visit and the most recent diagnosis.

Then, still before I buy a return ticket, I need to get a kit of two Covid tests which I will need to take upon return to UK. Another link takes me on to a list of government-approved Covid test providers. A whole list of them, each can be accessed via a separate link. I try a few. They average around £200 each. The cheapest ones are £99 but are sold out.

Why can’t I see any free NHS ones? The ones given out like sweets in schools and local pharmacies? Why are these not available? Why could I not just pick a free one at the airport?

But of course, there is no to answer these questions, I am desperate to leave so agree to this, too. No test, no flight. So, I order one of these almost £200 test kits, get an email confirming the order, upload all the documents and finally I can complete the purchase of my tickets which, as usual, turn out not so low cost after all.

I check in. My boarding card (lucky I had just bought a printer the previous week) says at the top of the page ‘Covid Documentation Uploaded’. So, now I have the boarding card and a pile of printed pages which presumably I will need to show at UK border control in order to prove my excuse for leaving the country is legitimate.

Finally, I download and fill in the compulsory Passenger Locator Form for the destination country that will enable the system to track and trace me. It is nearly bedtime and I now need to pack.

On the go

My husband drives me to Stansted in the middle of the night. An early morning flight, no public transport available but at least it’s quiet and there is no traffic. The airport is still closed; a group of families with young children are waiting for the door to open.

These are not holidaymakers breaking the law to get some forbidden fun. No idea where they are travelling but they look like they are going home somewhere south, southeast perhaps? Turkey, Bulgaria or Ukraine? No idea but they do look like part of the globalised chain of workforce escaping poverty and perhaps the lockdown has pushed them to return. Better to be jobless and poor in your own village. The weather tends to be better and the environment less hostile.

Finally, the doors open. I push the scarf up over my face, my hand clutching a plastic folder with a wad of documents allowing me to leave. It is quiet, no waiting. I go through security, passport control seems non-existent, shops still closed so nothing to stop for. I wonder at which point someone will ask me to see the papers. Ask me what my excuse for leaving is. Strangely, that never happens. I am almost disappointed. I spent about four hours sorting out all that paperwork the night before and now this is not even checked!

Immediately I catch myself: why am I disappointed? Because no one will give me the all-clear? Have I been conditioned to want to be waved through the green light already?

Perhaps that is how normalising oppression works. But of course, there is no need to check, the documents been uploaded and recorded somewhere and someone now knows everything about me, my plans, my reason (“excuse”) for leaving the country. Or perhaps the intimate details of my family crisis; my father’s terminal illness and my attempt to get to him before it’s too late have now just been converted into big data slushing around the corpo-government’s control AI machine, and turned into useful predictions.

I guess this type of authoritarianism does not even need stern looks from border control officials, no need to divulge private dramas in public. Hours of stress of getting the documents turned into a discreet but vital small print on my boarding card; the only visible proof that my travel is acceptable to the corpo-state. It is all so neat, tidy, hi-tech and invisible that we can just pretend that all is just normal.

After all, the airport trimmings look all the same; with adverts, duty-free shopping, same old queues at departure gates and same safety drills on the plane, down to the irritating Ryanair voice thanking us for choosing to fly with them (no one chooses to fly with Ryanair, just like no one chooses to go to the dentist, you do it because you have to and you hope it won’t be too unpleasant).

We can pretend nothing has changed. Except the masks on faces, of course. Slow drinking and eating is my solution. During the flight many noses protrude against the regulations, of course. People do need to breathe.

We land on time. I send a message to my father, anxious, hoping he is still there. He is not responding. I am worried. From the tarmac I can see the arrivals hall is full. There is no way of entering so the crowd from my plane stops outside and waits in the drizzle. I wonder why that is. Is that Brexit or is it that people’s papers are now checked after all?

The queue moves very slowly, twenty minutes after landing I send my father another message saying that I’m still waiting for border control. I have no idea why this is so slow; each person seems to spend a good few minutes at the control desk. Finally, an hour and a half after landing I get into the taxi. As the driver pulls away, I notice a long queue of passengers outside the arrivals hall waiting to get a Covid test. I arrive home and find my father hanging on.

My father’s illness

There is a twist to this story. My father has been treated for cancer but has been still doing quite well and has been planning to spend the summer away from his flat, in the countryside. His sudden deterioration it unexpected to me but I have not had time to think of reasons. I only learnt of this yesterday. But now I am in the flat, taking my shoes off when my brother drops the bombshell: ‘you know, Dad took the vaccine’.

I am shocked. He told me he was not going to, because he found the registration process too difficult, so he decided to stop trying. I was relieved; I had been persuading him that he should not, that being immunocompromised, his system might not cope. I told him what I knew and what I worried about. My brother tells me another family member helped organize his jab and took him there. Jesus. But I am to pretend I don’t know about it; Dad asked my brother not to tell me.

So, I learn that the day after the Pfizer jab he started to feel weak, and within ten days he was prescribed blood thinning injections, a daily drip and he became bedbound. My brother has hired a hospital-style bed and an oxygen machine, set them up in father’s bedroom and organized a private nurse for daily visits. Dad had not wanted to go to hospital: he believed that hospitals were overrun by contagious Covid patients and that going to hospital would mean certain death under a ventilator.

Luckily (I never thought I would say this), unlike the UK, this ex-communist country never managed to build up its own national health service to a level able to deliver comprehensive care, so a secondary private sector filling the gaps exists and is not beyond the means of many people. So here he is, in his own bedroom and getting care at home.

He is happy to see me but asks me not to touch him. I feel sad, guessing he might worry I am bringing contagion. That hurts. I pretend I know nothing about the jab. Later, much later, I remember this moment and think that, he might have wanted to protect me. He knew the jab made him ill and he worried he was fighting vaccine induced-Covid and did not want to give it to me.

He never told me about the vaccine, I never told him I knew.

Sunset in quarantine

Quarantine One: The App

The day after arriving I receive a text message telling me I am now under statute of law obliged to download a particular app and use it during my 10-day home quarantine. I start the download but can’t complete it. Something is stuck and I have no idea how to fix it. I try for a while and then abandon it. I spend most of the time caring for my father who now slips in and out of consciousness.

The next morning I get a phone call but it stops ringing before I have time to answer it. The following day the same happens. I realise this is the local track and trace. They ring but don’t wait for me to answer. Their call is logged, the box gets ticked but the robot or a human cannot be bothered to do the job properly. Actually, it must be a human as a robot would not give up. Good. The tyranny will fail due to human error or sheer laziness.

I don’t know what possessed me but somehow, I manage to complete installing the Quarantine App. The system springs into action. I get a message from the app that I must take a selfie within the next 30 minutes and submit it. I take a selfie from the app which gives me as many times as I like to choose the best shot. I choose the worst shot.

Of course, there is a way to cheat: after doing my selfie I could leave the phone at home and go out for a walk. Trouble is, the selfie demand comes at a different time each day, usually towards the end of the day. But I have no reason to go anywhere, really, I have come here to be with him, and his condition continues to be critical. And at some point, during this journey I decided that I would do everything by the book, just to see what the new normal travel feels and looks like, and what exactly they want us to experience.

Well, here I am, in a 10-day quarantine in a flat with my dying father. We are lucky. I have my brother to get the shopping in and kind neighbours ready to help. We are lucky my father is at home. What would be the point of coming here all this way, only to be stuck in quarantine if he was in a hospital with no visitors allowed? So, all in all, we are lucky.

Difficult days

Days go by, my father’s condition improves a little, I am his nurse, and of course I touch him – he stopped protesting as soon as he needed a glass of water; I continue to take my selfies. We talk, I read to him, feed him, then he sleeps. He dies two days after my quarantine ends. That is good timing.

There is a lot to do now, and I will not be breaking the law trying to organize the funeral…I remember my favourite literature lesson at school when we debated who was right: Creon or Antigone. Even then, I was in team Antigone.

A doctor arrives to certify death. She is nice and takes her time. Talks a little. Does not look like a corporate bot. She is sitting at a coffee table doing the paperwork. For the cause of death, she writes ‘Thrombosis’. I ponder for a bit and then hesitatingly say: ‘Did you know he was vaccinated?’.

Her face changes and she asks: ‘No, when?’ We tell her, ‘Four weeks ago, exactly’.

‘I am not allowed to say anything,’ she says, ‘but I can tell you I have seen a lot lately. A lot!’ We try to encourage her to talk more but she is cautious. I just ask her: ‘Why would a person on cancer treatment be given a vaccine? Surely that had not been done before?’ She looks at me and says: ‘Because they want to vaccinate us all.’ So, she knows.

This kind of conversation would have been typical in the days of strict communist authoritarianism before 1989. You never knew whom you could trust so you just dropped hints and checked for people’s response. In those days careless talk was dangerous, and I am too young to remember the worst times: the Stalinist years when children were encouraged to denounce their parents; many were imprisoned, tortured and killed.

Now the threat is only a loss of income and public humiliation and yet the new order based on lies, fraud and corrupt science is already in place. Everyone is just doing their job. A perfect example of Hannah Arendt’s banality of evil in which those, following orders in this elaborate house of cards, often do not even know their active contribution to harm inflicted on others. They do not realise because they refuse to look and to know. They stopped taking responsibility for their individual part in the whole.

There is a small group of doctors in the country who are challenging the official narrative, attempt to offer treatment for Covid patients and warn against the untested ‘vaccines’, particularly now that governments want to jab children. Their voices are censored, the people get smeared, ridiculed and shamed by the professional licensing medical body. The modern-day governance in Western democracies!

Travelling home

As the funeral preparations get underway, I need to organise my return travel. I check the UK government website again. Travelling from an ‘amber’ coded country, I must test negative for Covid within 72 hours prior to departure. Tricky when the flight is on Monday afternoon.

I start to search for UK government-approved tests available in the city. Only a handful provide the specified UK approved antigen test with results in English. They are also open only in the mornings so if I test on Friday morning, I might be testing a few hours too early to fit within the 72 hours.

After hours of online searching, I find one that looks almost right. I pay the equivalent of £35 online and am told to come on the day, without an appointment. The laboratory website provides useful advice, how to prepare for the test. I learn that I should not brush my teeth or use mouthwash on the morning of test. So now I know what to do.

I arrive at the testing centre early, having heard that queues can be quite long. It is, and it is in the street. The lab’s waiting room only allows three people at a time so the rest stand outside. After about an hour it is my turn. I am allowed inside the surgery.

On the right, by the door, a masked man sitting at a desk behind a glass screen is checking my name and the type of test I have purchased. Then, a young tall, man in full white hazmat suit, his face covered, and in protective glasses ushers me to sit on a chair and tip my head backwards.

This is my first Covid test ever and I am terrified. I have rehearsed telling them how sensitive my face feels and asking not to go deep but there is no eye contact, no talk trying to help me feel comfortable, no attempt to put me at ease. He just tells me to tip my head back far.

I just manage to ask him to go into the left nostril as my right one is not straight. He happily obliges and shoves the long stick into my nostril. As soon as the tip enters my nose I feel shock, a feeling of something unnatural, wrong and threatening happening. The area he just touched is too soft, sensitive and the sensation so unfamiliar I involuntarily, and to my own shock, find myself pushing the man’s arm away. He moves back and looks at me, his body language (there is no face available) disapproves of my behaviour.

I say, please don’t go that deep, you already have some but he insists, tells me not to defend myself and does it again. And again, that feeling that a part of me which is vulnerable and should not be touched, gets scraped. He gets his sample and nods for me to go. I am frozen in that chair, unable to move for what seems like a while. I have tears in my eyes, and I am alone with two hazmat wearing robots. No word is uttered as I leave.

I get my negative result within hours. I recover with an old friend. By then I have a splitting headache and my left nostril is moist with a slight leak. The headache lasts for a couple of days but the leak persists for at least ten.

I arrive at the airport early because I have difficulties completing the UK Passenger Locator Form which UK needs from all passengers. I pass through a manned gate with an automatic wrist temperature check. The airport is unusually quiet, and the staff help me identify the problem which stops me from completing the form. The reference number for the double Covid test needed for the Passenger Locator Form is wrong. I ring home and ask my husband to read the reference number off the Covid test kit. Surely it has arrived now. It hasn’t. It looks like the Day 2 and 8 Test I ordered has not been paid for.

I am told I need to buy a new kit if I want to get this flight. I do as I’m told. No form, no flight. I stand next to the luggage drop off counter feeling sweats, and with my hands shaking I battle the website on my phone. Again, all the ‘cheap’ ones are sold out and somehow, at the last minute I manage to make a purchase for £180, get an email, a reference number, complete the form and have my luggage accepted.

I hurry to my gate and make it just in time as passengers are starting to board. I slow down to join the Ryanair herd waiting on the tarmac for the aircraft to be processed before we are told we can travel.

The pavement is marked with lines at 2-meter intervals. Two men behind me are joking loudly that we must stand on the lines correctly, otherwise the virus will jump on us. I turn and smile (no mask, we are still outside) and make eye contact with the fellow humans.

Quarantine Two: Track and Trace

Back home in London, the following day I get my first out of ten phone calls from Track and Trace. Each time a different voice reads the same script.

I am contacting you on behalf of the NHS Test and Trace as you have recently travelled into the UK from abroad. Are you happy to continue in English?”

No idea what would happen if I said ‘no’.

Before we proceed, I need to make you aware that this call will be recorded for training and quality improvement purposes and should just take a few minutes of your time. I can confirm I have completed the necessary data security training and all information you provide today will be stored securely. NHS Test and Trace may need to share your details with other organisations including the Home Office, and further information on data security and privacy can be found on www.gov.uk/coronavirus. Sharing information in the call today means you consent for it to be stored in the ways I have described. Are you happy to proceed with the call?”

I wish I could say, no, I am not. Once or twice I ask how long the data is going to be stored. The caller is not sure and advises me to find this out from the government website. The call proceeds with them checking my year of birth. Then they ask if I have opted into a ‘test to release’ – I frankly don’t even know it is my option, so I say ‘no’.

I later learn that the Test to Release scheme does not replace the compulsory Day 2 and 8 test. The ten-day quarantine can be shortened to 5 days by ‘opting into’ Test to Release for an additional £99. I realise they ask this question to advertise another product!

Can you confirm that you are quarantining at the address you provided on the passenger locator form and will continue to do so for ten days starting on the day after you arrive in the UK.”

So, again, I confirm, yes. What would happen if I said no?

As part of the Covid 19 response you are legally required to take the test on Day 2 and Day 8 and a failure to do so may result in prosecution.”

That answers my previous question…

Has your test arrived? And have you taken or do you intend to take your test?”

Yes.

Then I am asked if I got my test from the NHS or from a private provider. I am confused as I had no option to get an NHS test and I tell the caller. They seem happy with my answer and continue:

If your Day 2 test is positive confirming Covid 19, you do not need to take another test on Day 8.”

I think, on one occasion, I ask how I am expected to post the test if I am not allowed to leave the house. Of course, the assumption is there is someone else in the house, and if I still have difficulties, again, the go-to place is another NHS number. Amazing what they can do these days; they can even pick up your mail for you!

The call continues:

If you develop any of the three coronavirus symptoms which are: a new continuous cough, a high temperature, or a loss or change to your sense of taste or smell, please visit www.gov.uk/coronavirus for further advice. You should not go to the GP, hospital or a pharmacy. If you require medical advice, please ring the NHS on 111 or in an emergency dial 999”.

So here we have the admission of medical malpractice: if I fall ill, I must not seek help from NHS, not even by going to my local pharmacy. I must stay home without help, except of course, if I qualify for 999 ie, a ventilator…

The call continues:

I must advise you that if you test positive for coronavirus or are identified as a close contact of someone who has coronavirus you will be notified by NHS Test and Trace and may be contacted again. Is there anything you would like me to repeat?”

Of course, if someone I sat next to on the (half-empty) plane gets a positive result, my quarantine will stretch to a fortnight or longer! Each time, the call ends with a friendly, youthful, ‘have a great day’. All those who have called me are young voices, all kinds of accents, probably desperate for any job in the current climate. They are trained to stick to the script and any departure from it by my questions seems to trip them up.

And most of them probably think they are doing something socially useful and valuable.

The quarantine DIY tests

The one I have purchased in haste at the airport is a kit with two PCR tests to be administered at home on Day 2 and Day 8. The instructions tell me that the test is run at less than a 30-cycle value threshold.

The first thing to say about the swab is that it is long. It looks like a cotton bud used for everyday use, but on closer inspection it is different. The stick itself is about 12 cm long, that’s 6”, and designed to break off after the sample is collected and put into a small tube provided. The tip itself is 2 cm long, quite thin and covered in almost translucent spiky bristles protruding outwards. It looks a bit like a miniature harsh brush designed to scratch the delicate tissue inside the mouth and nose.

I am told to swab the back of the throat for 3-5 seconds over the posterior pharynx and tonsillar areas but to avoid tongue, teeth and the sides of the mouth. Then I am told to insert the same swab to each nostril about 2 cm deep and to rotate it for 3-5 seconds each time.

The form which I have to complete for each test is yet another mandated opportunity for the corpo-government to harvest my personal data, to store it for as long as it sees fit, yet, as is often the case in abusive relationships I have to (I repeat:) I have to give my consent for all this to happen, and even consent for my possible positive test result which may include my personal details: name, date of birth, gender, home address, telephone number, occupation, place of work, ethnicity and the fact that I have tested positive for Covid 19 to be communicated to Public Health England. Luckily, both of my test results are negative.

Eleven days after arrival in the UK my quarantine is officially over. It takes me a couple of days before I venture outside, I detect a bit of agoraphobia. In the last six weeks I spent twenty days in house arrest. They say it takes six weeks to develop a new habit.

Postscriptum

I doubt very much I will travel internationally any time soon. Not planning to take the experimental Covid jab and so will not be enjoying the privilege of freedom promised to those with the vaccine passport. At the time of writing, it is no longer illegal to leave England but the elaborate hoops and the red tape remain and the government website reminds us that “to protect public health in the UK and the vaccine rollout, you should not travel to countries or territories on the red or amber lists”.

The ‘red and amber’ lists cover most countries of the world and returning from an amber list country will involve three or four tests which could come to £240-£340 per person plus the time spent completing all the online forms.

As to the red list countries; even a short spell there ends in an expensive £1750 per person prison-like stay at an airport hotel, as can be seen here.

So whilst not forbidden, even essential travel has been made into a series of expensive, degrading and time-consuming obstacles. Vaccine passports are being rolled out precisely to convince people they will magically bring freedom back to their lives. Do they not realise, that once they have their passports, the vaccine will need regular boosters?

Those still asleep; trusting the governments and the mainstream media think that easy travel is only temporarily put on hold but once the pandemic is ‘under control’, things will get back to the way they used to be. They do not realise the plan is to make travel an exclusive and rare event beyond reach of ordinary people.

This is done to us not just by the predatory elite class. Disappointingly, the pro-lockdown left continues to cheer these restrictions on and dismiss people’s desire and need to travel, as undeserved indulgence or middle-class privilege (interestingly, unrestricted travel around Europe was, until so recently, one of the main reasons for their fierce anti-Brexit position. What happened to their cherished principle of freedom of movement?). They could not be further from the truth.

They forget that, according to official migration data for the end of 2019, the UK is home to 6.2 million people – that is 9% of the total population – who have the nationality of a different country! And that data does not even include naturalised UK citizens like me, first-generation settled migrants who have close relatives all over the world and that unrestricted travel is an essential means to family life, something which is protected by Human Rights Act 1998.

The irony for those like myself, who grew up in communist Eastern Europe, is that freedom of movement, so taken for granted in the West, the right to travel and to have your own passport at home at all times is what we did not have then. The state set limits on where ‘citizens’, treated like its property, could travel.

For many who experienced those times, even as children, a return to state-mandated travel restrictions will feel like going back into tyranny.

As for my own journey: I will never forgive those responsible and all those lockdown fanatics for stealing my Dad’s, and so many other elderly people’s, last year by locking them up in the prison of fear and isolation, and then for pushing them to take the dangerous experimental jab which – for so many – was the last straw in their already weakened bodies.

Joanna Sharp is an academic living in London.

We’ve been talking a lot lately at the Automatic Earth about programs to vaccinate children. It’s one more thing that people appear to blindly accept as necessary and beneficial to our societies. While the only consideration really should be how beneficial it is to the children themselves. Most people here, at least, seem to agree on that. But that’s just here.

The US, Germany, Canada, and soon France and Spain all have plans, some already have been rolled out, to carpet bomb the virus by going after their children, and there is no doubt many more countries will follow their example.

Since we know there is no medical reason to do so, we must ask what the ethical and legal aspects tell us. And I can’t find those. How and why can you justify injecting people against something that is no threat to them, with a substance that potentially is a much worse threat?

I dug up a graph again that I posted in April, which spells out the Covid risk for all age groups, including children:

If your chance of survival is 99.99996%, there is no risk. And you don’t need to be inoculated. That would -at best- be equivalent to keeping your kids home 24/7 because you are afraid of what might happen in traffic, or in social life with other kids, or some bogeyman. The risk is never zero, but close enough that we do not act on it, and call it common sense.

The arguments that are usually used are that 1) kids must be jabbed to protect others around them, and 2) that the vaccines have been tested and proven safe. Obviously, 1) is very curious, and never been used before, and 2) is simply a lie: vaccines need years of testing for side effects, not months, and certainly not weeks, as is now the case for the effects on children.

The “testing” is simply that if not too many people drop dead after 5 minutes, well, then it must be safe, as institutions like the European Medicines Agency solemnly declare. Completely ignoring potential long term effects, something that seems essential in mRNA “vaccines” because of their potential effects on fertility etc. We just don’t know, but we should before applying the substances. There’s a reason none of the vaccines have been approved.

As for that alleged safety, this is from the European version of the American VAERS system:

1,5 million adverse reactions, and those are just the ones that have been reported. Now, I don’t know how many people in Europe have been inoculated, but I bet you this is not a 99.99996% success story. The numbers of deaths are not, either.

So I was happy to see some actual common sense reported in a Dutch paper today (Google translated), where the Health Council in the Netherlands injects at least some nuance into the debate. For kids with underlying conditions, like severe obesity or lung- and heart problems, some protection might make sense. I still wouldn’t go with mRNA vaccines, I would use ivermectin instead, but I get the reasoning somewhat.

Health Council: Vaccinate Children From 12 Years Old With Medical Risk Against Corona

The Health Council advises the cabinet to vaccinate children from the age of 12 with a medical risk against the corona virus. Vaccinating all children in that age group, as is done in Germany, France and the US, for example, is not yet on the agenda. An opinion on this will follow in a few weeks. The current advice concerns children aged 12 to 17 who are annually invited for the flu shot and children with severe obesity. According to the Health Council, vaccination of these children provides significant health benefits, because they run a high risk of a serious course of Covid-19. According to chairman Bart-Jan Kullberg, that risk is twice as high as in healthy children.

The corona pandemic also indirectly has a major impact on children at medical risk. To avoid the risk of contamination, for example, they do not go to school or social activities. The Health Council also takes this ‘social-emotional impact’ into account. The council cannot estimate the number of children involved. “It concerns, for example, children with a heart or lung disease. There are also many small groups with a rare condition. General practitioners and paediatricians have a good picture of these groups,” says Kullberg.

_

An advice on vaccinating healthy children will only follow in a few weeks. The vast majority of children do not or hardly get sick after a corona infection. So far, almost 280,000 children in the Netherlands are known to have been infected. Usually they had only mild symptoms, such as a cold and cough. In the age group 0-12 years, 379 children were hospitalized. In the 13-17 age group, there have been 101 since September. A total of three children have died; all three had an underlying condition. Last month, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) gave the green light for the use of the Pfizer vaccine in children from 12 years of age. More and more countries are also vaccinating all healthy children over the age of 12 to slow down the spread of the coronavirus.

Vaccinating children from the age of 12 against the coronavirus can make a significant contribution to curbing the pandemic, OMT chairman Jaap van Dissel already suggested last weekend. According to him, it reduces the reproductive value (R) of the virus in winter by as much as this. about 15 percent. “That can be important to keep the spread low during that period as well.” In Germany, for example, teenagers will be vaccinated from next Monday, in France from mid-June and in Spain from mid-August. The US and Canada have been at it for weeks.

_

Vaccinating healthy children, who themselves hardly run the risk of becoming seriously ill after a corona infection, requires a ‘broader medical, epidemiological, ethical and legal consideration’, according to the Health Council. “It also depends on the phase of the pandemic,” Kullberg said. Because the number of infections is currently falling sharply and more than a million adults are now vaccinated every week, there is no reason to make that decision hastily, he says.

Now, mind you, that is the same country that admitted depriving children of their freedom, their development, and normal lives, in order to manipulate their parents. Talk about ethics. As I said a few days ago, “Holland closed schools not to protect children, but to make parents stay home. Think about how crazy that is.”

The Netherlands Used Children As A Weapon In The Fight Against Corona

Due to the Dutch corona policy to close schools and thus keep parents at home, children have been used as a means to fight the epidemic. Our cabinet receives that hard slap on the fingers today in the annual worldwide children’s rights report, the KidsRights Index. According to the makers, the Netherlands has set a very bad example internationally, by not even trying to keep schools open safely. With all the consequences that entails for the mental health of our youth. The corona guidelines from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child have also been neglected. Youth has not been given any priority in Dutch policy, it sounds.

Statements by corona minister Hugo de Jonge, dated mid-December 2020, are presented as proof. Then De Jonge indeed mentioned on television as the reason why the cabinet decided to close the schools, that parents with children sitting at home will therefore start working from home more quickly. When parents take their children to school, that is another moment of contact, De Jonge explained at the time. “And we also learned from the first wave, when the schools were also closed, that the fact that primary education does not provide physical education also ensures that parents adhere better to another advice, namely: work from home as much as possible. ”, said the minister at the time.

“Children’s rights have been put in second place by the cabinet during corona time,” Marc Dullaert, founder of the international children’s rights organization KidsRights, now told this site. “They were the ankle bracelet for parents. These had to be kept at home in order to effectively fight the epidemic. At the expense of their mental health.” In the first phase, when everyone was looking for the right approach, this was understandable according to Dullaert. ,,But De Jonge’s statements came at a time when it was really no longer acceptable, in the second phase. And other countries – such as Belgium and Sweden – have done everything they can to keep the schools open, so there were alternatives on the table.”

Staying on topic, I liked this from the Conservative Woman site in Britain, with perhaps the best argument against child vaccination: “The sooner most of us are exposed to it, ideally in childhood, the sooner it will cease to be a major problem..”

Why Subject Our Children To The Risk Of Death From Vaccination?

All non-corrupted scientific commentators have known from the very start that this pandemic only ends one way: SARS-CoV-2 is going to become an endemic virus. It will always be with us. The sooner most of us are exposed to it, ideally in childhood, the sooner it will cease to be a major problem. High-risk individuals can choose to take a vaccine. Ivermectin and vitamin D can be used to prevent infection and treat confirmed cases. As we have seen, the argument that children must take vaccines so that we can achieve herd immunity is utterly false. Only those completely ignorant of virology and immunology would even attempt to make it. That brings us back to the original argument for vaccinating children against Covid: to protect them from the severe disease.

If this is the only reason to vaccinate children, there is only one calculation that parents should make: Is the risk from Covid greater than the risk from the vaccine? The present Covid vaccines being administered in the West are based on experimental technologies that are being used under emergency use authorisations (EUAs). Full safety studies will not be completed until 2023. The Covid vaccines were all created in the last year and we have no medium-term or long-term data on them. We don’t know if they will have an effect on children’s reproductive organs and fertility. We don’t know if they will produce auto-immune diseases. And we don’t know if they will lead to ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement) upon re-exposure to the virus (causing more severe illness).

_

We do know that the vaccines produce a range of cardiovascular and neurological events including strokes, myocarditis, pericarditis and paralysis in a significant number of people. In the small US state of Connecticut at least 18 children and young adults have come down with myocarditis, an extremely serious and sometimes fatal condition involving inflammation of the heart muscle (and they’ve only just started vaccinating children there). The Israel Ministry of Health has reported that the incidence of myocarditis for vaccine recipients is between 1 in 3,000 and 1 in 6,000 in young men.

_

In Canada (population 38 million) only 11 children have died from Covid since the start of the pandemic. In the UK (pop 68 million) 32 children have died. It is nearly certain that all of them had one or more severe comorbidities. The fact is, most children brush off Covid without even knowing they’ve had it. For all intents and purposes, Covid poses zero risk to healthy children.

And Michael Curzon:

Child Vaccination: Who’s Selfish Now?

A number of school leaders have swung into action following the approval of the vaccination of children against Covid (a disease which almost all children aren’t at risk from) using the Pfizer vaccine (trials of which only included 1,134 children). It wasn’t very long ago that the establishment line was: if you don’t get a Covid vaccine, you are selfish. Even the Queen (disappointingly) joined in with this line [..]. But now, adult advisers to the Government suggest that children should be vaccinated not to protect children but to protect…themselves. Professor Anthony Harnden, the Deputy Chairman of the Government’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, says:

‘I think the vast majority of benefit won’t be to children, it will be an indirect benefit to adults in terms of preventing transmission and protecting adults who haven’t been immunised, for whatever reason haven’t responded to the vaccine and therefore that presents quite a lot of ethical dilemmas as to whether you should vaccinate children to protect adults.’ He notes that children themselves are ‘in the main’ not at risk from Covid. Over half of the adult population has been fully vaccinated (with seventy-five per cent having received at least one dose of a vaccine) and Covid deaths, while still exaggerated, have flattened. There is no reason to vaccinate most children and, given the potential side effects, many not to do so. If the Government bottles it on the vaccination of children, it is they who are being selfish.

The reactions to the virus are many times more dangerous than the virus itself. Because the reactions have been amplified by fear. Time to shake it off. But for that to happen, we need politics and media to change, because they’re doing the amplifying. Problem is, fear sells.

No evidence ivermectin is a miracle drug against COVID-19
By BEATRICE DUPUY December 11, 2020

CLAIM: The antiparasitic drug ivermectin “has a miraculous effectiveness that obliterates” the transmission of COVID-19 and will prevent people from getting sick.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There’s no evidence ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.

THE FACTS: During a Senate hearing Tuesday, a group of doctors touted alternative COVID-19 treatments, including ivermectin and the anti-malaria medication hydroxychloroquine. Medical experts have cautioned against using either of those drugs to treat COVID-19. Studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine has no benefit against the coronavirus and can have serious side effects. No evidence has been shown to prove that ivermectin works against COVID-19.

Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at Aurora St Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee, described ivermectin as a “wonder drug” with immensely powerful antiviral and anti-inflammatory agents at the hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Clips of Kory’s comments on ivermectin during the hearing were shared widely on social media with one clip receiving more than 1 million views on YouTube.

Ivermectin is approved in the U.S. in tablet form to treat parasitic worms as well as a topical solution to treat external parasites. The drug is also available for animals. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health have said that the drug is not approved for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. According to the FDA, side effects for the drug include skin rash, nausea and vomiting.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University, said most of the research around ivermectin at the moment is made up of anecdotes and studies that are not the gold standard in terms of how to use ivermectin.

“We need to get much more data before we can say this is a definitive treatment,” he said. “We would like to see more data before I recommend it to my patients.”

Kory told the AP that he stands by the comments he made at the hearing, saying that he was not trying to promote the drug but the data around it.

In June, Australian researchers published the findings of a study that found ivermectin inhibited the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in a laboratory setting, which is not the same as testing the drug on humans or animals. Following the study, the FDA released a letter out of concern warning consumers not to self-medicate with ivermectin products intended for animals.

“It is a far cry from an in vitro lab replication to helping humans,” said Dr. Nasia Safdar, medical director of infection prevention at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Hospital.

The discussion about the drug in the Senate hearing has some experts worried that Americans will start buying up ivermectin out of desperation. Despite a majority of evidence showing hydroxychloroquine is not an effective COVID-19 treatment, there was a rush on that drug earlier this year after President Donald Trump called it a cure. That depleted supply for those who needed the medication to treat lupus and other conditions.

In March, an Arizona couple attempted to self-medicate and took chloroquine phosphate, an additive used to clean fish tanks that is also an ingredient in hydroxychloroquine. The woman became gravely ill and the man died.

“If there is one thing we have learned in the pandemic is that we cannot jump the gun as far as determining or making assumptions about the effectiveness of potential agents,” Safdar said.

This is part of The Associated Press’ ongoing effort to fact-check misinformation that is shared widely online, including work with Facebook to identify and reduce the circulation of false stories on the platform.

Probably the reason I looked at the Nature Medicine paper carefully was that I knew 2 of its authors. I had contacted Robert Garry about 22 years ago, when he and Pam Asa were claiming that squalene had caused Gulf War syndrome and was the cause of the illnesses that followed anthrax vaccinations. I purchased a vial of a novel vaccine adjuvant from Fisher Scientific (this was when the adjuvant was owned by a small company, before these adjuvants were traded off to Glaxo and Novartis for $billions) and had it shipped to Garry to see if soldiers had antibodies to it. I think the adjuvant was MF59, but I am not positive. Garry told me the sera he had were negative for antibodies. Looking back, I doubt he did the experiment. It cost me about $100, but now I have the story to tell.

Later, Garry's co-investigator Pam Asa accused me of being an "agent" in her interactions with soldiers and veterans, which got back to me. I didn't talk to Garry after that.

Then, in 2014, I found out that the same Bob Garry was running a Lassa/Ebola lab in Kenema before and during the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone. Kenema was ground zero for the Ebola outbreak. Soon his grant was cancelled. Hmmm. To get the lab out of there before questions were asked?

One more Garry connection. He has no real history with human vaccines, he is not an MD, yet Bob Garry joined a Brighton Collaboration committee to evaluate eighth nerve disorders as a side effect of vaccines. This group sets vaccine safety standards (or lack thereof) they want the whole world to adopt. Brighton is funded by CDC and recently moved to Atlanta. Is Garry there to help control the narrative on vaccine side effects? Truly bizarre.

Then in 2020 I learned that although Garry is a professor at Tulane, in New Orleans, he had formed a biodefense company in Maryland, halfway between Washington, DC and Fort Detrick (which is in Frederick, Maryland). Okay. By this time I felt pretty convinced that Bob Garry was an undercover agent who got called on to carry out unusual operations, while masquerading as a microbiology professor.

He was sought for the Feb 1-2 calls with Fauci/Farrar/Collins but could not be reached. Still, he signed the Nature Medicine article.

Ian Lipkin, MD was the other name I knew. Lipkin had done research and published lots of papers on chronic fatigue syndrome and Lyme disease. But somehow he never got the right answers, no treatments ever worked, he never contributed any new understanding. Yet he was extremely well funded. I think his work was central to the false narratives about those 2 conditions, which officially have no accepted treatments.

Lipkin had been in China at the start of the pandemic. He is very close to the Chinese, as is Eddie Holmes--both teach and are celebrated in China. In March 2020 Lipkin came down with Covid after he was home. He caught it in New York. He was interviewed for TV while he was sick, and probably was too impaired to lie well. By chance I caught the interview. He said he had been offered convalescent serum by his Chinese counterparts, but instead decided to take hydroxychloroquine, at the suggestion of his doctor.

Lipkin was the mastermind of the Judy Mikovits research published in Science that got retracted. Basically, Judy's story is that he double-crossed her: after initially collaborating on the research, he destroyed her and it.

By chance, I once spent time with Lipkin's ex-lover at an immunology conference, and got an earful. Lipkin too seemed like an agent, while he holds an authoritative position at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia U.

What about the other 3 authors, all of whom I believe came from the UK? When I mentioned this story to my friend Ed Hooper (the author of the acclaimed book The River), both of us were shocked to learn that he had had run-ins with Garry, Rambaut and Holmes himself! The plot thickened. Holmes and Rambaut had disputed the theory of the origin of AIDS as coming from a polio vaccine grown on monkey kidneys in Africa, many years ago. Might Fauci have put them up to it back then?

Every one of the authors (except Andersen, the youngest) seemed to me to have been a scientist plus 'operative' for many years.

And how did these 5 come together to write this paper? Holmes is in Sydney, Andersen in California, Garry in New Orleans, Lipkin in NYC and Rambaut in Edinburgh. Garry and Lipkin weren't in the same field as the others. The tie that bound them seemed to be that all were willing to carry out nefarious schemes. And all were apparently trusted to carry out the coverup by Fauci, Farrar and Collins.

Here is what I wrote about this topic in May 2020:

Friday, May 1, 2020

Spooky history: 3 scientists who tried to silence debate on the possible lab origin of COVID-19, previously tried to kill debate on the origin of AIDS

http://www.aidsorigins.com/covid-19-and-origins-aids-debate

Ed Hooper took a very deep dive into the origin of AIDS in his highly lauded book, The River. How did HIV jump species from monkey to man? While blamed by some on the consumption of bush meat, Hooper suggested that the use of monkey kidneys to manufacture live polio vaccines, in the Belgian Congo, was a much more likely explanation. Today, the consumption of bat meat has been offered as the route by which SARS-CoV-2 leapt to humans.

Nature Medicine ran a highly cited (including by the Director of the NIH, Francis Collins) article on March 17 which insisted that it was the final word on the subject of COVID'S origin, and should "end any speculation about deliberate genetic engineering." Yet the argument was full of holes.

While there are many curious things about that article, which I and others have noted, Ed Hooper discovered an astonishing coincidence. Three of the five authors of the Nature Medicine paper had tried to influence him regarding the origin of AIDS, separately, many years earlier. Two of them had debated him and published papers insisting they had disproved the oral polio vaccine theory of AIDS origin. The third author, a virologist who frequently strays from virology, had 2 peculiar encounters with Hooper, and claimed AIDS had been around for hundreds of years.

This coauthor, Robert Garry, also had some run-ins with me about 21 years ago. His research partner on the issue of anti-squalene antibodies in anthrax vaccine, Pam Asa, claimed to a number of sick soldiers and veterans, who then related the story to me, that I (Meryl Nass) was an intelligence asset.

Garry and Asa attempted to misdirect the discourse on the cause of anthrax vaccine's toxicity. They reported it was exclusively due to squalene. Had their claim been accepted, anthrax vaccines that omitted squalene would have been wrongly deemed safe.

You have to scratch your head. Are these scientists longstanding members of a "clean-up" crew, whose role is to misdirect us from a potential laboratory contribution in the two most deadly epidemics of modern times? And to misdirect us about potential safety issues in vaccines?

The Bible says, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Here are Ed Hooper's thoughts on the debate regarding the origins of COVID-19 and AIDS.

You know, as I write these things down, I can hardly believe that I have crossed paths with so many people who were involved with the anthrax letters and Covid coverups. I think it is because there is a fairly small biodefense fraternity. And while I was never a member, I did important independent research, and a lot of people respected that, and were happy to talk to me. I was on the outside looking in. And I soon learned that when you were dealing with anthrax and bioterrorism, a number of scientists moonlighted as spooks. My first paper on biodefense was published 30 years ago, so there has been a lot of time to accumulate encounters.

Everything I write here is the truth, and I provide details so it can be checked. I am trying to leave a record for humanity in this blog.

I always get vaccinated. I have been fully vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine.

However, based on what I now know about the vaccine side effects, current COVID rates, and the success rate of early treatment protocols, the answer I would give today to anyone asking me for advice as to whether to take any of the current vaccines would be, “Just say no.”

The current vaccines are particularly contraindicated if you have already been infected with COVID or are under age 20. For these people, I would say “NO! NO! NO!”

In this article, I will explain the reasons why I have come to this conclusion. You will learn how these vaccines work and the key mistakes that were made. You will understand why there are so many side effects and why these are so varied and why they almost all happen within 30 days of vaccination. You will understand why kids are having heart attacks, losing their sight, and ability to talk.

This was written on June 1, 2021. My views may change as new evidence and new vaccines emerge. I’m particularly excited about the Novavax, Covaxin, and Valneva vaccines because they may have a superior safety profile than the current vaccines and the Valneva is likely to lead to much broader immunity.

First, here are a few things I want you to know:

1. The views in this article are not shared by most mainstream scientists who insist that the current vaccine is the best choice for everyone.
2. The arguments are very polarizing: each side insists they are right and the other side is completely irresponsible and unethical.
3. As proof of #2: I firmly believe that the mainstream scientists have got it completely wrong and clinicians with over 500 patients have it right.
4. There is absolutely no question that vaccination with the current vaccines has a risk of adverse effects. They are much riskier than traditional vaccines. For example for age range 30-39, there have been just 7 deaths in the past 10 years (2010 to 2019) reported in VAERS for the influenza vaccine compared to 68 deaths from the COVID vaccines in 2021 alone (ending in May 2021). Watch this video which explains the process I used to get the 100X. This suggests the death rate is more than 100 times greater for this vaccine compared to the influenza vaccine (the influenza vaccine doesn’t kill anyone statistically; these are just background deaths since people die all the time). This means this vaccine is not safe; it is killing people.
5. Based on what I know today about the serious adverse events (SAEs) and death rates, choosing not to vaccinate (and if you then later get COVID, treating it early) is the superior option. This is especially true for those under age 30; the risks of infection are lower and the early treatment protocols are more effective and proven.
6. I have an ethical obligation to report that option to people because I believe it will save lives and avoid debilitating serious adverse events caused by the current vaccines many of which may be permanent.
7. Over 4,200 COVID vaccine related deaths have been reported in the VAERS system. Nobody knows the exact number, but it is likely much higher since VAERS is a voluntary system and I know that doctors are being discouraged from reporting vaccine related deaths. Conversely, had the 600K people who had already died from COVID infections been treated early, the number of deaths to date could be reasonably estimated to be significantly less than that. For example 6,000 patients if not treated would produce at least 300 hospitalizations (since average age was 60). Early treatment with a proven protocol (such as that of Fareed and Tyson) has been shown to reduce that to 1 hospitalization with the same cohort. These are actual numbers in real life in multiple independent practices. This is a 300x improvement. Therefore, a rough estimate is that only around 2,000 people would have died if we had told people to treat the virus early with an effective protocol and we had 100% compliance. If we add a prophylaxis protocol (such as with ivermectin), we reduce the deaths even more to around 400 dead. This means there is likely more than an order of magnitude difference between the options in favor of do not vaccinate.
8. By using modern hospital treatments such as cyproheptadine, leronlimab, inhaled adenosine, and the ExThera Seraph 100, even if someone is hospitalized, we can reduce the chance of them dying by up to a factor of 4 or more, leading to <100 people dead in the US, all without the need for vaccination just by allowing doctors to use the best evidence-based treatments on the table.
9. Had the CDC told people to treat the virus early with an appropriate protocol, we would have never had a pandemic since this would result in a fatality rate that is around two order of magnitude lower than the number of people killed by the flu in a typical year. Early treatment also avoids the huge amounts of vaccine SAEs many of which are debilitating. And it reduces the risk of damage to brain, heart, and reproductive tissues. We know that the vaccine is delivering spike protein to these areas; that is not longer debatable. I think the big mistake was keeping quiet about the value of early treatment and only talking about the vaccine as the only option.
10. Front line doctors who are actively treating patients have a different view than the CDC. For example, a group of doctors I know have shifted from 100% pro vaccine to 100% against the current vaccines based on their own personal experiences (wide range of rare, inexplicable serious conditions).
11. Highly respected physicians such as Peter McCullough who previously thought the vaccine was safe have now realized they made a mistake and are now publicly telling people not to vaccinate.
12. A doctor I know has 1,200 total patients of which 700 are vaccinated patients. He has 15 patients with severe adverse reactions including heart attack, congestive heart failure, acute pancreatitis, with one “now near death.” A serious event rate of 1 in 50 is totally unacceptable; it’s almost as bad as the virus itself. It’s likely less than that on average, for example, I know another frontline doctor who has 550 patients; 90% have been vaccinated and there were no significant lasting adverse events. Why aren’t we getting the actual data from the authorities? I am having to resort to data collection myself directly from physicians to find out the serious event rates since this is not being disclosed. Really? We expect everyone to do this?
13. The fact that there were Facebook “Vaccine side effect” groups with over 200,000 members before Facebook censored them is objective evidence supporting the clinicians.
14. I believe the current vaccines can cause very debilitating side effects and could be fixed so that they are a lot safer than they are today (by removing the PEG, decreasing the dosing, pre- and post-medicating).
15. I am PRO-VAX. I think vaccinations in general are fabulous. I have always gotten vaccinated in the past. I got the Moderna vaccine in March 2021. Both doses. The mRNA vaccines are fabulous in general. But NOT when the antigen is problematic and you include PEG so it gets broad distribution. That’s the issue: the s1 subunit antigen combined with the PEG in the vaccine means that a pathogenic antigen (s1 subunit) is now being manufactured (for up to 48 hours before the mRNA falls apart) in all parts of my body including inside my brain and causing blood clots and inflammation for up to around 30 days until almost all of those cells either are dead or destroyed. For more detail as to the cause of the clotting and bleeding, listen to this excellent 10-minute interview of Byram Bridle.
16. My issues are SOLEY with the SAFETY of the CURRENT vaccines as compared to the efficacy and safety of outpatient prophylaxis and treatment protocols. The number of significant adverse reactions is abnormally high and it isn’t clear if these are reversible. The lack of transparency and censorship are both troubling.
17. Knowing what I now know, I would not have made the same choice if given the option today.
18. I would not allow my kids to be vaccinated with the current vaccines. The risk-benefit tradeoff doesn’t justify it.
19. I have insider knowledge of the safety and efficacy evidence of early treatments that few people have which gives me a unique perspective that few other people in the world have. I also have insider knowledge of why the establishment is improperly rejecting these treatments and pretending they don’t work. I believe that early treatments are superior to the current vaccines in terms of minimizing death and disability.
20. My sole objective in writing this is to minimize the number of people who end up dead and/or permanently disabled
21. I believe it is NOT always the case that vaccination is better than early treatment: it depends on the risk/benefit of each option, how old you are, where you live, etc.
22. If I previously had COVID, I would not get the vaccine due to the risk of adverse reactions risk.

Here is an example that makes it crystal clear that refusing vaccination saves lives.

Troubling stories

Here are some more headlines that challenge the notion that “everyone should vaccinate including kids”:

A good friend of mine is a doctor in Canada. Of the 700 patients who got the jab, 15 have SAEs. 5 of those are hospitalized. One of the hospitalized patients is near death. This same doctor in 29 years has never had any SAE from the flu vaccine. How do you explain this?

Highly cited COVID doctor comes to stunning conclusion: Gov’t ‘scrubbing unprecedented numbers’ of injection-related deaths

Two Healthy Teens Die After “Vaccine” Injections, Famous Yale Dr. Says Ivermectin Works. 70% of COVID Deaths Unnecessary

7 Paralysis Cases Reported After Pfizer Injection, As More Schools Require Shots

Write-up: Patient’s niece reported that the patient’s arm became sore, had stomach upset, fever the day after the vaccine. The following day the patient died. (24 hours after being vaccinated)

16 year old girl cannot talk or see 48 hours after vaccination.

The statistics and stories on this site which surveys vaccine recipients.

More than 25% of all adverse events ever reported over the past 30 years from all vaccines are from the COVID vaccines which makes COVID vaccines the single most destructive vaccines in human history.

The New York Times (May 22, 2021): CDC Is Investigating a Heart Problem in a Few Young Vaccine Recipient. They will not say the number but it is more than a few. Teenagers never have heart issues after a vaccination. The article itself says “several dozen reports” of myocarditis yet the agency says relatively few cases (relative to the 100M vaccinated presumably) so as not to panic the public.

Here is a letter to clinicians in Maryland showing that this is not normal.

Here is the CDC page on these reports. They refuse to reveal the number of events and the rate that the events are occurring. We only know this is significant due to the New York Times story.

Shingles and herpes zoster infections are known to be re-activated by the vaccine. This was confirmed by an insider at the FDA who used computer analytics to see the association.

Why are the current COVID vaccines so dangerous

Listen to this excellent 10-minute interview of Byram Bridle for detail, but basically:

1. PEG enables the lipid nanoparticles to invade the entire body including crossing blood brain barrier. They don’t just stay inside your shoulder.
2. The mRNA fuses into cells and instructs them to produce the spike protein
3. The spike protein is not benign as had been assumed. It will attach to the ACE2 receptor in platelets causing them to clump which leads to clotting. It will also attach to blood vessel walls (ACE2 receptors on endothelial cells) causing bleeding. All this damage in turn, creates inflammation which makes things even worse. The blood clots and bleeding cause all sorts of disorders (blindness, inability to speak, numbness, etc) depending on where they are.
4. The biodistribution safety studies were not done with the actual vaccine (a big no-no). But they showed distribution all over the body, including brain, ovaries, adrenal glands, etc. This will be published in Byram Bridle’s next summary. See Fig below.
5. What’s even worse is that the dangerous S1 subunit protein doesn’t remain bound to the cell, but can break off and becomes freely circulating (aka free s1 subunit spike protein) as these Harvard researchers measured in vaccinated patients. This increases the damage potential significantly because if the original distribution (from the LNP) was limited in key organs, the free spike is able to reach many more areas. The analogy is delivering a small box of pathogen to the front door of each house in a neighborhood. When you open up the box, instead of the pathogen being expressed on the outside of the house, the pathogen breaks off and is now free to engulf the entire neighborhood (and surrounding neighborhoods) in pathogen (s1 subunit).
6. This free S1 protein may be transferred via breast milk to infants which then can wreak the same havoc on the child’s body. This is a hypothesis but it would not be surprising to have the spike protein in the breast milk of some lactating women if they were to be vaccinated. Proteins circulating in the blood usually get concentrated in breast milk. Notably, there have been some adverse events reported of infants experiencing bleeding in their gastrointestinal tracts after suckling from mothers who had received a COVID-19 vaccine. This hypothesis would explain it (and afaik is the most likely explanation; is there another?). Byram Bridle’s full paper (not yet available) will go into this further. Incorporating the spike protein into an infant’s immune system will teach the infant that the spike protein is “good” and should not be attacked in the future. This means that if infected in the future, the child may be unable to get rid of the virus, and would have a life-long susceptibility to the virus.

Biodistribution data (Page 1) showing accumulation of drug all over your body, not just in the shoulder. But this was not done with the actual drug.

When you get vaccinated, you start generating the s1 protein inside all your organs. While accumulation outside the injection site is minimal, because it is generated everywhere, including inside your brain, it explains the huge range of side effects.

Therefore it comes as no surprise that people suffering from vaccine side effects have EXACTLY the same biomarker profiles as long-haulers according to the scientists at what I consider the world’s leading COVID long haul clinic. The vaccine is supposed to do no harm and simply prime your immune system. It is not doing this. It is causing damage. There is absolutely no question about that.

See the 2 page summary paper on canadiancovidcarealliance.org for a more detailed description..

So there were 3 major errors:

1. not removing the PEG from the formulation which would have localized the distribution to the injection site more
2. assuming the spike protein and s1 subunit were benign (which means the distribution profile is not harmless)
3. assuming the s1 subunit would remain bound to the cells where the mRNA was delivered. This is not the case as s1 is seen circulating in the blood. This is very problematic: it means that even if you fixed #1, you could still be in trouble since this will likely affect all vaccines. The S1 subunit appears to be the most toxic part of the virus. This explains the wide range of symptoms people have after receiving the vaccine.

But wait… there’s more! Here’s one explanation for why you get free S1 subunits proposed by Stephanie Seneff (MIT):

But then I think maybe the most disturbing thing to me is they actually modified the code so that it doesn’t produce a normal version of the spike protein. It produces a version that has a couple of prolines in it side by side at the critical place where this spike protein normally would fuse with the cell that it’s infecting. So the spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor once it’s produced by the human cell, according to the vaccine instructions. But it’s a modified version of the spike protein. It has these two prolines that make it very stiff so that it can’t reshape. Normally it would bind to the ACE2 receptor and then it would reshape and go straight into the membrane like a spear. And because of this redesign, it can’t do that so it sits there on the ACE2 receptor exposed.

And of course, this makes it much easier for the antibodies to be produced because I mean it can’t hide its underbelly because it’s been engineered to keep itself open.

Stephanie Seneff, private conversation June 2, 2021

I wrote to Malone to confirm this. He wrote back:

yes, it is locked into a pre-fusion confirmation.

It has a transmembrane anchor added which is supposed to keep it in the membrane of the cell that expresses it after mRNA transfection.

But clearly there is a proteolytic cleavage step that is happening (no surprise) which is cutting it free from the transfected cells.

We know it is being clipped because of the HMS/Brigham paper measuring free spike in the blood of vaccinees.

All of this should have been sorted out before it went into humans.

Email from Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccines

Finally, for scientific readers, here’s more on the PEG usage (that is above my pay grade):

• The PEG is linked to a short acyl chain, and is there to stabilize the formulation prior to injection.
• The PEG disassociates from the lipoplex after injection
• Yes the synthetic ionizable cationic lipids are a key part of the formulation. They are what drives (thermodynamically) the coating of the polynucleotide and the overall self-assembly process.
• Both the PEG and the synthetic cationic lipids (that are added to the nanoparticles to make
  them extremely immunogenic) can be removed. The delivery will not be as efficient, but naked RNA does work.

Is this true for other vaccines?

Yes. J&J is affected too. J&J has the same modified version of the spike protein.

Why is the CDC ignoring all these warning signals?

You’d expect that the CDC monitoring would have picked up the myocarditis in kids early and it worked: it did. But interestingly, the Israeli’s who are highly skilled at this and have a much more controlled health system did not. This is interesting because it shows these detection mechanisms can have flaws.

The CDC knew early about this, but as more case reports came in, they issued an advisory about 2 weeks ago.

These events are clearly vaccine related. The myocarditis and pericarditis always happen right after vaccination (within a few days). They are more common after the second dose. This tells you for certain that it is the vaccine that is causing these events; we didn’t just get “lucky.” If it were random, the first dose would be same rate as second dose.

Why isn’t the CDC halting the distribution of the vaccine to kids until the cause is determined so that the vaccine can be “fixed”? They aren’t.

If you ask Byram Bridle, he’ll tell you in seconds exactly why this happens; the narrative we just described fits all the observations.

However, the CDC remains completely baffled even though they have been “working on it” for weeks. I’m sure it will take a while before they do. They will simply remain baffled and just tell docs to treat it.

The reason for this is simple. Even though Bridle’s analysis explains everything, accepting Bridle’s analysis means that they would have to admit they approved a very unsafe vaccine. That would look bad. So better to keep saying “we are looking at it.”

If they are truly baffled, why not make the existing case reports public and reveal their current hypotheses so we can use the brainpower of everyone in the world to find the probable cause? This would be in everyone’s best interest.

In the interim, they should adopt Byram Bridle’s hypothesis since it PERFECTLY FITS ALL THE FACTS until they find a better explanation. That’s the safest thing to do. But finding a second perfect fit… that’s really really unlikely. Therefore, it is very likely Bridle got it right and using that in the interim is the safe thing to do to protect the public.

Why early treatments are so safe

Early treatment using repurposed drugs is the fastest, cheapest, and lowest cost way to end the pandemic. These drugs are safe, effective, and they have a well known safety profile. Ivermectin for example, is one of the safest drugs ever invented.

The earlier you start a protocol, the better. In Mexico, they start people on drugs even before the PCR test comes back. Their hospitals are empty. NEVER NEVER wait for symptoms before starting treatment if you can avoid it (a common mistake doctors make is to only treat if symptoms; but that can be too late for minimizing the impact).

Viruses are ALWAYS best treated early (just like a fire). Hit early and hard, just as David Ho advised with HIV.

Because Fauci didn’t prioritize outpatient treatment early on and made sure than no repurposed drug gets NIH approval no matter how convincing the evidence is even when nobody in the world can defend these recommendations. Otherwise, if proven he made a huge mistake that cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives, he’d look bad and lose his job.

Congress is still blind to Fauci. They think he walks on water. He doesn’t. When he was given inarguable proof these drugs worked, all we got back was silence. If Congress were to actually question him on this, his position is indefensible (see this article). Cliff Lane knows all the evidence-based medicine requirements for a FOR recommendation have been met.

If we had used early treatments and novel in-patient treatments (adenosine, cyproheptadine, etc; see the videos on TrialSiteNews), the death rate from this virus would be in the low thousands making it far less dangerous than influenza which can kill between 20,000 and 60,000 people a year.

Why you should never get vaccinated if you are immune already

If you’ve had COVID already, there is no quantifiable benefit to getting vaccinated. It’s also more dangerous.

If you are not sure, it is safest to always ScreenB4Vaccine to see if you might already be immune. If so, just say no.

Ranking the options

At the present time, if I had to order preferred approaches to COVID I would choose:

1. Novavax, Covaxin, or Valneva vaccine when widely available if the superior safety data is confirmed (no free spike in blood, distribution limited to arm, no SAEs) and I haven’t had COVID
2. Prophylaxis then early treatment if infected while waiting for #1
3. Current vaccines using pre-treatment and post-treatment to address clotting (aspirin 81mg), inflammation (fluvoxamine), endothelial cell damage (NAC) but ONLY if I had to be vaccinated for purposes of business or travel or some other reason and #1 wasn’t available.

Other pre-post vaccination option:

1. one adult aspirin, 40mg famotidine, 25 mg Benadryl before the jab. After jab: keep up liquids, 81mg aspirin qd, loratadine qd, 40mg famotidine bid until sure you’re past things.
2. Pepcid + celebrex given pre- and post-vaccine.
3. HCQ, IVM, FLV combo pre- and post-vaccine.

It is important you speak with your doctor before making your decision so that you can make the decision that is right for you.

In normal times, this article wouldn’t need to exist: the best choice would be vaccination hands down.

However, today (May 30, 2021), the vaccination decision is much more complex for the following reasons:

1. Lack of transparency as to the rate of serious irreversible adverse reactions associated with the current vaccines
2. Deliberate censorship of side effect reporting (such as Facebook removing multiple “Vaccine side effect” groups of hundreds of thousands of people)
3. Troubling anecdotal reports from my friends and from doctors I know
4. Questions of vaccine safety have been raised publicly by respected scientists
5. A large respected group of physicians who had previously recommended vaccination (and is now 100% against vaccination).
6. One physician who regularly gives vaccines to his patients told me “in 29 years of practicing medicine, I’ve never seen anything like this.” He is afraid to speak out publicly for fear of retribution (such as taking away his license to practice medicine).
7. No transparency as to the risk/benefit ratio for kids of the vaccine vs. getting COVID (which would require disclosure of the serious side effect rate of the vaccine).

Those are some of the reasons I am extremely concerned about the safety profile of the current vaccines.

For example, one could reasonably ask, if the vaccine is perfectly safe, then why aren’t the reports in the V-SAFE database available to the public? Why is there censorship of vaccine victim self-help groups? Why isn’t there a guideline for treating adverse events resulting from the vaccination?

Should we vaccinate our kids?

It is impossible to justify. Look at this table. It shows vaccination for kids could cause more harm (from vaccination) than lives saved. Only if we had a super safe vaccine with no adverse events would we ever consider this. We should never consider it until we actually have the vaccine side effect data in public view that would enable parents to make this decision.

Alternatives to vaccination

I’m all for vaccination but history has shown that developing a safe and effective vaccine takes years. The current vaccine fiasco rushing it to market will end up proving this once again. But the lessons learned in this pandemic may help us to do the next one faster.

If there was no alternative to vaccination today, then even with its flaws, vaccination with a “black box warning” vaccine may be preferable for many people.

But there are viable alternatives (that the NIH is deliberately suppressing) such as

1. prophylaxis,
2. early treatment if infected (and advanced hospital treatment in the rare event you are hospitalized)
3. waiting for the Novavax, Valneva, or Covaxin vaccine,
4. pre- and post- medicating with the current vaccine.

The best choice for you depends on a number of factors including whether you’ve already had COVID, whether you need vaccination proof for work and/or travel, your risk factors, your age, the current chance you will get COVID in your community, and more. Not having public access to reliable adverse event data in order to make the best decision is troubling.

If you’ve already had COVID, you have natural immunity and if you want even higher protection, you may be better off waiting for a very safe vaccine.

If you are troubled by issues with the current vaccine, treating COVID early with drugs such as ivermectin and fluvoxamine, have been shown to be extremely effective with minimal (minor and temporary) side-effects.

If you believe the current vaccines are perfectly safe, consider adding aspirin and fluvoxamine both before and for 10 days after vaccination as a way to reduce inflammation in the presence of the spike protein.

The inventor of the mRNA vaccine wrote this post which brings up legitimate issues with requiring vaccination of an experimental vaccine. This article raises issues about how the vaccines were not properly tested (and still lack the required safety studies).

Please watch this video: Legendary Epidemiologist Sucharit Bhakdi on the Covid Vaccine.

Timeline: How did we get here

1) December 2020: Data looks good for COVID-19 naive adults getting vaccines to prevent mild COVID-19.

2) March 2021: at 1600 deaths. CDC and FDA fail to call for external data review panels. Odd.

3) April 2021: CDC reports 10K vaccine failures (vaccinated people got the virus)–could be 10 fold under reported

4) May 2021: CDC VAERS data indicate COVID vaccines have more safety events than all 70 vaccines combined all years in history.

So physicians were enthusiastic and recommended the vaccine early and have progressively become less optimistic with the catastrophic safety numbers. Vaccine centers started to decline in visitors April 8 and are now empty. CDC promoting lotteries of $1M for persons to consider gambling their lives with the vaccine. Likely the most disastrous vaccine campaign in human history.

Now that Americans are 50% vaccinated and most are adults fearful of COVID and seniors, we can lessen the intensity of the vaccine program and focus on treatment strategies for fewer COVID-19 cases both in the unvaccinated and vaccinated.

Questions to ask before taking the current COVID vaccines

By multiple measures, these vaccines are 100x more dangerous than previous vaccines. I’ve never personally heard of any adverse reactions from the influenza virus; from this vaccine, I hear them all the time.

The argument is that the benefit outweighs the risk, that you are 90% less likely to get COVID if you are vaccinated, and less likely to be sick if you do. Yet superior outcomes are regularly achieved with early treatment protocols, but without the risk profile. Where is the comparison of risk benefit vs. repurposed drugs? There isn’t one because the NIH and WHO have unjustifiably made it clear that people shouldn’t use these options despite compelling evidence.

As a result, Italy is planning to make the vaccine mandatory for all citizens.

If you live in a region of the world that still has free choice, here are some ideas for questions you may be interested in asking before you get the jab. The issue is you want to get informed consent with the emphasis on informed because today you give consent, but they aren’t telling you the risks which for these vaccines are significantly higher than typical vaccines:

1. Is there a black box warning on the label? If not, why not?
2. How many people worldwide have died within 30 days of receiving this vaccine?
3. How many people worldwide have been permanently disabled within 30 days of receiving this vaccine?
4. How many people worldwide have been hospitalized within 30 days of receiving this vaccine?
5. How does the side effect/safety profile of these vaccines compare with the Novavax, Valneva, or Covaxin vaccines (death, severe reactions, brain clots, heart problems, etc)?
6. I’ve heard of very severe side effects from this vaccine. I know many people who are disabled and the doctors cannot help them. So isn’t it true that there are many severe side effects from this vaccine that can leave me disabled where the doctors have no idea on how to get me back to normal?
7. If the s1 subunit that is generated all over my body after vaccination is so harmless, then how do you explain the wide range of bizarre neurological events reported AFTER people get the vaccine?
8. What did the CDC determine was the cause of myocarditis in vaccinated teenagers? Shouldn’t we stop until we can determine the cause?
9. How does the death rate compare with the influenza vaccine?
10. How does the rate of heart attacks compare with the influenza vaccine?
11. How does the rate of myocarditis in teenagers compare with the influenza vaccine?
12. How does the rate of brain clots compare with the influenza vaccine?
13. How does the rate of disabling side effects compare with the influenza vaccine?
14. If the vaccine is so safe, why did Facebook need to remove vaccine side effects groups totaling hundreds of thousands of members? What were they talking about?
15. Why isn’t the V-SAFE database publicly searchable? There is no transparency. What are you trying to hide?
16. If I have a disabling side effect, are there proven treatments that can reliably resolve them?
17. If I do have a vaccine side effect, is there a self-help Internet discussion group left that isn’t being censored that I can join?
18. Why weren’t the proper toxicology studies ever done that would show the amount of spike protein made in each part of my body? Shouldn’t these be done now in rhesus monkeys since they closely mimic the ACE2 binding affinities of humans?
19. Why isn’t there an analysis of the over 4,200 deaths available publicly?
20. Exactly how many people have died within 30 days of getting the vaccine? Why is this not disclosed?
21. Why would I ever want to allow my children to get this vaccine? They have low risk of getting COVID, very low risk of dying if they do get COVID, and with modern early treatments, and modern hospitalized patient treatments, it seems almost certain that they would have a greater chance of dying from the vaccine than from COVID.
22. Why are the drug companies who are collecting the significant adverse event data allowed to keep this information private? Shouldn’t this be disclosed publicly? If this vaccine is as safe as we are told, there should be nothing to hide.
23. We have never let pregnant women get injected with investigational biologically active substances, why would the CDC recommend the COVID-19 vaccine in pregnant women without many years of extensive safety testing?
24. Since the dangerous spike protein circulates in the body for up to a month after mRNA vaccination, why would people be allowed to donate blood during those two weeks? Isn’t the blood supply now contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein? What are blood banks doing to test for spike protein and assure safety of the blood supply?
25. Why do mRNA COVID vaccines go to the ovaries and testes and then increase tenfold over the next 48 hours after injection? Is that safe? Is that related to reported menstrual irregularities in women?
26. Why does the investigational program not have a Clinical Event Committee, Data Safety Monitoring Board, and Human Ethics Committee like other big clinical investigations?

A look at the numbers

A lot of people tell me, vaccination may have side effects, but even with the side effects, it is better than getting COVID.

I AGREE!

But this is not true if you knew that early treatment protocols can reduce death rates by more than a factor of 100. So it has a superior risk benefit ratio, especially with the current vaccines.

Fareed and Tyson have a near zero hospitalization rate with over 6,500 patients (avg age 60) so that’s over 300X reduction (assuming a 5% hospitalization rate, we’d expect 350 and got 1).

It’s sobering that on average you need to vaccinate around 100 people to prevent one case of COVID-19. This implies that symptoms due to the vaccine had better be only 1/100 as severe as symptoms due to the disease, just to break even. One severe reaction out of 100 is enough to turn the tide in favor of disease over vaccine. There is a big difference between the absolute risk reduction (ARR) and the relative risk reduction (RRR). Credit to Stephanie Seneff for the observation.

This vaccine fails to meet the 1 in 100 standard based on data I’m seeing from physicians. And it fails miserably compared to early treatment protocols.

Once we had a safe vaccine with no significant adverse side effects (e.g., perhaps like the Novavax, Valneva, Covaxin vaccines), then going for the peace of mind with those vaccines would be preferable. Valneva in particular should confer much broader immunity.

What I object to

There are three things that everyone should find very troubling.

1. We are urging people with natural immunity to get vaccinated. This is wrong. This is an unnecessary medical procedure which is a violation of what physicians are taught. The reason doctors are recommending it is they don’t know how robust natural immunity is, so they are erroring on the side of caution. That would be fine if these vaccines were as safe as the influenza vaccine, but they aren’t. Hence the advice to everyone to get vaccinated is absolutely wrong. The side effect profile is much worse from these vaccines if you’ve already had COVID. So not only is this unnecessary (since natural immunity is showing to be both broad and robust), but it increases risk for no benefit.
2. Patients are not giving informed consent. They are giving consent, without the informed. We are not informing them of the risks because if we did that, nobody would take the shot. For example, a top infectious disease doc I know sits on the weekly CDC briefings and I asked him, “how many people have died from the vaccine?” and he said “about 100.” So we aren’t informing the doctors since if they knew the numbers, they wouldn’t recommend the vaccine. This is why the V-SAFE database is kept from public view. It is not hard to find doctors with >1,000 patients will tell you that this vaccine’s side effects are off the charts, like my friend with 0 side effects over 29 years, now has 15 of 700 patients with significant adverse effects, 5 in the hospital, and 1 near death. Nobody knows this. Informed consent would include letting people know that there are other vaccines with significantly better safety profiles that should be available soon. Informed consent would include letting people know that there isn’t a study showing a clear benefit if you’ve already been vaccinated, and significantly higher risks than for people without natural immunity.
3. Vaccination should not be required for travel and school. We shouldn’t force people to be vaccinated in order to do necessary activities when early treatments are extremely safe and effective. With early treatment, COVID infections can be less risky than getting the flu. We don’t require flu shots. The NIH is a huge impediment here by refusing to put early treatment on their guidelines.

I am not alone; even the inventor of mRNA vaccine is mortified

It’s not just me that thinks this vaccine is bad news. So does the inventor of the technology. See

Bioethics of Experimental COVID Vaccine Deployment under EUA: It’s time we stop and look at what’s going down.

“What was most alarming to me was that my clinical primary practice physician colleague told me that each of these cases were reported as per the proper channels in Canada, and each was summarily determined to not be vaccine related by the authorities without significant investigation. Furthermore, he reported to me that any practicing physician in Canada who goes public with concerns about vaccine safety is subjected to a storm of derision from academic physicians and potential termination of employment (state-controlled socialized medicine) and loss of license to practice.”

Ask yourself, if the vaccine is so safe, why would they need to resort to intimidation tactics like this? And how can they determine that the death couldn’t be due to the vaccine without a thorough review?

Peter McCullough is highly respected and is outspoken against the current vaccines.

Interview of Byram Bridle who filed the FOIA request that showed the biodistribution data that was previously kept hidden by the drug companies showing the S1 protein is being made inside all organs of your body. It crosses the blood brain barrier, it accumulates in your reproductive organs, etc.

If I were forced to take these vaccines today

The S1 subunit is toxic. To minimize the damage to your blood vessels and minimize clotting due to this toxin, if I were required to take the vaccine, I would pre and post medicate with:

1. Baby aspirin 81mg to reduce clotting (do not use full strength; that is worse due to cox-2)
2. 50mg of fluvoxamine once per day to reduce inflammation by activating Sigma-1 including in your brain (this is a lower dose than in trials since it is started before the vaccine)
3. D3 65,000 IU twice weekly to reduce inflammation
4. NAC 600mg twice a day, to reduce damage to endothelial cells,
5. Ivermectin 6mg taken once a day

I would start medicating 3 days before and continue for 3 weeks after which very few spike and free S1 subunit cells will be circulating. These are lower doses than you’d see in treatment protocols

Basically this vaccine is mini-COVID and to prevent damage and inflammation, these are the drugs I would take because they are individually proven to be effective and they don’t interact.

What academics think of this article

Here are comments I received:

• Without large randomized double-blind controlled studies, you cannot make any of these assertions.
• Your stories about your physician friend are just anecdotes and must be totally ignored (even though we cannot explain them). The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
• There could be other causes for all these strange side effects (that I cannot think of at the moment but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist). You haven’t proved causality.
• If you want your physician’s anecdote to be believable, it must be published in a peer reviewed journal.
• The New York Times is not a primary source. Just because they reported dozens of cases of myocarditis in teenagers shortly after vaccination doesn’t mean it is true. You need an authoritative source for this, and the CDC didn’t disclose the numbers. So you can’t really say the numbers are high. The fact that Israel found the same high event rate is simply a coincidence, not proof.
• Since the V-SAFE statistics are a closely guarded secret, you can’t make any claims as to the rates of serious adverse events.
• Without knowing the denominator on the VAERS data, it is impossible to make any conclusions. It could be people are just reporting more often than in previous years.
• The VAERS data is unverified. You cannot prove any of those deaths were caused by the vaccine.
• I find your arguments completely unconvincing and you should trust the authorities. You are jeopardizing lives. Please do not email me ever again.

Typically, people will zero in on one detail. This technique is known as “cherry picking.” If that one point is insufficiently proven in their mind, then that gives them the justification to ignore everything I’ve written here even if it is all true.

My response is:

• How can telling the truth endanger people’s lives? I am calling for transparency and informed consent. That is a good thing when I believe people are being unnecessarily harmed by being deceived into thinking this is a safe vaccine.
• I’m happy to correct any inaccuracies if there is evidence showing I’m wrong.
• Doctors are too busy with patients to assemble the data. They hope others will.
• Experts like David Wiseman who discover flaws in studies cannot get his papers published. In general, if you go against the narrative, you are unlikely to get published since the peer reviewers are vested in preserving the narrative (note, this is fortunately not 100% effective, but consider Pierre Kory and Frontiers: the paper was rejected after passing peer review).
• No academic who told me what I was doing was wrong could show me the vaccine is safe. Their proof was essentially that if it was unsafe, that the CDC would have stopped it. Clearly, the CDC isn’t stopping it, but everyone knows that there are dozens of vaccine reported incidents with teenagers developing a heart condition that requires 6 months to recover from. And people know that there are 4,200 and likely more completely unexplained deaths. This is unprecedented in our history that a vaccine can kill that many people and we look the other way. Whatever happened to “do no harm”??
• It is completely baffling that the death toll from ivermectin and fluvoxamine over the past 50 years is less than 5 people (as far as I know). Yet the NIH and WHO considers these drugs too unsafe to recommend despite overwhelming evidence (including an extremely well done Systematic Review on ivermectin (which is the highest level of evidence in Evidence Based Medicine) that these drugs work. The NIH even knows that both drugs were recently confirmed in a large high quality clinical trial done by a top university and superb researchers that they claimed they were waiting for. So how can drugs that collectively have killed < 5 people in 50 years be considered unsafe, yet a vaccine that has already killed at least 4,200 people in the US and at least 12,000 people in Europe be considered “safe and effective.” Nobody has been able to explain that one and I’m still waiting. They justify it because “the vaccine is better than the virus.” No it’s not if you tell people to treat early with ivermectin and fluvoxamine or any one of a number of protocols that doctors have developed (such as from Peter McCullough, Fareed and Tyson, etc). Early treatment works but is being suppressed by the NIH and WHO. There is no reason for that suppression. That is what is costing lives, not my opposition to a dangerous vaccine.
• This is a pandemic. The Precautionary Principle of medicine requires you to look at all the evidence in front of you now and decide which hypothesis fits the facts best as to why this vaccine is killing people so as to minimize the loss of life. Do you have a better explanation for everything here? The hypothesis I present fits the facts to a “t” and explains why people are being severely disabled or dead.
• The reason you don’t hear of the death and disability from this in the mainstream media is people are told not to talk about it and the press won’t cover it. How can the press decide whether a given side effect or death was attributable to the vaccine. You can’t prove any single case. So all are not reported. But what you can prove is that the adverse reactions from this vaccine are off the charts, but the mainstream media cannot report that because if they did, then it would be an admission that they helped mislead the public into taking an unsafe vaccine that has now killed at least 16,000 people if not more.
• If this vaccine caused a single event like heart attacks, it would be easy to track. But the events are diffuse and random…. where your blood clot will happen is unpredictable. The computers that analyze events are looking for a statistically significant rise of a single event; they never really designed these early warning detection system for a vaccine that causes such a broad range of adverse events.
• The longer the mainstream press looks the other way and insists nothing is wrong here, the more they will lose our trust.
• Vaccines are supposed to be safe. You are not supposed to die from a vaccine. If you argue that death by vaccine is less than death from the virus, then disclose the fact that this vaccine can kill you, tell them the TRUTH about how effective early treatment is, show them the stats of Fareed and Tyson, and let them decide whether to risk their lives on a vaccine that kills and disables people vs. a treatment protocol (like Fareed and Tyson and others) that turns the virus into a minor inconvenience.
• VAERS data: That’s why I made this video which is really hard to dispute showing a 100X greater death rate in 30 year olds (who don’t normally die). Also, where did you see the analysis of these death reports by the drug manufacturer showing they were unrelated to the vaccine? Excess deaths like this do not just happen by “accident” or “chance”. So if it wasn’t the drug, what was it?
• If you don’t believe me that this is 100X more deadly than the flu vaccine, do you have any proof of the opposite that the death rate for this vaccine is no different than for influenza? I’d LOVE to see that! If it exists, why isn’t it being disclosed? Lots of hidden evidence here. I wonder why??? Hmmmm… If there are no SAEs, transparency reduces vaccine hesitancy.
• If you disagree, please show me any fact that disproves what I wrote, e.g., here’s proof that your doctor didn’t say that. You are doing a disservice to the public by not telling me any mistakes. I’d love to be proven wrong here, but thus far, all the academics say “I’m not convinced” but they bring no proof of their own to the table, e.g., here is the actual death rate based on the analysis from the drug companies.

In short academics put a very high bar in place and if you cannot rigorously prove your position, they will not change their currently held belief system, even if they cannot produce any evidence to support it. The burden is on me.

None of the academics cited any evidence disproving anything I wrote. Basically they said I was wrong and shouldn’t have written the article. They would not cite any facts to support their contentions or even point out any statement that was wrong (even after I asked them explicitly).

In short, they tell me I am wrong, cite no errors in what I wrote, and suggest that I remove my post and change my position. But in order to get them to change their mind, large double blind randomized controls trials are required. This seems a bit lop sided. But there is a reason for this asymmetry.

For many of them, this article is extremely uncomfortable. They don’t have any facts to disprove it, it makes perfect sense, objective smart people find it convincing, yet the academics all reject it. Why? I think because it makes them look silly for supporting the myth that this vaccine is perfectly safe. Nobody likes to be proven wrong. Therefore, they will not evaluate this article objectively: they will instead seek to prove it must be wrong because it conflicts with their beliefs. If you challenge any existing widely held belief, strong evidence is required.

VAERS shows 100x higher death rate for this vaccine

Watch this video showing a 100X greater death rate in 30 year olds (who don’t normally die).

The only argument would be more people got COVID vaccine than flu vaccine.

That’s not true.

As of Jun 1 when the video was made, 41% have been fully vaccinated (135M) and 51% have had at least one shot (168M).

CDC stats on flu vaccine show compliance from 2010 to 2019 ranged from 41.7% to 49.2%.

So we should expect to see comparable numbers, not a 100X increase.

But the death rate for the influenza vaccine is pretty much zero so these deaths are pretty much just random chance. So this vaccine is much more deadly than that just 100X the influenza vaccine. It could be 1,000 or 10,000; we don’t know because the death rate from the influenza vaccine for 30 year olds is very hard to measure.

Finally, if you knowingly submit a false VAERS report you could be fined or imprisoned, so the idea that there would be lots of data fabrication seems quite unlikely.

CDC’s early warning system — NOT!

I always thought the CDC has it’s act together. Surprise. They don’t. Their systems are a train wreck.

This should now be obvious to everyone.

They’ve never announced that the vaccine triggers shingles (herpes zoster) infections. This well known inside the CDC, but they haven’t announced it because they don’t want to panic people. But researches found the link too.

The CDC never warned teenagers that they could get myocarditis and pericarditis. Only after dozens of teenagers were harmed by the virus did the CDC let the New York Times know, but instructed them to downplay the numbers to “a few cases.” It took enough parents speaking out to make this happen. The CDC must have known this way before all the parents figure it out. Here is a letter to clinicians in Maryland showing that this is not normal. Here is the CDC page on these reports. They refuse to reveal the number of events and the rate that they events are occurring. We only know this is significant due to the New York Times story.

The CDC’s systems are so messed that they rely on Israel to discover if there are adverse effects. And even Israel was very late to pick up the myocarditis in kids.

Here’s a note I got from someone from “the inside.”

CDC has its traditional states reporting data base. It is a mess. Race ethnicity very incomplete. Some states submit negatives some only positives. The coding 5 is very sloppy. States have vaccination data bases but those are also in a very poorly developed state. The State of California and New York have the best State data systems but the they usually start with claims data and again, the claims were not used during the vaccinations. If some sort of secondary coding from the vaccinations cites into claims is taking place, I do not know. I do know that some clinical systems are trying to bill for their vaccinations in mass settings.

For the over 65 we have traditionally used CMS claims data, but because a lot of vaccination was done in mass vaccination settings billing was not routine. The status of the claims data is poorly understood. The purpose of setting up HHS Protect was to avoid the problem. CDC undermined HHS Protect by focusing on state reporting.

The best data is probably coming from Israel and other countries that actually have functional data systems.

Confidential source

HHS Protect was supposed to fix these problems, but the CDC decided to focus on state reporting which is a mess.

A public, prospective registry would make all of these events more transparent. This will cost $10M to fix. Clearly the CDC isn’t doing it. Someone should. If you are interested in saving a lot of lives and have $10M, you can contact me on LinkedIn.

This is really just the tip of the iceberg here. There is a lot more to tell.

Let’s just say that it is better to rely on what is happening by talking to physicians off-the-record who have large patient bases (over 1,000). Some physicians (500 patients or fewer) can see no significant events.

My biggest complain is the NIH. Relying on the NIH for COVID treatment recommendations has caused the unnecessary loss of life of hundreds of thousands of people. Watch for my op-ed coming up on this.

Nobody has been able to prove the NIH or WHO got their recommendations right, even after my $2M incentive. There was only one entrant, a doctor in Belarus, but he didn’t follow the rules and attempted to prove his case by making up numbers out of thin air instead of analyzing the evidence in the studies.

Still unconvinced? Consider this

This is what your government is incentivizing you to do to your kids. This wouldn’t be an issue if the S1 subunit protein was benign. It isn’t. It is extremely pathogenic. And it is going into the ovaries of our young women. Is this OK? Are you OK that they didn’t tell you about this? This graph reflects the data on Page 7 in “2.6.5.5B. PHARMACOKINETICS: ORGAN”. The document is marked PFIZER CONFIDENTIAL. It is confidential for a reason. We are not supposed to know this because it would create “vaccine hesitancy.”

Also, I said this before and I’ll say it again: I learned from Byram Bridle’s paper (not yet published) there have been some adverse events reported of infants experiencing bleeding in their gastrointestinal tracts after suckling from mothers who had received a COVID-19 vaccine. That cannot happen by chance.

Post-vaccine biodistribution data obtained by Dr. Byram Bridle from the Japanese government using FOIA request

Why are they suppressing the early treatment drugs?

One word: Anthony Fauci wanting to prove he is right.

I used to think he was a God… the guy who stood up for science. Encyclopedic knowledge of infectious disease.

We knew a year ago that the SARS-CoV-2 was man-made when Chris Martenson and others exposed it. It is impossible to explain the sequences because they don’t occur in nature. Guess who funded the work in Wuhan. Fauci. He finally admitted it. This whole thing was his fault.

Insiders told me is he is a superb politician who surrounds himself with “yes-men” like Cliff Lane who is in charge of the NIH Guidelines.

Fauci compounded his error in funding the gain of function research by suppressing the early treatments that would have rendered the virus relatively harmless (less dangerous than the flu) if the NIH had told people to treat the virus early and hard with an effective protocol (just as David Ho advised for HIV).

Fauci cannot allow early treatments to be successful. If people ever find out that we had the solution sitting on the shelf the entire pandemic and it was Fauci who was responsible, it will look really bad.

So Fauci made a bad call by focusing primarily on vaccines early on rather than pursuing repurposed drugs with the same intensity. The coronavirus experts I talked to at the start of the pandemic said that camostat was the most likely drug to try against COVID (it was a tie with remdesivir for early treatment of outpatients). Guess who funded these trials? Not NIH. Not Gates. Me! And guess what? The trial has recruited for a year, the results are in. What the hell is going on? This is a pandemic. What happened?

So I’d guess that Fauci told Lane to require evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that drugs work even if they are as safe as over the counter meds and supplements. That’s NOT what you do in a pandemic. If you have a sign that safe drugs work, you use them. Watch this 1 minute video of Michael J. Ryan who is head of the WHO COVID response. He tells people:

• You need to react quickly. Be fast. Have no regrets. You MUST be the first mover”.
• “The virus will always get you if you do not move quickly.”
• IF YOU NEED TO BE RIGHT BEFORE YOU MOVE – YOU WILL NEVER WIN”.
• PERFECTION IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD WHEN IT COMES TO EMERGENCY RESPONSE MANAGEMENT.
• SPEED TRUMPS PERFECTION.”
• “Everyone is afraid of making a mistake. Everyone is afraid of the consequence of error, BUT THE GREATEST ERROR IS NOT TO MOVE.
• _THE GREATEST ERROR IS TO BE PARALYSED BY THE F_EAR OF FAILURE.”

Fauci and Lane do the opposite of what Ryan advises. Their actions have not saved lives. Even after there are 29 published studies all positive on risk-benefit when used early, they give that drug a DO NOT USE recommendation. It’s bizzare.

In a pandemic, it is essential that authorities use the principle of all the available evidence to make recommendations using the Precautionary Principle and not wait years for large scale phase 3 clinical trials.

The NIH knows all about the Precautionary Principle because that is how they justify mask wearing when none of the research supports it. So they use it when convenient for them, and they ignore it when it makes them look bad.

There was a Cochrane review of the mask wearing studies. It concluded:

Medical or surgical masks

Seven studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 3005 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported, but included discomfort.

N95/P2 respirators

Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (5 studies; 8407 people) or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well reported; discomfort was mentioned.

Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses? Nov 2020 Cochrane

There was only one randomized study done on mask wearing for COVID. It found a small benefit (18%), but the 95% confidence interval was wide enough that masks could be harmful: 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.

I’m not suggesting that we should stop using masks, but the point is that the mask mandates were done even before a single study was done. The NIH and CDC still don’t have a single large randomized Phase 3 clinical trial showing that mask wearing is effective. So if that is a mandate based on expert opinion, why is fluvoxamine given a NEUTRAL when the experts say it should be discussed and all the studies published to date (June 2, 2021) show a statistically significant benefit and all the other evidence shows a benefit as well? Same can be said for ivermectin and other drugs. The hypocrisy is glaring and inexplicable and NOBODY will debate this in a public forum (TrialSiteNews has asked the WHO and NIH and Cliff declined without giving a reason and the WHO did not respond). Only Congress can make them answer to this but nobody in Congress is doing that.

By selectively ignoring these life-saving principles, Fauci and Lane are both huge liabilities and their collective lack of judgment have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people worldwide. And if they want to sue me for libel, bring it on because truth is the ultimate defense here and they know I know that they know that these drugs work and are withholding that from the public.

When the fluvoxamine study was confirmed in a second quasi-randomized study at a racetrack showing 100% protection from hospitalization and long-haul COVID, Fauci should have shown up on site and verified that this very credible researcher’s study was valid or not. The p-value on the symptoms alone was 1e-14 which is impossible to happen by chance. And the quasi-randomization was more convincing that true randomization because the sicker people chose the drug. There was no observer bias since every observer saw the same differences (including the track management who weren’t involved at all). So now you had two trials, p values both <.01, done independently with the same 100% effect size. While you could argue that it doesn’t meet traditional evidence based medicine rigorous standards, any normal thinking person would embrace this result.

60 Minutes showed up and spent hours investigating and telling the story. If there was a flaw, they would have pulled it.

What did Fauci and Lane do? They treated the two studies, both with 100% effect size, as insufficient. What could have caused these results if not the drug? Doesn’t matter to them; they don’t have to come up with a plausible hypothesis as to why the drug should be NEUTRAL. My attempts to brief Fauci: ignored. And I didn’t just email him directly. I had one of his high level friends tell him just to make sure he got the message.

Even after the 60 minutes story, no contact, not with me, not with the researcher. NOBODY at NIH lifted a finger to verify the study was legit. This is a pandemic. If there are two studies, both with 100% effect size, both done by top researchers, both published in top peer reviewed journals, both given “Editor’s Choice” designation, and both studies appear on 60 Minutes, you don’t ignore it. What kind of a person would do that?

Why didn’t the NIH convene an expert panel to review the evidence when this happened? They basically just said, “let us know when you have a large Phase 3 trial.” In short, deaths of people in the meantime don’t matter. They want to make sure they aren’t wrong. Minimizing deaths in the meantime are irrelevant to them.

Dr. Jeffrey Klausner took action. He convened an expert panel of 30 people from NIH, CDC, and academia which examined the evidence including the plausible mechanisms of action. The scientists asked questions. There was discussion. The survey afterwards showed that an overwhelming majority (more than 2:1 ratio) recommended that doctors talk to their patients about using fluvoxamine.

You’d think the NIH would instantly list fluvoxamine with a positive recommendation since expert opinion was positive. They did not. Nothing kept them from having a FOR recommendation. There was no law that would have prohibitied this.

The NIH then waited 3 months before adding fluvoxamine to the guidelines with a NEUTRAL recommendation on April 23, 2021. This is interpreted by doctors as “do not use” and the NIH knows that. This is why you don’t see fluvoxamine on any government guidelines anywhere else in the world and why if you ask your doctor for a prescription for fluvoxamine they will refuse to prescribe it off-label even though they could.

I have told Cliff Lane on numerous occasions that there is not one shred of neutral or negative evidence on fluvoxamine, every study shows a positive effect. I said “you cannot find a doctor anywhere in the world who has used tried this drug on more than 1 patient who thinks it doesn’t work.” The opposite is true in fact; the doctors who have used fluvoxamine have told me that it is unethical not to use it.

But all this evidence are anecdotes to Cliff. I could have 100 docs with zero hospitalizations and that’s all anecdotal to him. There is NO NEUTRAL OR NEGATIVE EVIDENCE Cliff. All the evidence is positive and the drug has a 37 year safety profile and we know there are no long term negative effects when used for COVID from the WashU study of fluvoxamine.

Cliff Lane is a disaster. His lack of actions on fluvoxamine, ivermectin, and other effective drugs are not defensible. Nobody else will defend him either: Nobody has been able to prove the NIH or WHO got their recommendations right, even after my $2M incentive.

Do you have a vaccine side effect?

Facebook shut down all your groups, but TrialSiteNews will host your forum. Please report your experiences with your symptoms, whether they are resolved, what your doctor told you was the cause, etc. at the TrialSiteNews Vaccine Side Effects forum where you will not be censored and spread the word.

A very troubling email sent to Dr. Bridle

Have you ever seen an email like this as a vaccine reaction? How many more emails like this must be sent before Congress takes action to stop vaccinating our children?

Hi Dr. Bridle,

I heard your interview today.

My 16 year old healthy sister-in-law was in ER today. (Alberta)

She couldn’t talk or read this morning.

Docs don’t connect dots but I told mother-in-law to demand testing. They found markers to indicate clotting in blood. Further CT testing didn’t reveal any they could see. Her neurological issues improved enough but she feels spacey. They sent her home blaming stress and perhaps her birth control. She had the Thing 48 hrs ago. Pfizer.

Any recommendations of or info you can send is helpful. She’s not on any blood thinners but was on Accutane (does it thin blood? I know it has nasty side affects as well).

Best regards,

Kyle

Email sent to Dr. Byram Bridle on Saturday, May 29, 2021 1:02 AM after this interview

A personal note

Do you know anyone with significant adverse events from other vaccines? I don’t.

The anecdotes I’ve heard from this one are off the charts. Doctors tell me the same. The range of symptoms are unprecendented… serious weird things that are extremely rare all pop up after vaccination like “loss of all feeling in both arms at night only” or inability to see and speak (on a 16 year old) after vaccination. When was the last time you heard that happening.

Let me tell you how I got suspicious something was very wrong. Because of the pandemic we have had very few visitors to our house, maybe around two dozen total. Tim Damroth, my carpet cleaner, is one of them. He is 38 years old and in great health. He got the Pfizer vaccine on April 26 and he had a heart attack 2 minutes later and spent the night in the hospital. On May 23, 2021, he sent me an email, “Last night my head had mild tremors. This morning my left arm at the injection site is in agony. I’m fatigued, and I’m seeing my doctor Monday. Who in the press will listen to me? I’m furious.”

Indeed, Tim was frustrated that all his attempts to let others know were ignored. I even tried my press contacts as well. Ignored.

Tim almost died in the hospital recently. He sent me a note telling me to bring his story to the attention of the press if he died so his death would at least warn others.

He’s still alive. He is extremely impaired. The doctors don’t know how to restore his health.

Tim’s wife, Monique, got the Pfizer vaccine in March and now her left arm shakes like she has Parkinson’s disease and it’s still shaking today, 3 months after her shot. Her tremors are improving, but the pain is getting worse.

Both of them are disabled. If the vaccine is really as safe as they claim, such anecdotes where both husband and wife had adverse effects would be extremely rare.

Did I just get “unlucky” that, with so few visitors to our house, we had a husband and wife with serious vaccine side effects? It’s certainly possible, but unlikely.

The press wouldn’t report either of these events. They won’t report on any of them because you can’t prove a single one. Same for deaths. They won’t say it is vaccine related because they can’t prove it is.

Why aren’t the autopsies revealing the true cause of death? Because nobody has the equipment to measure S1 subunit spike protein (except at fancy research labs like at Harvard). So they report the cause of death was a heart attack or blood clot in your brain.

Tim’s case suggested to me that the rate of serious adverse events could be quite significant. Tim’s case led me to look further under the covers and the more I looked, the more appalled I became. I wanted to document what I found since the press would not talk to Tim. That’s why I wrote this document.

Remembering the victims #covidvaccinevictims

Telegram Group with over 100,000 members and an unknown number of vaccine obituaries

There are countless stories like this. You never see this for the flu vaccine. Nobody dies from the flu vaccine.

Here’s a note I got on one of my twitter posts:

Reply to my article post on Twitter

The censorship

Others have written about the censorship. If you challenge the narrative for early treatment and talk about repurposed drugs, all the social networks will remove your posts or videos, ban you, demonetize your videos, suspend or cancel your accounts, or make sure your posts have limited distribution. Appeals are useless. Sendgrid will remove all your contact lists if you send an email they don’t like, even to your private contacts. Medium will ban you for life for talking about fluvoxamine and ivermectin as safe and effective treatments for COVID. When I asked them for facts, they just wrote back that they considered my post to be dangerous.

Doctors and patients are censored. Doctors are intimidated and told not to ascribe deaths to the vaccine.

Dr. Chris Martenson creates excellent videos, but he has to spend enormous amounts of time to figure out how to present information in a way that can escape censorship by YouTube. How can he do a video that explains why you shouldn’t be vaccinated if he can’t talk about it? Muzzling people who are clear thinkers like Martenson is the very last thing a civilized society would want to do, yet here we are.

It is the social media and mainstream media that perpetuate the myth. They are as dangerous as Fauci himself. They empower the false narrative of the NIH on early treatment leaving the vaccine as the only choice. They will not debate their decision. There is no impartial jury.

It’s one thing to remove posts and videos with no basis in science. But removing content that is scientifically supported just because it goes against the “popular narrative” promoted by “experts” is no helpful and has cost thousands of lives.

Censorship should be a user preference. If the user trusts the platform’s censors, great. But if users don’t want censored content, they should be able to see everything without filtering.

The other censorship is with the medical journals. How is a flawed study on Ivermectin singled out for publication in JAMA when very well done ivermectin studies are rejected? David Wiseman discovered if you correct the errors in David Boulware’s paper, HCQ works. But the journals reject his paper.

Thank you

Quora has been outstanding through all of this. From day 1, they have been supportive of people such as myself who are truth tellers. The top management of Nextdoor also should be acknowledged here for doing the right thing in supporting legitimate freedom of speech. LinkedIn has also come through in restoring posts from the FLCCC that were erroneously censored. YouTube has been a mixed bag, in restoring some videos, but mostly removing helpful posts.

I am grateful to the the LA Times and 60 Minutes for the courage to run stories that challenge the narrative.

I am grateful to the Times of India and the Hindustan Times for running my op-eds when they were refused by major newspapers in my own country.

I am proud of hundreds of scientists who speak out against the narrative. For example, see Robert Malone’s article. Remember, Malone isn’t some random dude; he the inventor of mRNA vaccines and he thinks this vaccine is a danger to society. Peter McCullough is another outspoken truthteller. Despite being a very credible scientist, his views would be censored from YouTube so his video is here. Nobody will dare debate him.

Pierre Kory is another tireless advocate for the truth about early treatments. He is “Mr. Ivermectin.” George Fareed and Brian Tyson who have been pioneers to prove early treatment works. David Seftel, Emory Dean of Medicine Vikas Sukhatme, the list goes on and on. I am honored and proud to count all of these people as my friends.

Most of all I am grateful to Daniel O’Connor and TrialSiteNews. They have been supportive from Day1.

The case against Fauci

To sum it up from my points earlier in this document:

1. He funded the research that created the virus. He even lied to Congress, but was later forced to recant. Watch this video of Dr. Chris Martenson taking down Fauci. It is priceless. Chris mentions me at 47:30.
2. He caused the NIH to suppress funding of early treatment research
3. When others like me funded early treatments and proved it worked, he made sure the guidelines were neutral to negative (by directing Cliff Lane to keep early treatments as unapproved for as long as feasible even after they knew these drugs were confirmed in large credible Phase 3 trials) so nobody would use them leaving the only option: a vaccine
4. He was cheerleader #1 of the most deadly vaccines in our history which although would save lives, has a huge cost in death and disability beyond anything we have ever seen; there are safer, more effective alternatives that people were not told about.
5. He continues to ignore the overwhelming evidence for early treatments like ivermectin and fluvoxamine which have been clearly shown to have very little downside and superior efficacy, leaving people with only one alternative: the deadly vaccines.

This is hardly the first time. I just got this on Twitter:

Sadly, Fauci has been this way for decades. Covid is a repeat of his response to the AIDS epidemic, but now is on on a larger scale. His trash guidelines for Lyme disease have left patients disabled for decades. He should have been exposed long before this.

Twitter message

Anthony Fauci said it himself in an email: “”Our society is really totally nuts.”

The FDA

Everybody makes mistakes. The mark of a great organization is how they react once the mistake is known.

There were no evil players at the FDA. Everyone thought the S1 subunit was a benign antigen. They knew about the biodistribution but it was deemed irrelevant since the antigen is benign.

I am a huge fan of Janet Woodcock. She has been extremely responsive to the information as it became more and more clear. I’m sure the FDA will do the right thing. I really cannot say enough good things about her. She is a tremendous asset to the FDA and to the country.

The 100X flu vaccine rate observed here means that virtually all the excess deaths were caused by the vaccine. When was the last time the FDA allowed a drug to kill 20,000 people worldwide in 6 months?

At a minimum,

1. there should be a black box warning for the vaccine that is immediately put on the label and in the informed consent that when used as directed, it can kill you.
2. Due to the accumulation in the ovaries, the drug should be halted for all pre-menopausal women immediately until we can assess the safety of the drug.
3. The drug should also be halted immediately for those under 20 since the COVID risk of this group is minimal, the drug has been shown to produce severe adverse reactions, and early treatments have been proven to work so there are viable safe alternatives (once Fauci is removed and the NIH can see more clearly).

Let’s look at a few drugs pulled off the market due to death rate:

1. Duract: This pain killer was effective in relieving pain, but it caused 4 deaths, 8 liver transplants, and 12 cases of severe liver damage in the year it was on the market. It was prescribed to 2.5M people and caused 4 deaths. Like the vaccines are today (due to early treatment protocols), it was a drug that no one needed.
2. Troglitazone (Rezulin): Treatment with this antidiabetic and anti-inflammatory drug resulted in 90 cases of liver failure and at least 63 deaths. Over 500,000 people used the drug.

I think I can stop there. There are probably better examples but the point is that with early treatments the drug isn’t needed and it is causing excess deaths that are above previous thresholds needed for revocation.

One thing that is important to add is the FDA is still in the mindset that they ignore anecdotes. Nobody can explain the excess deaths but they are there and we are killing people. Nobody can explain the range of symptoms. We can.

There are too many physicians (not cherry picked but picked at random) that have SAE event rates of more than 1%.

In the current pandemic, you cannot just rely on your “trusted” data sources because the data is under reported. You MUST go out and verify the reality matches the data. It doesn’t. So who do you believe? The doctors in front of you or the “data”.

Early treatment can reduce COVID death rates by 100 as they can verify by inspection of records of Fareed and Tyson’s records. That’s real life data. So that alone turns COVID deaths into a fraction of the number deaths per year from the flu.

It is better to employ drugs that make sick people well than to make well people sick.

The NIH

The NIH is where the problem is: NIAID specifically. The NIH Guidelines should be about saving lives, not scientific perfection. Suppressing early treatment research was a mistake beyond belief and compounding it by continuing to not change the guidelines is inexcusable. The root of the problem is Anthony Fauci. He must go along with Cliff Lane. Fauci should be replaced by someone who walks the talk of Michael J. Ryan that mistakes are OK and the important thing is to act quickly.

The CDC

I’ve heard that Rochelle Walensky is a good person. I hope some day she’ll answer my email. She inherited a large complex organization with a lot of dysfunction. I do not blame her for what happened. I have some suggestions on how to fix some of these problems she faces.

But it is odd that the V-SAFE database is not publicly available and the deaths from the vaccine are not known. We know exactly how many people have been vaccinated and make that available. Why aren’t we making the number of people who have died after taking the vaccine public as well? Full transparency.

Congress

Congress is the enabler of Fauci. Fauci doesn’t report to Francis Collins (that’s just on paper, not reality). Fauci is enabled by Congress. If they fail to remove him, people will continue to die.

The biggest problem is nobody in Congress, with the exception of Senator Rand Paul, thinks Fauci is anything but an angel. Even President Biden and the White House are clueless. Biden is moving ahead full speed to vaccinate 70% of Americans despite all the death and disablement. It’s baffling. Fauci can lie to Congress and he’s still an angel. Are you kidding me?!?!

Congress needs to wake up and talk to people outside NIH who used to work there to find out what is really going on. If anyone cares, you can DM me on twitter (@stkirsch).

This should not be a partisan issue. One member of senior Senate staff wrote me after reading my article, “the complete deference to NIH/FDA/CDC, and the lack of interest in early treatment, natural immunity, etc,”

That’s a good starting point.

It is also remarkable that nobody in Congress has called for a special outside task force to look at the pandemic response and make recommendations for what needs to change for “next time.”

If next time is a virus like in the movie Contagion, we are all doomed. This pandemic was just the “dress rehearsal” for the real thing. It was a “shot across the bow.”

Personally, I have list of over 50 things that could be changed that would really make a difference the next time, but it doesn’t really matter because there is no panel to consider my recommendations. Once the crisis is over, we go back to our old habits.

The WHO

I tried to get the WHO to look at the fluvoxamine studies. They weren’t interested. Fluvoxamine isn’t even mentioned on their guidelines anywhere. Like it doesn’t exist. Yet it is (as of June 2) at the top of the list of the most promising drugs (the topmost approved drug).

From c19early.com, my favorite website for tracking drugs that work

The WHO is seriously broken. They had no outpatient trials at all. Ever! That’s ridiculous because you always treat a virus as early as possible, everyone knows that. What drugs did they test on outpatients: None.

They only tested drugs for inpatients without first having any anecdotal data to support that.

When the SOLIDARITY trial was announced in March 2020, I wrote a Medium piece on how dumb their drug candidate choices were; that they couldn’t possibly work. Medium censored my article. In Feb 11, 2021, they published a paper showing I was right: all the drugs were losers. $100M down the drain and they lost a lot of time. Stupid.

I tried to suggest they do outpatient trials with drug combos like ivermectin and fluvoxamine. For inpatient use, I suggested inhaled adenosine and cyproheptadine would be very strong agents to test with unbelievable consistent anecdotal data.

The told me to pound sand and never email them again.

Medical schools, Medical journals, Academia

The evidence is undeniable. This is not about whether my analysis is right or not. This is about over 20,000 people who were killed by the vaccine. And many times that number who have been disabled or permanently injured. All of the death and disability was completely unnecessary as early treatments have been known for a long long time, well before the roll out of the vaccine.

Will any prominent academics other than Peter McCullough and Legendary Epidemiologist Sucharit Bhakdi speak out? Who will be the next ones with the courage to join them?

Will any Medical Schools be brave enough refuse to vaccinate people? Or will they blindly follow the CDC and NIH directives even when they know it is killing people? That’s the big question.

One of two things will happen here:

1. The medical profession will just “say no” to this vaccine now and put a stop to this unnecessary mass slaughter
2. The medical profession will have their reputations damaged irreparably for failing to recognize the evidence in plain sight

That’s an question the medical community will need to decide very quickly. I believe there will be a massive split happening very soon and we will see leaders emerge.

Finally, it has to be extremely embarrassing to the medical community that an MIT electrical engineer figured all this stuff out rather than someone from the medical field. Why was it obvious to me 7 months ago that ivermectin and fluvoxamine were effective drugs when NOBODY else in the medical community could figure it out (other than Vikas Sukhatme and David Seftel)? There is a big lesson about using all the available evidence and the Precautionary Principle in a pandemic that the entire medical community still needs to learn. People lives are important yet evidence-based medicine doesn’t take into account the probability and the costs associated with being wrong. If this pandemic were as epic as the one in the movie Contagion, we would all be dead. The medical establishment should ponder that one before it is too late.

Employees of Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter

If Facebook had not removed multiple the “Vaccine side effects” groups, totaling over 200,000 people and probably more (I just head of a 120K member group and a 70K member group), there would have been ample evidence in plain sight of the harm caused by these vaccines. Facebook has contributed to this unnecessary loss of life through its censorship. Although it is unlikely the corporation will change its ways, that doesn’t mean that Facebook employees have to just sit there and do nothing. If Facebook employees were to all take a sick day off to read this article, it would send a clear message to Facebook management that suppressing truth and restricting the free speech of victims of a vaccine that was rushed to market is unacceptable behavior.

There is no question also that Congress needs to regulate the censorship of these companies since these networks are the new “public square” replacing traditional common carriers. If these platforms want to arbitrarily censor people telling the truth, there should be a private right of action to sue them for $25,000 for each incident of censorship of factual information.

YouTube isn’t much better than Facebook. YouTube COVID-19 medical misinformation policy is to censor any videos that:

• Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19
• Claims that Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine are effective treatments for COVID-19

Are you kidding me?!? For ivermectin, they have no ground to stand on. The NIH has a NEUTRAL recommendation for ivermectin. A neutral recommendation means the doctors get to decide because the NIH goofballs on the panel are too braindead to figure out whether it works or not. So how can YouTube claim to be “smarter” than the NIH and declare it doesn’t work? Where is the research that they did to prove that the NIH got it wrong? Put it out in public view for all of us to laugh at the sheer incompetence of the people who made that decision. Why do they still have a job?

For hydroxychloroquine, there is no doubt it works if given early enough. 100% of the 29 early treatment studies report a positive effect (13 statistically significant in isolation). Where is your evidence that this drug is doing the opposite? You cannot simply rely on the incompetent analysis of the NIH and WHO.

I offered $2M to any qualified person who could show that the NIH or WHO got it right on their recommendations. No takers. If YouTube thinks these drugs don’t work, then prove it and take my money. If not, change your policy. You are jeopardizing people’s lives here. If YouTube doesn’t do either one, then YouTube employees should stage a sitout until they do the right thing.

As for all the other platforms, if you silence people who tell the truth and who are posting legitimate medical information that can save people’s lives, you are doing a tremendous disservice.

The mainstream media

Just because someone challenges the “authorities” doesn’t mean they are wrong and should be squelched. Op-eds should be judged on their merit, not on whether they were written by a medical doctor. Legitimate points of view, especially those that challenge conventional thinking or challenge authority, should be embraced if they are well supported.

CNN was too busy doing stories on hospitals being full, the dangerous vaccine rollout, and covering the horror stories of lost loved ones that they didn’t have any time left at all to cover the positive story of how Dr. David Seftel went against the direction of the editors of JAMA in order to save people from the mass COVID outbreak at Golden Gate fields. He had a 100% success record in turning patients around (in an average of 3 days to back to normal) and 100% success in preventing long-haul COVID, but CNN was too busy to cover that amazing, uplifting success story. They should be ashamed of themselves. They didn’t want to cover it for fear of “raising false hopes.” Ridiculous. It is news. It is positive news. Cover it, don’t ignore it. Had you bothered to check the p-value was 10-14 which means “it is impossible that the drug didn’t work.” And every single employee at the track was convinced there was a huge difference between the fluvoxamine and no treatment group that 100% wanted the drug. If they can figure it out, why can’t CNN? Of course, writing all this means I’m never going to appear on CNN, but someone has to tell the truth about what they did here. By suppressing these success stories, they contributed to the false narrative that early treatments don’t work.

I am grateful to LA Times, 60 Minutes, and The Wall Street Journal for their courage to run stories and op-eds that enable people to challenge the narrative and bring life saving information to the public’s attention. This is what the media is supposed to do. Bravo!

Howard Bauchner

Bauchner was the former Editor in Chief of JAMA. He just got booted. Good move by JAMA.

It was Bauchner who penned the Editor’s Note that advised physicians not to use fluvoxamine after the JAMA paper appeared because it was just hypothesis generating. That was complete bullshit. The study was confirming a hypothesis generated by many other independent efforts such as the superb work of Nicholas Hoertel in France and Alban Gaultier and his team at the University of Virginia. Every piece of data was consistent that fluvoxamine was safe and effective. You couldn’t find a shred of data that fluvoxamine made things worse or was neutral. And the mechanisms of action made total sense (see the fluvoxamine public data repository).

I emailed Bauchner after Seftel confirmed the original Lenze study in JAMA. I told him, “we confirmed the effect in a second study done by a top researcher; both studies had 100% protection from hospitalization; please retract your advice to the medical community not to use fluvoxamine.” He refused and stopped answering my emails. That’s wrong. If he wants to ignore the Seftel’s study, he should have told me why. The p-value for the symptom data in Seftel’s study was 10-14 and that’s a conservative estimate since the study was pseudo-randomized with the sick patients opting for the drug. So there were two independent studies both with p-values <.01 on the primary endpoint (hospitalization). That should have caused Bauchner to at least soften his recommendation, but he refused to budge an inch. This is the kind of medical leadership that we need a lot less of in this country. Good riddance to Howard. I’m not shedding a tear for you.

When he had the chance, Bauchner should have reminded the medical community to evaluate all the available evidence and use the Precautionary Principle to minimize loss of life. Instead he told the medical community to “sit back, and wait a year for them to prove it in a Phase 3 trial.” What kind of doctor are you that would do such a thing? You are more worried about making a mistake than saving lives. You should be ashamed of yourself.

It is people like Bauchner and Fauci who contributed to the slow adoption of repurposed drugs that could have ended the pandemic, causing us to rush an unsafe vaccine to market that has resulted in the unnecessary loss of life of tens of thousands of people and the likely ten times that number of people who are disabled in some way.

My heroes

There are a lot of heroes in this saga that helped move the ball forward.

Inclusion of their names does not mean they endorse this op-ed. Some disagree with what I wrote. Inclusion simply means that they have been helpful in moving the ball forward and save lives through their efforts.

I cannot order them, they’ve all made a huge difference. Some wanted to remain anonymous. I will take the sole blame for this document. I would not want anyone to lose their job or NIH grants.

Robert Malone, Daniel O’Connor, Peter McCullough, Vikas Sukhatme, Vidula Sukhatme, Ed Mills, Bret Weinstein, Chris Martenson, Pierre Kory, Byram Bridle, Ira Goldstein, Jean-Pierre Kiekens, Joe Ladapo, Janet Woodcock, Jeff Skoll, the Flu Lab, Patrick Collison, Marc Benioff, Elon Musk, David Seftel, Elaine Lissner, Rockefeller Philanthropy Associates, Congressman Bill Foster, Angela Reiersen, Eric Lenze, Glenn Bunting, David Satterfield, Russ Stanton, Thomas Brunner, Hilary Grant Valdez, Jeffrey Glenn, Mary Beth Pfeiffer, Esther Landhuis, Stephanie Seneff, Tess Lawrie, Bonnie Mallard, Steven Pelech, Joseph Vinetz, Juan Chamie, Covid Analysis, Covid Crusher, Josh McLeod, Karen Levins, Mobeen Syed, Syed Haider, Miguel Antonatos, Drew Pinsky, Susan Pinsky, Joon Yun, Sabine Hazan, Ram Yogendra, Robert Likić, Sean Corrigan, Bruce Patterson, Amol Kothalkar, Florian Muller, Peter Meinke, George Fareed, Brian Tyson, Harvey Risch, the FLCCC team, the CCCA team, Jim Roskind, Victoria Yan, Mark Hadfield, Bert Vogelstein, Jovo Vogelstein, Milana Boukhman Trounce MD, John Ioannidis, Susanne Hempel, Jeffrey Klausner, Howard Hu, General Wes Clark, Ken Keller, Gary Dicovitsky, Susanne and Bill Losch. Malathi Srinivasan, Sulggi Lee, Nick Kuel, Eric Osgood, Arjun Bhagat, Peter Relan, Phillip Neustrom, Keletso Nyathi, Joe Giannotti, Flavio Abdenur, Eva Migdal, Alvaro Olavarria, FranceSoir, 60 Minutes, LA Times, The Wall Street Journal, Amy Stoddard, Farid Jalali, Philippe Rola, Tom Hodge, Steven Winston, Sucharit Bhakdi, Phil Harris, Nicholas Hoertel, Alban Gaultier, Jennifer Hibberd, Christy Risinger, …

You get the idea. This was just a partial list.

Permission to copy, distribute, promote

You have my permission to excerpt, copy, translate, repost, whatever. This is all about getting the information out. Feel free to create more digestible versions. I didn’t have time to copy edit this.

Conflict of interests

I do not have any investments that would be affected by this document. I am doing this solely for the public interest. I have a long track record as a medical philanthropist that people such as Nobel Prize winner Elizabeth Blackburn and former MD Anderson President Ron DePinho can attest to (I funded their research 20 years ago).

Feedback I’ve received

It’s all been positive.

You can see for yourself attributable reactions on Twitter so you can see I wasn’t making this stuff up.

Here’s one of my favorite comments.

Twitter comment I received on this article

Here are some more examples. These were private emails or twitter DM.

INCREDIBLE ARTICLE. THANK YOU!

“Steve – this is an amazing article. Pitch perfect. Love the data. Sorry you got vaccinated, let’s hope for the best, but I’m increasingly uncomfortable with it, especially for youngsters. My data says that it has about a 1/2500 chance of turning into myocarditis in youth, skewed toward males, obviously. That’s completely unacceptable! And yet here we are, unable to really talk about that without being hard or soft censored.”
— Dr. Chris Martenson

I’m not getting vaccinated. AVV / AAVV have well known risks of thrombocytopenia. the mRNA ones have understudied risks (LNP cytotoxicity, S1 pathogenicity) and the LNP delivery system does not target only cells with ACE2 receptors — any cell reached can be transfected. Moderna was going out of business until they hit the jackpot because they couldn’t target and other cells hit led to severe direct and immune system effects. Plus, what was their involvement in WIV? Stinks

I talked to two friends. One person was already somewhat opposed to further vaccination mostly due to the nanoparticle issue (a conclusion he reached after having already gotten the pair of shots). He too had concerns about drugs crossing the brain-blood barrier, and also settling potentially in key organs (such as reproductive organs in younger folks that care a LOT more about such issues!). He is a brilliant technologist, and also reads more medical papers than ANYONE I know. He was already pretty miffed about the lack of transparency from the Gov’t. He generally puts a lot of doctors to shame IMO via extensive research. He is also a good “spreader of information,” often based on intense research, but he generally doesn’t go broadly public (re: facebook etc.), as he has no interest in the bucking the cancel culture, and he doesn’t like the privacy invasions brought on by social media. Another friend (probably a borderline genius, with a lot of medical knowledge as well) thought you made good points. He has a bunch of relatives that are ER doctors, and I bet he’ll spread the information further.

My biggest regret

I have 3 beautiful daughters. It breaks my heart that I didn’t know this until May 26, 2021 when I attended Dr. Bridle’s presentation to the CCCA. After the call, I spoke with Dr. Robert Malone and all the pieces to the puzzle dropped into place. The vaccine sets up shop in our daughter’s ovaries cranking out a dangerous spike protein for up to 48 hours that then can stay around for 30 days. What that has done to my daughters’ ability to have children is unknown at this point. I tried my best to get at least one repurposed drug to be approved by the NIH. But I was unsuccessful because of Tony Fauci, Cliff Lane, and the NIH COVID Guidelines committee inability to evaluate all the available evidence and use the Precautionary Principle to minimize loss of life. Only Congress has the power to end this; they enable Fauci and Lane.

Summary

I am PRO-VAX. Vaccines in general are good.

Vaccines are supposed to help people avoid disease.

Vaccines are NEVER supposed to kill people. NEVER. There is always an associated death toll from vaccination, but it is minimal (because people die all the time). For influenza, it is less than 1 death per year for the 30-39 age group (fewer incidental deaths in this age group, so easier to see the number killed by the vaccine itself is zero).

When was the last time we had a vaccine that has killed over 20,000 people worldwide and disabled probably more than 200,000? Never.

I’ve never in my life seen a vaccine which has the devastating side effects as this one. Not even close. More than 25% of the adverse effects in VAERS are from these vaccines making them the most dangerous vaccine since 1990 and maybe of all time.

These vaccines are problematic. Compare this to the flu vaccine which pretty much kills about 0 people per year (as demonstrated in this video). If this vaccine was as safe as the flu vaccine, I would not be writing this article. But this vaccine is dangerous: it kills and maims people in unpredictable ways. People go in healthy and come out dead.

President Biden wants to move forward aggressively to vaccinate (i.e., deliberately kill) more people. He needs to call a STOP to this now. He should not be dumping these dangerous vaccines on other countries either.

The FDA and CDC need to halt vaccination IMMEDIATELY until the vaccine-related deaths are comparable to other vaccines.

.

Promoting repurposed drug protocols and educating people to treat as early as possible (even before test results come back) is a safer and more effective approach that can reduce the absolute death toll well below what this vaccine can accomplish, by more than 100 compared to the advice given today to “stay home.” That moves this virus into a category of fewer deaths per year than the flu.

The censorship of patients and doctors is unprecedented. Why are doctors threatened with loss of license for raising legitimate concerns?

The reason a doctor or scientist isn’t writing this article is simple: fear of retribution. You would never get another NIH grant in your career or ever get a drug approved by the FDA.

The lack of transparency is troubling. Nobody will say how many people have been killed by this vaccine. We know it is at least 4,200 in the US alone but is likely much higher. The V-SAFE database is hidden from public view.

How can a vaccine that has killed at least 20,000 people worldwide so far this year be mandatory, yet ivermectin which has killed less than 16 people over the past 30 years (and it’s probably zero because the associations are never 100% accurate) is considered too risky to recommend for COVID despite 22 published positive studies (for early treatment). That’s baffling.

The long term consequences of these vaccines are unknown. We should know these before we inject healthy young adults.

There are viable alternatives with a better risk-reward profile such as early treatment or waiting for the Novavax, Covaxin, or Valneva vaccines. The Valneva vaccine is expected to be variant proof and uses tried and tested vaccine technology.

The most important thing is to educate yourself on the potential benefits and risks of your options, talk with your doctor, and jointly make the decision that is best for you.

You can always wait to be vaccinated, but you can never be unvaccinated.

If you enjoyed reading this article, please follow me on Twitter at @stkirsch so I can keep you apprised of how this story progresses and what you can do to help. Also, please help this article to go viral via promotion on social media platforms and groups on telegram, whatsapp, and other apps. Thank you for helping to save lives.

Steve Kirsch is a high-tech serial entrepreneur based in Silicon Valley. He has been a medical philanthropist for more than 20 years. When the pandemic started, he left his day job at M10 and started the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) which funds researchers from all over the world running outpatient clinical trials on repurposed drugs. CETF funded David Boulware’s trials on hydroxychloroquine and the Phase 2 and Phase 3 fluvoxamine trials, among many other research projects. He was recently featured on 60 Minutes which highlighted his work with fluvoxamine. He has no conflicts of interest; his objective is to help save lives. In 2003, Hillary Clinton presented him with a National Caring Award. He wrote this article to share some of what he has learned over the past year about the failure of evidence-based medicine during a pandemic in the hopes that people will realize their mistakes and change their views.