Friday, July 9, 2021

"Proof that puts an end to the Sars-CoV-2 Narrative" | Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D.

Wow, flushed by Google's U-Tube already. Here it is from BitChute:

Dr. Bhakdi explains, based on new scientific evidence, why he believes:
* Your immune system is your best defense against SARS-CoV-2, and indeed all coronaviruses.
* If you have been infected, even if you experienced no symptoms at all, you are immune to all variants.
* We have already reached herd immunity.
* There is no scientific reason to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2. There is simply no benefit and the rollout must be stopped.

Scientific literature references for Dr. Bhakdi’s presentation:

and

In this interview with The New American magazine’s Senior Editor Alex Newman, world-renown German-Thai-American microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi warns that the COVID hysteria is based on lies and that the COVID “vaccines” are set to cause a global catastrophe and decimation of the human population. Starting off, he explains that the PCR test has been abused to produce fear in a way that is unscientific.

Related:
ZH: People Who Recover From COVID-19 At "Very Low Risk" Of Re-Infection: Study -- Wow, who'd have thunk it. Perhaps someone would tell that madman Fauci?
IW: Lunatic Fauci's CDC: Kids not vaccinated will need to wear masks and undergo weekly testing this school year

Wednesday, July 7, 2021

How British Broadcasters Lie About Covid, Covid "Vaccine" Safety, and the Scariness of Variants

Lockdown Skeptics: An anthropologist by background with no academic training in medicine, virology or immunology, Prof Devi Sridhar has nonetheless become a go-to person for the broadcast media during the pandemic, where she is allowed to pronounce unchallenged on all things to do with Covid, vaccines and lockdowns. This week, expert group HART has taken her to task for her misinformation about the safety of vaccinating children on Good Morning Britain. She told viewers categorically that “zero children have died because of the vaccine side-effects”, a claim at odds with the multiple reports on VAERS of fatal adverse events in children in the U.S.

Today, she told the BBC that vaccines give more robust and longer-lasting protection than from infection.

We’d rather people get immunity through a vaccine, as studies are showing that vaccine immunity is longer-lasting. You will have a more robust immune response from a vaccine than you do from natural infection.

She doesn’t specify which studies are showing this, but it is contradicted by the findings of researchers examining differing immune responses from infection and vaccination.

Tuesday, July 6, 2021

Are You An Irresponsible Anti-Vaxxers Potentially Killing Millions of People By Spewing Scary Covid Variants?

The mainstream media exists, chiefly it would seem, to pollute our immortal souls with piffle, drivel and what the great Russian novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn referred to as, "celebrity gossip and vain talk."

It is also does a reliable job of spewing lying propaganda, a good deal of which is currently focused on a seemingly irrational campaign to get untested genomic pseudovaccines injected into every human on the face of the planet. 

I say pseudovaccines, since the mRNA Covid "vaccines" do not induce full-spectrum disease immunity, but induce only the production of antibodies to the Wuhan strain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As a consequence, the "vaccinated" are not resistant to infection by Covid, but merely protected from developing symptoms of disease when infected. As a result, "vaccinated" people can be infectious to others, or so the medical authorities has warned: hence the need for the "vaccinated" to wear face masks, essentially for ever under all circumstances.

Now, in the face of "vaccine hesitancy" (or, in the case of apparently better informed individuals, outright "vaccine refusal"), the media vax pushers warn that the anti-vaxxers are gonna kill us all by becoming breeding grounds for super scariant variants. 

As a non-immunologist, I refrain from dogmatic comment on whether covid vaccine refusniks constitute a credible threat to continued human existence. However, I note that immunologists of large experience say otherwise. Thus, and on the contrary, according to Geert vanden Bossche, the mRNA vaccines may drive viral immune escape, which is to say the emergence of variants that escape control by antibodies to the original Wuhan strain of Covid, the production of which the vaccines induce. 

Unlike those who have been "vaccinated," i.e., inoculated with an mRNA "vaccine", the "unvaccinated" will, if infected by Covid, either die of the disease, or develop full spectrum immunity. In the latter case, they will rid themselves entirely of the virus and achieve long-lasting and probably life-long T-cell immunity to future infection. In either case, they cannot be a source of infection to others, whether of the original Wuhan strain or a scary variant.

The possibility of an "unvaccinated" person becoming the source of a deadly new variant thus seems low, as any such a variant would have to be spread during the relatively brief course of the illness, when the infectiousness of the individual is obvious and will be guarded against. 

The "vaccinated" however, according to what we have been told by the seemingly all-knowing Dr. Fauci — a man apparently among those responsible for the laboratory creation of the super-infectious Covid virus — can carry the infection "asymptomatically," thus unknowingly spreading potentially variant viral progeny far and wide. 

Related: 

News.com.au: Singapore’s surprising new plan to ‘live with covid’ revealed

Saturday, July 3, 2021

Covid-19: the pseudopandemic psy-op Explained

By Iain Davis

Off-Guardian, June 29, 2021: Covid 19 was and is a pseudopandemic. It was the gross exaggeration of the threat posed by a low mortality respiratory illness, comparable to influenza.

The pseudopandemic was a psychological operation (psy-op) designed to terrorise the public. The objective was to accustom the people to draconian system of government oppression by familiarising them with the mechanisms of a biosecurity state.

The pseudopandemic was based upon an influenza like illness which, regardless of its origin, was not and is not a disease which can legitimately be considered the cause of a “pandemic.” The only way it could ever be described as such was by the removal of any reference to mortality from the World Health Organisation’s definition.

COVID 19 is a disease which has a mortality age distribution profile indistinguishable from standard mortality. Unlike influenza, which disproportionately impacts the young, in terms of threat to life, COVID 19 was and is a wholly unremarkable illness.

Were it not for political theatrics and mainstream media propaganda, which began in China, no one, outside of the medical profession and COVID 19 sufferers, would have remarked on this disease.

The illusion of overwhelmed health services was created by massively reducing their capacity and staffing levels while simultaneously reorienting healthcare to treat everyone who presented with a respiratory illness as viral plague carriers.

In reality the pseudopandemic saw unusually low levels of hospital bed occupancy. However, due to the additional policies and procedures heaped upon them, healthcare services were thrown into into disarray.

This was combined with the use of tests, incapable of diagnosing anything, as proof of a COVID 19 “case.” This enabled governments around the world to make absurd claims about the threat level. They relied upon fake science and junk data throughout. As symptomatic illness and resultant disease mortality was relatively low, they asserted that people without any signs of illness (the asymptomatic) were spreading the contagion.

Read more

Related:

Off-Guardian: New Normal Newspeak #1: “Herd Immunity”

Wednesday, June 30, 2021

D Is For Delta, Death and Delusion. But Why Worry? You're Gonna Die Anyhow, And Pretty Certainly It Won't Be From Covid, Strain Delta, Epsilon, Zeta, Eta or Theta

 And if our heading doesn't reassure you about the Covid Delta strain, read this excellent Zero Hedge article:

"Panic Porn Dressed Up As Science" - Exposing The Truth About The Delta Variant

Key points:

In the UK, the case fatality rate for over 30 thousand Delta (Indian) variant covid infections was 0.1%, the same as the seasonal flu and much lower than that for the original, Wuhan, Covid19 strain.

As the Delta variant became the predominant strain in the UK, accounting for 75% of all cases since mid-May, Covid hospitalizations have slumped, confirming the relative mildness of the infection.

And, "The U.K. data show more Delta-variant Covid fatalities among those already vaccinated relative to the number of confirmed cases by vaccination status." 

The exact meaning of that last statement is not entirely obvious. However, examination of Table 4 in the above linked article shows 37 deaths among 35,521 unvaccinated people who contracted the Delta Covid variant, versus 34 deaths among 17,642 vaccinated people (one or two shots) who contracted the Delta Covid variant.  

So it would appear that the vaccine greatly enhances the risk of death from Covid* -- a risk that was recognized at the outset of the vaccination campaign. cf: 


______________
* From the data cited, a definite conclusion as to the effect of vaccination on disease severity as assessed by mortality is not possible, as it is unclear to what extent the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are comparable. A difference in age distribution, for example, could greatly affect the result independently of any effect of vaccination.

The British Government presumably has the resources to provide a proper analysis of the available data, but that it fails to do so is only to be expected from the current administration of dunderheads lead by a psychopathic chancer who just poked the Russian Bear either just for the Hell of it or because told to do so by the addle-brained Biden.  

Related: 
ReclaimtheNet: YouTube censors video of Nobel Prize winner discussing ivermectin
Tablet: Covid and The War on Reality
Alex Berenson: Why Covid Is Like AIDS
Quote: "the findings suggest that for people under 60, weight loss would be the single best way to reduce the risk of Covid - probably even more than a vaccine (and with no side effects). 
But of course you haven’t heard about this paper.  
No one has. The public health establishment has decided that an honest discussion of who is really at risk from Covid might smack of victim-blaming - just as it did a generation ago with HIV.
This time, though, we haven’t just frightened a bunch of people at essentially no risk. Our viral lockdown theater has been far more destructive, for kids who have lost a year of school and everyone else. In one final irony, lockdown-related weight gain may have actually worsened the risks last year."

Washington Times: COVID-19 lockdowns caused more deaths instead of reducing them, study finds
Youtube: Jim Jordan exposes Fauci's cover up on lab origin of Covid
Revolver: COVID-19 Lockdowns Over 10 Times More Deadly Than Pandemic Itself

Tucker Carlson Confirms US Headed for Liberal Totalitarianism

The "Free World" is rapidly turning into a collection of liberal totalitarian states: so says Sergey Naryshkin, Russia's Head of Foreign Intelligence.

Which is a claim entirely consistent with the report that America's National Intelligence Agency is spying on Tucker Carlson, among America's most articulate critics of government, with a view to discrediting him and thus forcing him off the air.



Related: 
Shutting down free speech about public mis-education:


Monday, June 28, 2021

Covid Skeptic Meme


Related:

Fewer are dying from Covid "thanks to jab rollout"?

Wait a minute? Wasn't the vaccine supposed to stop you getting Covid?

And if you look at the graph in the D(u)M(b) article, you will see that the risk of death from Covid after the vaccine roll out was not much lower than this time last year, which was before the vaccine roll out. 

A supposed vaccine effect is evident only if you compare the risk of death now, i.e., during the summer, with the risk during the previous fall, winter and spring -- which is, obviously, not a valid comparison.


Oh, pfui, just a few old geezers dying -- who cares? Except, wasn't it always the case that the great majority of covid deaths were among old folks. 

So if 50 of the 119 people in Britain who have died of the Delta Covid strain had received two vaccine shots, as the Business Observer reports, the fact that most of them were old does not alter the fact that vaccination did rather little to protect those most at risk of death from Covid. 

For all the obfuscating waffle, the real test of the vaccines will come during the next flu season when (and if) people are not "locked down" like a bunch of unruly criminals, thereby prevented from earning a living or engaging in anything like a normal social life. 

So if there's no third, fourth, fifth or whatever wave, we may perhaps infer that the vaccines work at least to some degree. But it should be noted that with millions of "cases," population immunity, if achieved, will owe much to the fact that many -- the exact number of whom governments have been careful not to determine, e.g., by means of serological surveys -- have achieved robust and durable Covid immunity without vaccination by the simple means of getting the virus and, in 99.9% of such cases, recovering from it.

And remember that Covid deaths, whether of the vaccinated or the unvaccinated, have been reduced through both early treatment (as opposed to the original idea of waiting until you can't breath before going to hospital to die), and the adoption of effective anti-covid medications, including ivermectin, for the treatment of hospitalized patients. So, no, the reduction in infection fatality rate is not due solely, or perhaps chiefly, to vaccination. 

Also don't forget that the vaccine has killed thousands, which is thousands more than all other vaccines deployed  in the West taken together. 

Finally, from Lockdown Skeptics, on believing Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast,

plus this image of Britain's new Covid Minister, suggesting that post-Covid freedom in Britain, like the smile on the face of the Cheshire cat, will remain forever no more than a vision, appearing intermittently, then fading to nothing but a derisive grin. 

Tucker Carlson interviews Dr. McCullough: Hear this and weep:
.

TUCKER CARLSON TODAY SHOW (FOX NEWS, May 2021).

And Some Questions:

If you’ve already had Covid 19, then why do you need the vaccine?
If being vaccinated works, then what difference does it make if someone doesn’t want to get vaccinated?
If half of the people who get the Covid 19 jab get Covid anyway, then why get it?
If it’s made differently from a vaccine and is really only gene therapy, then why call it a vaccine?
If masks work, why do you still need a vaccine?
If the Covid jab works, why do you need a mask and social distancing?
If MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) says social distancing doesn’t work, then why do it?
If Stanford says masks don’t work for viruses, then why wear them?
If you’ve been vaccinated, then why do you need to wear a mask or social distance?
If you have a brain, why do you need to believe lying pharmaceutical companies, media and politicians?
Why force the “vaccine” on people who don’t want it?
Is there a hidden agenda here that the eugenicists do not want you to know about or even question?

Canada's Bill C-36, Anti-Hate Law: A Liberal Law to Punish Those That Liberals Hate



Related: 

Sunday, June 27, 2021

Time for Boeing to Pursue Merit Not Diversity?

FAA Denies Boeing Permission To Move Forward In Certifying 777X Due To Serious Flight Test Incident

And while they're upgrading the technical talent, maybe they should hire an aeronautical engineer or two on the board of Directors instead of this bunch of amateurs and diletantes.

Saturday, June 26, 2021

The Closing of the Tiny Academic Mind: Surgeon Opposed to Jabbing Children with Toxic Spike Protein Booted from University of Saskatchewan

 Dr Francis Christian, practising surgeon and clinical professor of general surgery at the University of Saskatchewan, has been immediately suspended from all teaching and will be permanently removed from his role as of September.

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 17th Dr Christian released a statement to over 200 of his colleagues, expressing concern over the lack of informed consent involved in Canada’s “Covid19 vaccination” program, especially regarding children. (You read a PDF of that statement here.)

To be clear, Dr Christian’s position is hardly an extreme one.

He believes the virus is real, he believes in vaccination as a general principle, he believes the elderly and vulnerable may benefit from the Covid “vaccine”…he simply doesn’t agree it should be used on children, and feels parents are not being given enough information for properly informed consent.

Interestingly, even the World Health Organization partially endorses this position, since April their website on vaccination has read:

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.

That was not enough to save Dr Christian. That is how frighteningly intolerant of diversity of opinion the mainstream – and especially academia – has become. 

Read More

Friday, June 25, 2021

The Dystoopeian schemes of a Woke Canadian At the Head of Cambridge University

By Douglas Murray

The Spectator, June 17, 2021: Regular readers may be aware that in recent months I have been having a running-spat with a Canadian lawyer called Stephen Toope. I am rarely exercised by Canadian lawyers, but this particular one is the current Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, and he seems intent on running that crown jewel of an institution into the ground. 

Since taking over as Vice-Chancellor, Mr Toope has been responsible for a wide array of anti-free speech initiatives through which, as I recently remarked in the Daily Telegraph, he appears to want to transform Cambridge University into something like the Canadian bar association, but without the thrills, or the pay.

Anyhow – our spat came to a head after Mr Toope last month published his new guidance for informers in Cambridge. 

The purpose of his new initiative was to allow students and faculty to anonymously inform on each other and report "micro-aggressions."

As I accurately wrote in the Telegraph, one of the examples of a micro-aggression offered by Mr. Toope's website for informers was a member of the university raising an eyebrow while any member of a minority was speaking. In the wake of the negative publicity, Toope took down his website for informers, claiming that it had gone off early, that the dog had eaten it, or some such lame excuse.

Anyhow, to my great amusement, Mr Toope has finally found some friends at Cambridge, or at least some suckers-up willing to write a half-arsed defence of him. Thus this letter appeared in the letters pages of the paper at the weekend. Here is the text in full:

Sir - 

Douglas Murray has twice made unwarranted and highly personal attacks on the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, Professor Stephen J Toope (Comment, May 22 and June 8). 

As heads of the University’s six academic schools, we are independent of the central administration, but we cannot stand by as Professor Toope is subject to such gross misrepresentation.

Cambridge is a democratic institution with roots stretching back 800 years. This means that no vice-chancellor can impose their will on the university, and all policy decisions proceed through an intricate and finely balanced committee structure. While we are sure generations of vice-chancellors have found this frustrating, it is a fact of life at Cambridge.

Mr Murray makes the absurd suggestion that Professor Toope wants to limit free speech and push an agenda in which academics can be punished for raising an eyebrow at a student. The reality is more mundane. Errors were made during the launch of a campaign to introduce new policies and procedures covering conduct in the workplace. The campaign website was taken down as soon as the mistakes were spotted and the policy and procedures are now subject to further democratic scrutiny.

Professor Toope is an eminent international lawyer and experienced university leader. He has made clear his commitment both to championing freedom of expression and to making the university a welcoming place for our students and staff, who hail from all over the world. The two aims are complementary, not incompatible. As a leader, he commands respect from across the University and as senior academics we offer him our unwavering support. 

Professor John Dennis, Head of the School of Technology, Professor Tim Harper. Head of the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences' Professor Patrick Maxwell, Regius Professor of Physic and Head of the School of Clinical Medicine, Professor Nigel Peake, Head of the School of the Physical Sciences, Professor Anna Philpott, Head of the School of the Biological Sciences, Professor Chris Young, Head of the School of Arts and Humanities

I much enjoyed reading this attempt to defend Toope because if this is the best that the case for the defence has, then the defence is indeed what we used to call "piss-poor."

Let me take these academics' points one at a time:

First, they say that "Cambridge is a democratic institution… with a finely balanced committee structure&." But if this is so, why did Toope not seek formal approval from the General Board and Council of the university for all parts of his recent initiative? The reason that Toope himself gave for taking the website down was that it had not received proper scrutiny.

And if the structure of accountability at the university works so well, why did he not seek approval via the proper democratic mechanism? That would have been done by issuing a "Publication" in the Cambridge Reporter, which would have to be followed by a "Discussion" for scrutiny from Regent House before the final "Grace" (that is, democratic authorisation) was formulated.

These procedures may well be a "frustrating fact of life" at Cambridge, and it is perfectly possible that VCs have had to suffer through them for centuries. But then why did Toope ignore them completely?

Next the loyal Toopians (or Toopites) claim that my suggestion that Toope wants to limit free speech at Cambridge is "absurd." And they add that: 

The campaign website was taken down as soon as the mistakes were spotted, and the policy and procedures are now subject to further democratic scrutiny. 

This is completely ill-informed, and rather surprising from academics of such distinction. For their edification, here is the timeline: 

Toope's campaign website went live on 17 May. The first Telegraph report on micro-aggressions material was published on 20 May. Yet the Vice Chancellor’s senior official overseeing the campaign (Pro Vice Chancellor Eilis Ferran) defended the campaign website in its entirety and in its original form in a letter to the Telegraph which was published on 24 May.

It was only after this defense that a part of the website was taken down. So Ferran, onToope's behalf (that's what the "pro" bit is for), should have known about the disgraceful material because it was what she was responding to in her letter. 

The website to encourage snitches and informers in Cambridge University then went back up on 27 May.

Only after that was the entire campaign website taken down – on 7 June, three weeks after it went live, and two weeks after concerns were expressed in public. All this for a campaign that had been in the works for more than two years. Was that not time enough for proper scrutiny by all the relevant university bodies?

A further claim of the Toopians did make me laugh. They say: 

"Professor Toope is an eminent international lawyer and experienced university leader." Of course "eminent" and "experienced" are terms much open to eye-of-the-beholder-ism. But if Toope is so very eminent and experienced, why has he demonstrated such monumental incompetence, not least in the most basic tools of university governance? 

Toope permitted the ridiculous materials to be published. Toope failed to respect the democratic mechanisms of Cambridge by ignoring the need for approval from Regent House, the General Board, and the Council. And so, Toope has not only attempted to impose woke and other anti-free speech ideologies on Cambridge University, but he has done so via successive acts of extraordinary incompetence. Where exactly is the experience or eminence on display here?

It goes on. For if Toope is such a very great lawyer, why did he permit what could amount to unlawful changes to the disciplinary regime for all students and staff at the university? 

Perhaps the eminent Canadian is simply ignorant of the fact that, for a full week, the university he presides over defined racism in a way that a court might have ruled, not just as unlawful, but as actually, in itself, an act of systemic discrimination against white students and staff on the basis of skin colour. 

The definition of racism with which the Cambridge "Report + Support" begins says that "Racism...is a system of advantage that sets whiteness as the norm." 

This definition – by suggesting that racism is a white phenomenon – would surely have fallen foul of section nine of the Equality Act, which Toope could have realised by reading the act. But perhaps it is too much to ask for him to have done so.

The Toope-ites claim that Toope himself "is committed to championing freedom of expression…As a leader, he commands respect from across the university and as senior academics we offer him our unwavering support."

But that just reads like the effusions of a few sycophants. If Toope commands such respect and is such a champion of free speech, why did he lose three major votes on his statement on freedom of speech last year? And by some of the biggest margins recorded at Regent House since the Second World War.

Finally, the Toopians claim that defending free expression and being a welcoming place to people from all over the world are "complementary, not incompatible" aims. 

But putting aside for a moment why these dons think Cambridge was ever such an unwelcoming place, their assertion is clearly flat-out wrong. There plainly are contradictions between the two aims and it is stupid to suggest otherwise.

Thursday, June 24, 2021

As China Rises, Russia Turns to the West

By Vladimir Putin
via Die Zeit:

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.


Related:

ZH: EU Must Establish 'Direct Contact' With Putin: Germany's Merkel

Sputnik News: Germany, France, Austria Back Idea of Russia-EU Summit, Say 'Direct' Dialogue is Needed

DM: EU leaders round on Merkel and Macron and reject their plan to resume meetings with Putin, comparing it to 'trying to talk a bear out of stealing honey'

Meantime:

DM: UK's Stupid, Servile UK Administration pander to US hegemonists by taunting Russia
Oh Come on: who's scared of starting WW3. Not, evidently, Jolly Boris who, as UK Foreign Secretary, did such a fine job hyping the nonsensical anti-Russian Skripal poisoning BS. 

Monday, June 21, 2021

Is the Danger Covid or the Vaccine?

Why is so much evidence being suppressed?

By Paul Craig Roberts

The Unz Review, June 21, 2021: How many Americans are as brave as Buffalo Bills wide receiver Cole Beasley, who announced he would give up playing football before he submits to the NFL’s vaccine protocols? https://www.nfl.com/news/bills-wide-receiver-cole-beasley-would-rather-retire-than-get-covid-vaccine

Health care employees and many other Americans are experiencing pressure to accept vaccination or be fired. For example, a hospital in Texas has made vaccination a condition of employment. I can understand the reluctance of a nurse or doctor, who has witnessed severe injury and death to those who were vaccinated, being unwilling to subject themselves to the risk. They have exposed themselves for 16 months to risk of infection by treating those who are infected. Now they are declared to be a risk to patients because they are not vaccinated and are pressured to accept the high risk of injury from the vaccine.

Notice how quickly American corporations have taken to the idea that they have the right to make deeply personal decisions for employees. It is no longer just US presidents, such as Bush and Obama, who claim authority to set aside our constitutional protections and throw us in prison and execute us without due process, private profit-making corporations are now asserting the right to make our personal decisions.

What does this tell us about the belief in freedom in America? It tells us that it is the last thing public and private leaders think about. Freedom? What is that? The right to disagree with the government, the boss, the media? That’s terrorism. That’s conspiracy theory. That’s being uncooperative. Take off the tinfoil hat and do as you are told.

This is what everyone who works for a US corporation experiences. Take the vaccine. Don’t use these pronouns. Go to sensitivity training. Submit! Submit! Submit!

That is America today. Notice how quickly it came on us. Compare today with 16 months ago and observe the rapid erosion of freedom.

During the 20th century Cold War, Americans heard about “captive nations.” Today America is a captive nation.

Employers’ demands that employees submit to vaccination are not merely assertions of authority over personal decisions and violations of freedom. A lot of evidence indicates that vaccination mandates endanger people’s lives. Much evidence indicates a high incidence of death and serious injury associated with Covid vaccination and that the vaccine itself is causing the variants. See below for one such warning.

The scientific evidence should be publicly debated. Instead, the evidence is suppressed. If the evidence is mistaken, it should be easy to show that to be the case. So why is it suppressed instead of examined and debated? How can it be that corporate executives and boards can be ignorant of the dangers to which they demand employees subject themselves?

Is this a plot against life as people increasingly believe, or is it just stupidity and incompetence on the part of those in leadership positions. Neither answer is reassuring.

Dr. Peter McCullough provides one of the many unambiguous warnings issued by highly qualified experts, people far more knowledgeable than Tony Fauci, a medical bureaucrat whose lifetime work has been to maximize the profits of the pharmaceutical industry:

https://survivalblog.science.blog/2021/06/20/covid-vaccines-have-already-killed-50000-americans/

Dr. Peter McCullough – COVID Vaccines Have Already Killed 50,000 Americans. Is the United States gearing up to force people to submit to vaccination?

Dr. McCullough is Vice Chief of Internal Medicine at Baylor University, editor of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, senior editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, editor of the textbook Cardiorenal Medicine, and president of the Cardiorenal Society.

“The first wave of the bioterrorism was a respiratory virus that spread across the world, and affected relatively few people—about one percent of many populations—but generated great fear,” McCullough explained during the Oval Media webinar with other doctors. He noted that the virus targeted “mostly the frail and the elderly, but for otherwise well people, it was much like having the common cold.”

Dr. McCullough has treated many patients with the disease, written papers on it, had the disease himself, and has also seen a death in his own family due to COVID.

He believes that fear of the virus was used very quickly to generate policies that would hugely impact human life, such as the draconian lockdowns. “Every single thing that was done in public health in response to the pandemic made it worse,” he pointed out.

McCullough explained that early on, as a doctor treating COVID patients, he came up with an early treatment regimen for those struck with the virus, which reduced hospital stays by about 85 percent, and said he began publishing papers on what he had learned. The doctor noted that he was “met with resistance at all levels” in terms of actually treating patients and publishing his papers.

“Fortunately I had enough publication strength to publish the only two papers in the entire medical literature that teaches doctors how to treat COVID-19 patients at home to prevent hospitalization,” he said.

“What we have discovered is that the suppression of early treatment was tightly linked to the development of a vaccine, and the entire program—and in a sense, bioterrorism phase one— was rolled out, and was really about keeping the population in fear, and in isolation preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be phase two of a bioterrorism operation.”

McCullough explained that both the coronavirus and the vaccines deliver “to the human body, the spike protein, which is the gain of function target of this bioterrorism research.”

He acknowledged that he couldn’t come out and say this on national television because the medical establishment has done such a thorough job of propagandizing the issue.
“What we have learned over time is that we could no longer communicate with government agencies. We actually couldn’t communicate with our propagandized colleagues in major medical centers, all of which appear to be under a spell, almost as if they’ve been hypnotized.”

Last summer McCullolugh started an early treatment initiative to keep COVID patients out of the hospital, which involved organizing multiple groups of medical doctors in the United States and abroad. The doctor noted that some governments tried to block these doctors from providing the treatments, but with the help of the Association of Physicians and Surgeons, they were able to put out a home patient guide, and in the U.S., organized four different tele-medical services, and fifteen regional tele-medical services. This way, people who were stricken with COVID-19, were able to call in to these services and get the medications they needed prescribed to local pharmacies, or mail order distribution pharmacies, he explained.“Good doctors are doing unthinkable things like injecting biologically active messenger RNA that produces this pathogenic spike protein into pregnant women. I think when these doctors wake up from their trance, they’re going to be shocked to think what they’ve done to people,” he said, echoing what he, and Dr. Harvey Risch, professor at the Yale School of Public Health, told Fox News host Laura Ingraham during an interview last month.

“Without the government really even understanding what was going on, we crushed the epidemic curve of the United States,” McCullough claimed. “Toward the end of December and January, we basically took care of the pandemic with about 500 doctors and telemedicine services, and to this day, we treat about 25 percent of the U.S. COVID-19 population that are actually at high risk, over age 50 with medical problems that present with severe symptoms.”

“We know that this is phase two of bioterrorism, we don’t know who’s behind it, but we know that they want a needle in every arm to inject messenger RNA, or adenoviral DNA into every human being,” he said. “They want every human being.” The doctor later warned that the experimental vaccines could ultimately lead to cancers, and sterilize young women.

Dr. McCullough said his goal is to set apart a large group of people that the system cannot get to, which would include those who have already had the virus, those with immunity, children, pregnant women, and child-bearing women.

The cardiologist went on to say that because there is no clinical benefit in young people whatsoever to get the vaccine, even one case of myocarditis or pericarditis following the shots “is too many,” yet even though the CDC is aware of hundreds of alarming reports of cases of heart swelling in teenagers and young adults, they’re only going to reevaluate the matter later on in June. He accused the medical establishment of neglecting to to do anything to reduce the risks of the vaccines.

As someone who has chaired over two dozen vaccine safety monitoring boards for the FDA, and National Institute for Health, McCullough had room to criticize how the vaccines have been rolled out.

“With this program, there is no critical event committee, there is no data-safety monitoring board, and there’s no human ethics committee. Those structures are mandatory for all large clinical investigations, and so the word that’s really used for what’s going on is malfeasance, that’s wrongdoing of people in authority,” the doctor explained.

“Without any safety measures in place, you can see what’s going on,” he continued.

“Basically it’s the largest application of a biological product with the greatest amount of morbidity and mortality in the history of our country.”
“We are at over 5,000 deaths so far, as you know, and I think about 15,000 hospitalizations. In the EU it’s over 10,000 deaths. We are working with the Center for Medicaid (CMS) data, and we have a pretty good lead that the real number is tenfold.”

McCullough explained that because the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database only amounts to about 10 percent of the bad reactions to the vaccines, his team has had to go to other sources for information.

“We have now a whistleblower inside the CMS, and we have two whistleblowers in the CDC,” the doctor revealed. “We think we have 50,000 dead Americans. Fifty thousand deaths. So we actually have more deaths due to the vaccine per day than certainly the viral illness by far. It’s basically propagandized bioterrorism by injection.”

Dr. McCullough said he’s seen people in his office with cases of portal vein thrombosis, myocarditis, and serious memory problems post-vaccination. “It’s so disconcerting,” he said.

“If you said this is all a Gates Foundation program to reduce the population, it’s fitting very well with that hypothesis, right? The first wave was to kill the old people by the respiratory infection, the second wave is to take the survivors and target the young people and sterilize them,” he said.

“If you notice the messaging in the country, in the United States, they’re not even interested in old people now. They want the kids. They want the kids, kids, kids, kids kids! They’re such a focus on the kids,” he said, noting that in Toronto, Canada, last month, they lured the children with promises of ice-cream to get the jab. According to one report, the government of Ontario—-which doesn’t require parental consent for children to get vaccinated—-encouraged the kids to get the Pfizer vaccine at a pop-up vaccine event.

“They held the parents back, and they were vaccinating the kids,” the doctor reported. He said his Canadian wife’s mother was forcibly vaccinated against her will.
McCullough predicted that the United States is gearing up to force people into getting the injections. 
“We have to stop it, and we have to see what’s behind it,” he concluded.

Related: 

American Thinker: Losing the plot on COVID

DM: 'The government is not being transparent about the risks': Inventor of MRNA vaccines says people should not be forced to take experimental COVID vaccines because risks aren't known and under 18s and those who’ve had virus shouldn’t take it

Global Research: Killing kids with vaccines

Gateway Pundit: NOT MAKING HEADLINES: CDC Officials Admit More Hospitalizations of Young People from Vaccine than From the Actual COVID Virus – Including HUGE Number of Heart Problems Reported

The Defender: University of Saskatchewan Fires Surgeon Who Voiced Safety Concerns About COVID Vaccines for Kids

National Pulse: Google & USAID Funded Wuhan Collaborator Peter Daszak’s Virus Experiments For Over A Decade

Norwegian Institute of Public Health: Higher risk associated with AstraZeneca vaccine than from COVID-19 disease in Norway

DM: mRNA inventor says young adults shouldn't have to get COVID vaccine

WSJ: Are Covid Vaccines Riskier Than Advertised?

Gateway Pundit: mRNA Vaccine Inventor Speaks Out on Vaccine Concerns for Young People: “Yes, My Concerns Are That the Government Is Not Being Transparent about Those Risks”

US Bureau of Economic Research: THE IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND POLICY RESPONSES ON EXCESS MORTALITY 

We failed to find that countries or U.S. states that implemented SIP policies earlier, and in which SIP policies had longer to operate, had lower excess deaths than countries/U.S. states that were slower to implement SIP policies. We also failed to observe differences in excess death trends before and after the implementation of SIP policies based on pre-SIP COVID-19 death rates

OffGuardian: Illegal DNRs, ventilators & involuntary euthanasia

In my first comment on Covid-19, I suggested that it was a manufactured virus intended to eliminate useless eaters — specifically, the elderly and infirm. In this, we assumed that the virus would be the instrument of death. What we did not imagine and could not have conceived is that the virus would serve merely as a justification for people to kill countless thousands of the elderly and infirm. 

DM: Google FUNDED virus research carried out by Wuhan-linked scientist Peter Daszak for over a decade, new report reveals, amid accusations Big Tech has silenced COVID lab leak theory

American Journal of Therapeutics: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection

Daily Expose: Dr Peter McCullough: Covid-19 Vaccines are Bioweapons and a CDC whistle-blower has confirmed 50,000 Americans have died due to the jabs

Majority of US Physicians Decline COVID Shots, According to Survey

Google-backed gain-of-function research at Chinese bat virus lab (and censored information about effectiveness of Covid treatment regimes)

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Inventor of mRNA Vaccine Tech: Covid mRNA Vaccines Unsafe

Indian Variant Political Scariant

Tucker Carlson: Google may have funded science that caused COVID, next they may experiment to make children smaller