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

Related: 

Acclaimed US novelist Joyce Carol Oates slams Brandeis University for banning phrases like 'picnic' and 'you guys' for being 'oppressive'

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.

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. 

Sputnik News: Moscow Warns of Dire Consequences in Event of Provocations Similar to HMS Defender Incident

Peter Hitchens: Our Navy's Black Sea antics were stupid

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

Covid: The Great Deception

 By Rob Slane:

The Blogmire, June 18, 2021: Dr. Peter McCullough is one of the most eminent physicians and scientists in the US, and reputed to be the most published cardiologist in history. Along with a number of others, he devised a treatment protocol for Covid-19, which was shown to be effective in preventing up to 85% of deaths. Yet having spent the best part of a year seeing all discussions of these treatments suppressed, resisted and censored by the authorities, media and Big Tech, he has come to a shocking conclusion:

“I believe that we’re under the application of a form of bioterrorism that’s worldwide, that appears to have been many years in the planning. The first wave of the bioterrorism was a respiratory virus that spread across the world and affected relatively few people, but generated great fear. … The entire programme as this bioterrorism Phase 1 was rolled out, was really all about keeping the population in fear and in isolation and preparing them to accept the vaccine, which appears to be Phase 2 of a bioterrorism operation.”

At the end of his interview with the German lawyer, Reiner Fuellmich, he poses the following question:

“To me what was masterful is the psychological part of it. How did they pull this off from a mass psychology perspective?”

Of course, the response from those who have spent 15 months letting the Government and media do their thinking will be to dismiss his claims as that of a Conspiracy Theorist. Well, you dismiss someone of Dr. McCullough’s stature as a Conspiracy Theorist at your peril, especially as he happens to be someone who devoted his time to developing effective treatments for Covid-19, only to see them ruthlessly suppressed. But those dismissing his words should consider this: by definition, a Conspiracy Theory is a theory about something that someone believes is going to happen or which has happened. But Dr. McCullough is not talking about that. He is talking about something that is happening in real time, in plain sight, right in front of your eyes – if you have your eyes open to see it.

Almost everything we have been told about this virus and the response to it has been a lie. Not a mistake, not an accident, not a misunderstanding. Dr Mike Yeadon, one of the few true heroes of the moment, lists these falsehoods as follows:

1. That the virus is novel, so there is no immunity to it.
2. That the virus is very much more lethal than anything else we’ve encountered.
3. That there are no treatments.
4. That the PCR is a reliable test of clinically important infection.
5. That the virus can be spread by infected people without symptoms.
6. That masks protect against transmission.
7. That Lockdowns slow transmission through the community.
8. That variants formed during virus replication are more dangerous and some will escape immunity.
9. That it’s uncertain if you can be infected twice.
10. That the vaccines are safe and effective.

Each of these points is, he says, provably untrue. Yet despite this, even if most people were offered irrefutable evidence that they are untrue, they still cannot bring themselves to come to any other conclusion than to question the official narrative is a “Conspiracy Theory”

Read more

Related:

Evidence of Antibody Dependent Enhancement? – Majority of Covid deaths are the fully vaccinated and A&E attendance is breaking records

Why Democracy Died

To know why democracy died, it is necessary to understand why it came into existence.

Democracy is an improbable form of government. Throughout the thousands of years of human existence, before the emergence of cities, states and empires, humans lived in tribes of hunter gatherers, small groups of no fixed address, each tribe dominated by an alpha male or chief who impregnated most of the women and killed anyone who got in his way.

The agricultural revolution meant both an increase in population and the creation of settled communities with permanent housing, irrigation works, markets, temples, defensive walls and fortresses. With the rise of such communities, or city states, one man (or occasionally woman) rule remained the rule but with some elaboration. 

One man could not rule a city without a hierarchy of soldiers, administrators, and priests, the heads of each institutional group naturally acquired a degree of personal power independent of the Chief, or Prince, or King. But still the system remain firmly top-down, with trouble from uppity plebs subject to brutal suppression.

Rulers of large cities naturally sought to subordinate smaller cities, so that city states generally gave way to empires. But top-down government headed by a single person, the Prince, the King, the Emperor, remained the rule, though now with subordinate individuals, as for example, military commanders, tax collectors, architects, and priests wielding ever great powers.

But whatever the exact form of government of the newly risen city states and empires, no ruler had the insane idea of asking the people, the peasants, the surfs, the helots, the slave class, to take the reigns of power and dictate to the rulers what should be done.

Not, that is, until the emergence of the peculiar Greek city state of Athens during the late bronze age.

Why did this bizarre transformation in the government of Athens happen? Several unusual factors contributed.

Important was the geography of Greece which comprises many islands, and a mainland deeply indented by sea inlets and divided by mountain ranges, thus providing many small habitable areas of cultivable land sufficient to support a city state while providing natural defenses against attack by neighboring communities. As a result, the city states of ancient Greece survived long after Egypt, Persia, North Africa, Italy and China had been subordinated to imperial regimes.

Not that the inhospitable terrain discouraged imperialist ambitions among the leaders of the Greek city states who engaged repeatedly in mostly futile campaigns to subjugate one another.

A consequence of such wars was the acquisition of slaves, either soldiers taken captive in battle or the inhabitants of territory temporarily occupied during interstate conflicts. As a result, the landowning citizens of Athens were not obliged to till their own lands. Being free to pursue other interests, some naturally engaged in politics. And as the Athenian state was small, the most effective means to pursue a political career was by speaking in the town square.

This inevitably gave power to those who could rouse the mob. The game was formalized with those attending in the public forum registering their support for or against this or that proposal by marking a ballot in the form or a clay tile, or ostrakon, and dropping it into an urn to be counted. 

Athenian ballot form

Slaves and women were excluded from participation, but the male owners of slaves and women, referred to themselves as the people, or demos, hence democracy. Rule, that is, under the leadership of men of ambition and rapacity, who, intent only on elevating their own status, wealth and power even at the expense of the people, had the ability to sway the crowd. 

This crazy system, under which the greatest rabble-rousers drove Athens into endless wars against other Greek communities, might have continued to this day had not the Romans imposed imperial rule upon Greece from without. Thereafter, democracy became extinct throughout the world, until the modern era.

And it was modernity, and in particular industrialism and the consequent phenomenon of total war, that made the emergence of mass democracy inevitable.

Industrialization required the assembly and organization of large numbers of well disciplined workers in mines and factories, at docks and construction sites. Trouble was, the large assemblies of workers operating capital intensive systems of production and distribution were alarmingly prone to revolt against brutal conditions and long hours of work for miserable pay at a time when the newly enriched entrepreneurial class engaged in the most extravagant displays of wealth and privilege.

What to do?

Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, Commander in Chief of British armed forces, victor over Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo, and UK Prime Minister during the 1820's, urged the rapid development of railways to facilitate the movement of troops to deal with workers' rebellions. 

But instead of reliance on the systematic application of force, Britain's middle and upper class reformers reduced the risk of revolution by alleviating the horrible conditions of life for the mass of Britain's working people. This they did through successful campaigns to eliminate child labor, reduce working hours, improve work place safety, create a system of universal education, introduce old-age pensions (the necessary legislation set before Parliament by that prime target of today's British Woke university hatred, Winston Churchill), and  extend the franchise, universal suffrage for men being achieved in 1918.

That mass democracy arrived in Britain in the final year of Europe's great civil war was no coincidence. With millions of working men returning from a grotesque world of filth, lice, and mass slaughter in a struggle with German working men with whom they had more in common than with their own ruling class, some adjustment in the political system was essential to the maintenance of political stability.

That the war had already detonated Russia's Bolshevik Revolution to be followed by the deposition and murder of the of the Tsar, his wife and children, and that it threatened Germany with the same transformation, further concentrated the minds of the British elite on the need for greater deference to the interests of the lower classes. 

The refusal of Liverpool's dock workers to load armaments for shipment in aid of the anti-Bolshevik forces in Russia, provided further stimulus to ruling class deference to the opinions of the proletariat. 

Thus was democracy in modern form instituted in the nation that, more than any other, created the modern world. It was a response not to wokeness, but weakness. 

But the Western world is now post modern. 

A pair of hands is no longer worth a living wage. 

Automation and AI have largely eliminated the need for either a working class of unskilled or semi-skilled workers, or a lower middle class of clerks and secretaries. 

Furthermore, modern weapons have entirely eliminated the value of mass armies. Future wars will be won, not by laying down the lives of millions of citizen soldiers whose loyalty the ruling class has earned, but with advanced technology weapons operated by a small cadre of military technologists.

How then, for the elite, which is to say the owners of modern technology, to dispense with the encumbrance of democracy.

Cancellation would be one solution. But it would be messy. It would provoke demonstrations, probably violent. With blood spilled, resentments would burn indefinitely.

But technology provides a superior alternative: mind control through media manipulation; indoctrination in the guise of education; garbage entertainment as distraction; plus fake news; fake elections; fake presidents; and a fake pandemic to force compliance with an increasingly authoritarian state.

Hence, endless bullshit TV news; the woke university; pornography as acceptable entertainment; President Biden; Meghan Remarkables; plus Covid19, facemasks, lockdowns and social distancing.

Image source

Democracy was interesting while it lasted. Now get used to the increasingly arrogant Gates-style techsploitation, to population reduction, and a pivot to a world order of which the main features were anticipated by Aldous Huxley (Brave New World) and George Orwell (1984).

Related:

Caitlin Johnstone: The Fucking President Has Fucking Dementia: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

C.J. Hopkins: Manufacturing (New Normal) “Reality”

Leader of the Peoples' Party of Canada, Maxime Bernier, Speaks with Tucker Carlson About His Arrest for Speaking Against Lockdowns in Manitoba

Michael Yeadon: UK Government and Science Advisers Guilty of Covid Mass Murder. And: Moderna Covid Vaccine Patent Application Explicitly Anticipated Deliberate Release of SARS-COV2

Dr. Michael Yeadon, June 14, 2021: UK Government advisors and Ministers are guilty of mass murder in mishandling of Covid epidemic:



Moderna Patent filed on March 28, 2019, because quote:

...of a concern for a re-emergence for a deliberate release of SARS Corona virus vaccine development was inititated ....

Related: 

Luc Montagnier, Nobel Laureate: The Covid Vaccine is 'Creating Variants'

Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees

The Western World Viewed From the East

By Vladimir Putin

We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.

The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.

What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.

At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardised model of a unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a unipolar, standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection of one’s own identity, of the God-given diversity of the world.

Source: 

Related: 

ZH: Petition Demands Resignation Of New Jersey School Board After Holiday Names Replaced With Generic "Day Off"

The West as seen by China:

The Last G7: A cartoon parody of Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper featured in an article by the Communist Party mouthpiece, The Global Times, depicts the US, UK, Italy, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, India and Australia as various animals. Source

Moronic Biden Cabinet Member Abolishes Motherhood

How to Depopulate the World: Self-disseminating Sterilizing Vaccines

"Self-disseminating vaccines have their roots in the Australian effort to create sterilizing vaccines for small mammal control." Source: Nature Ecology and Evolution — 27 July 2020: Self-disseminating vaccines to suppress zoonoses (Scott L. Nuismer & James J. Bull)

   There you have it: Bill Gates'es answer to the problem of useless plebs in a world of automation and AI:

   Dr. Fauci will finance the research, then a "lab leak," universally denied by the trusty media, and the self-disseminating "vaccine" will do the rest.

   First, though, the elite require an anti-sterilizing virus vaccine for themselves.

   As the authors of this paper write:

"Their (i.e., self-disseminating vaccines) obvious advantage, of course, is that for each animal you vaccinate directly, additional animals are vaccinated for ‘free’ either through behavioural transmission of a conventional vaccine or through the contagious spread of a transmissible vaccine. ...."

   And:

"There are two possible applications for self-disseminating vaccines, ... one that can be realized now and another that is more aspirational.

The immediate application focuses on well-characterized pathogens such as rabies and Lassa virus that regularly spillover into the human population from known animal reservoirs.

The aspirational application envisions the possibility of preventing future pandemics by eliminating high-risk zoonotic pathogens from their animal reservoirs before spillover into the human population occurs."

   But that there are only "two possible applications" for the technology of self-disseminating vaccines is clearly false, as the authors' boxed statement above confirms. 

   The technology of self-disseminating "vaccines" provides top-down control of future human evolution. 

   Yes, the technology of self-disseminating "vaccines" provides elites, people like Bill Gates and his friends such as the supposedly late Jeffrey Epstein, the means to eliminate large swaths of the global population, while introducing whatever characteristics they deem desirable in that remnant of the global population they see fit to preserve. 

   What will stop them. Nothing that I can think of, other than world revolution followed by a Taliban-style suppression of advanced technology. 

   In the meantime, here's what would bring me to approve the Presidency of Joe Biden: a one-time 15%  "emergency" capital tax on billionaires, to be followed by an annual capital tax of 2%. That would at least put the bastards on notice. 

Related: 

US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting system:

‘Self-spreading’ vaccines pose multiple risks to society — including the end of informed consent

Lawmakers Send Letter To Fauci Demanding He Explain Remarks That Allegedly Contradict Testimony To Congress