Bulletin N° 910
Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans | Full Documentary
directed by Jeff Gibbs
Michael Moore on Planet of the Humans and Censorship
Subject: Twenty-First-Century “bait-and-switch” Neoliberalism.
June 16, 2020
Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,
The final section of Ray Ginger’s classic biography, Eugene V. Debs: The Making of an American Radical(1949), is titled “World Socialism” and covers the period from events leading to his imprisonment at the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary in Georgia for opposing US entry into the “Great War” up to his death, on October 20, 1926. This section, Part IV, is introduced with a quote by Edward Bellamy (author of the utopian novel, Looking Backward, 1888):
‘And, in heaven’s name, who are the public enemies?’
exclaimed Dr. Leete. ‘Are they France, England,
Germany, or hunger, cold, and nakedness?’(p.333)
Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926) unhesitatingly opposed the carnage of the First World War, as one more misguided capitalist business venture, and he blamed “Socialist” betrayals for allowing it to happen, in the name of “paytriotism”.
Debs did not draw any fine distinctions between the different groups supporting the war. Capitalist or socialist, instigators or perpetuators, he struck viciously at all of them. The entire war could have been prevented, he wrote in the Rib-Saw, if the socialists in every country had stood by their principles. The Bolsheviks or Russia, alone in the belligerent countries, had waged a firm struggle to halt the bloody massacre. Of the hundred socialists deputies in the German Reichstag, only Karl Liebknecht had voted against war credits for the government. In France, in England, in Italy, the former socialists had become nationalists and had followed their rulers into war. This insane nationalism had to be stopped, had to be rolled back, wrote Eugene Debs in November 1914:
We socialists are not wanting in genuine patriotism
but we are deadly hostile to the fraudulent species which
is ‘the last refuge of the scoundrel’ and which prompts
every crook and grafter and every blood-sucking vampire
to wrap his reeking carcass in the folds of the national flag
that he may carry on his piracy and plunder in the name of
‘patriotism. . . .’
Patriotism, like brotherhood, must be international
and all-embracing TO BE AT ALL.
Even within the Socialist Party there was considerable opposition to Debs’ attitude. At the time of the Lusitania crisis [May 7, 1915] the Natonal Committee issued a flaming proclamation: ‘We call upon the workers of America to oppose war and all agitation for war by the exercise of all the power in their command.’ But this antiwar position was seriously compromised by the failure of the National Committee to denounce the war-socialists of Europe. As late as May, 1915, the Socialist leaders in America piously declared: ‘With every power at their command the socialists of all nations have worked to prevent it.’ This statement, as Eugene Debs well knew, had no relevance to the actions of the prowar socialists of Germany, France, and England.(pp.347-348)
Debs consistently asserted that the only justification for war is “when the oppressed rise up against their oppressors.” All nationalist wars, like imperialists wars, were in his opinion capitalist-inspired wars. Only class war was legitimate!
‘I do not know of any foreign buccaneers,’ wrote Debs in memory of the Ludlow massacre [April 20, 1914] ‘that could come nearer skinning the American workers to the bone than is now being done by the Rockefellers and their pirate pals. The workers have no country to fight for. It belongs to the capitalists and plutocrats. Let them worry over its defence, and when they declare wars as they and they alone do, let them also go out and slaughter one another on the battlefields.’
As Germany continued her submarine attacks on Allied shipping, an increasing number of Socialists began to support the preparedness campaign in the United States. But these conversions had little effect on Eugene Debs. Even if he had been completely alone in his views, it seems certain that he would have remained ‘true to himself.’ His conscience had guided his hand in 1892 when he left the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen; it had ruled in 1905 when he joined the Industrial Workers of the World; it was still dominant in 1915
. . .
When asked whether he was opposed to all war’s, Debs gave an answer that foreswore evasion: ‘I am not a capitalist soldier; I am a proletarian revolutionist. . . . I am opposed to every war but one; I am for that war with heart and soul, and that is the world –wide war of the social revolution. In that war I am prepared to fight in any way the ruling class may make necessary, even to the barricades. That is where I stand and where I believe the Socialist Party stands, or ought to stand, on the question of war.’
Debs envisioned a three-fold program to make his attitude effective: unity of the American Marxists, reconstitution of the Socialist International, formation of a powerful and class-conscious labor movement in the United States. There had been abortive moves, for more than a decade, to unite the Socialist Party and the Socialist Labor Party. Debs now set himself to this task in earnest.(pp.348-349)
The Socialist Party held an emergency convention in St. Louis, Missouri, on April 7, 1917, the day after the U.S. declaration of war. 193 Socialists came to decide the Party’s position on the war, and on the fifth day the Committee on War and Militarism presented a resolution, read by Morris Hillquit, and adopted by the convention:
The Socialist Party of the United States in the present grave crisis reaffirms its allegiance to the principle of internationalism and working class solidarity the world over, and proclaims its unalterable opposition to the war just declared by the government of the United States. . . .
The mad orgy of death which is now convulsing unfortunate Europe was caused by the conflict of capitalist interests in the European countries.
In each of these countries the workers were oppressed and exploited. They produced enormous wealth, but the bulk of it was withheld from them by the owners of the industries. . . .
The capitalist class of each country was forced to look for foreign markets to dispose of the accumulated ‘surplus’ wealth. . . .
The efforts of the capitalists of all leading nations were, therefore, centered upon the domination of the world markets. Imperialism became the dominant note in the politics of Europe. . . . This led to the mad rivalry of armament. . . . The ghastly war of Europe was not caused by an accidental event, nor by the policy of institutions of any single nation. It was the logical outcome of the competitive capitalist system. . . .
Our entrance into the European War was instigated by the predatory capitalists of the United States who boast of enormous profits of seven billion dollars from the manufacture and sale of munitions and war supplies and from the exportation of American foodstuffs and other necessaries. . . . We brand the declaration of war by our government as a crime against the people of the United States and against the nations of the world.(pp.359-360)
The declaration of war would change American society forever. On April 2, President Wilson acknowledged to Frank I. Cobb, editor of the Democratic New York World:
‘Once lead this people into war, and they’ll forget there ever
was such a thing a tolerance. To fight you must be ruthless
and brutal, and the spirit of ruthless brutality will enter into
the very fiber of our national life, infecting Congress, the corts,
the policeman on the beat, the man in the street.’ (p.392)
The Socialist Convention in St. Louis had sounded the same alarm:
‘Our entrance into the European conflict at this time . . .
will give the powers of reaction in this country the
pretext for an attempt to throttle our rights and
to crush our democratic institutions . . . .’(p.392)
. . .
The anti-war movement took a hit in the wake of this new atmosphere of growing political repression.
[I]n spite of his anger about the destruction of civil liberties, Eugene Debs was following an equivocal policy. His lecture tours had been largely discontinued with the declaration of war, and the few surviving Socialist periodicals furnished the sole outlet for his opinions. He had continued to excoriate the capitalist class; he had furiously denounced the vigilantes; but here he had stopped. The conscription act, the Liberty Loan drives, the mounting subsidies to England and France had all been inaugurated without opposition from Eugene Debs. He was trying to escape the results of war without attacking the measures that made possible the continuation of the war itself.(p.364)
. . .
Debs was indeed hesitant and floundering, for reasons that now can only be guessed. He was in ill-health; he was old; probably Kate tried to deter him; he may have thought that protest against the war was hopeless. Some Socialists in Terre Haute even believed that his brother Theodore was urging him to refrain from: any statement that might be termed criminal. Whatever the cause, Debs was certainly groping in the dark. He still believed in friendship among the workers of the world; he still believed that the war had been inspired by the capitalist pirates; he still longed for peace; but he had no program. He was lost. Month after month he shouted his mighty protests, and they turned out to be frail bleats in an indifferent country. He was not of this world at all. America had become a strange land, in which Eugene Debs was a bewildered and unnoticed vagabond.
The newspapers paid almost no heed to his tour of Ohio in the autumn of 1917. For seveal weeks he traveled around the state, holding small and ineffectual meetings in the homes of Socialist friends.(p.365)
When the Socialist leader from Missouri, Kate Richards O’Hare, was arrested in North Dakota in July 1917, in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, for reportedly declaring at a public anti-war rally that, “women in the United States were noting more nor less than brood sows, to raise children to get into the army and be made into fertilizer”, Debs acknowledged that he could not be free outside of prison. He took it upon himself to challenge directly the constitutionality of the Espionage Act.
In the first two weeks of June, he gave his anti-war speech a dozen times in Indiana and Illinois, but the Federal government took no steps. He had reestablished his position as the representative of the radical left wing of the Socialist Party when he headed for a speaking tour in Ohio. On June 16, he arrived at Canton, Ohio to speak to an audience of 1,200 socialists. Across the street from the hall where he was scheduled to speak was the jail where three Socialist prisoners were incarcerated for their political views on the Bolshevik Revolution. Debs spoke to them about their recent mistreatment at the hands of the constabulary; he then crossed the street and began his speech:
‘They tell us that we live in a great free republic;
that our institutions are democratic; that we are
a free and self-governing people. (Laughter) this
is too much, even for a joke. (Laughter) But it is
not a subject for levity; it is an exceedingly
. . .
‘Why, the other day, by a vote of five to four – a kind
of craps game - come seven, come eleven – they
[the Supreme Court] declared the child labor law
unconstitutional . . . and this in our so-called
Democracy, so that we may continue to grind the
flesh and blood and bones of puny little children
into profits for the junkers of Wall Street. . . . The
history of this country is being written in the blood
of the childhood the industrial lords have murdered.’(p.370)
For two hours Debs passionately defended the Socialists who were now being called German agents, traitors, murderers and thugs. Only once did he refer to war, and not specifically about the current war:
‘The master class has always declared the wars; the subject
class has always fought the battles. The master class has
had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class
has had noting to fain and all to lose –especially their lives.’(p.376-377)
He went on to deliver his socialist message:
‘Yes, in good times we are going to sweep into power in this
nation and throughout the world. . . . The world is changing
daily before our eyes. The sun of capitalism is setting; the
sun of Socialism is rising. . . . In due time the hour will strike
and the great cause triumphant – the greatest in history – will
proclaim the emancipation of the working class and the
brotherhood of all mankind.’(p. 377)
As he left the platform there was a roar of applause and cheers. He had inspired hope at the Ohio meeting but also contempt on the part of government officials who were present. The Espionage Act had just been amended to include several non-military offenses, such as uttering ‘profane, scurrilous and abusive language’ about the government. Just 13 days after the Canton, Ohio speech, on June 30, Debs was arrested as he was about to enter the Bohemian Gardens in Cleveland to address a Socialist picnic. He was taken to the Federal Building in Cleveland, where he was questioned.
The trial in Cleveland began on September 9, 1918. The court room was so packed that the doors could not be closed. Among the audience and the participants were the secret police. On the third day of the trial, Debs’ lawyer announced that his client would make his own plea to the jury. It was 2:00 P.M. when Debs rose, gathered some papers and walked toward the jury box.
‘For the first time in my life I appear before a jury in a
court of law to answer for a crime. . . . Standing before
you, charged as I am with crime, I can yet look the Court
in the face . . . for in my conscience, in my soul, there is
festering no accusation of guilt.’
. . .
‘Permit me to say in the first place that I am entirely
satisfied with the Court’s ruling. I have no fault to find
with the district attorney or with the counsel for the
‘I wish to admit the truth of all that has been testified
to in this proceeding. I have no disposition to deny
anything that is true. . . . I admit being opposed to the
present form of government. I admit being opposed to
the present social system. I am doing what little I can,
and have been for many years, to bring about a change
that shall do away with the rule of the great body of people
by a relatively small class and establish in this country
an industrial and social democracy.’(p.388)
When Debs asked Judge Westenhaver for permission to present to the jury statistics on profiteering during the war, his request was refused. Debs shifted tactics and defended his right to oppose a war he thought to be unjust in another way: “The Mexican war [of 1846] was bitterly condemned by Abraham Lincoln, Charles Sumner, Daniel Webster and Henry Clay.” He defended Kate O’Hare, Big Bill Haywood, the IWW, and the Socialist Party “St. Louis Manifesto” of April 7-14, 1917 on the same basis, namely that freedom of speech is an essential element in the struggle against tyranny.
‘I believed then; as I believe now, that the
[St. Louis Manifesto] . . . correctly defined
the attitude of the Socialist Party toward war.
That statement, bear in mind, did not apply to
the people of this country alone, but to the people
of the world. It said, in effect, to the people,
especially to the workers, of all countries:
‘Quite going to war. Stop murdering one
another for the profit and glory of the ruling
classes. Cultivate the arts of peace. Humanize
humanity. Civilize civilization.’ That is the
essential sprit and the appeal of this
much-hated, condemned St. Louis platform.’(p.390)
Ray Ginger, describes what followed in Debs’ lengthy appeal to the jury:
Eugene Debs had been talking for nearly two hours. The shadows had completely blotted out the former streak of light across the floor. His voice became muffled: ‘I do not know, I cannot tell;, what your verdict may be; nor does it matter much, so far as I am concerned. Gentlemen, I am the smallest part of this trial. I have lived long enough to appreciate my own personal insignificance in relation to a great issue that involves the welfare of a whole people. What you may choose to do to me will be of small consequence after all. I am not on trial here. There is an infinitely greater issue that is being tried in this court, though you may not be conscious if it. American institutions are on trial here before a court of American citizens. The future will tell.’
As Debs returned slowly to his seat, [the Cleveland journalist] Morris Wolf noticed that several of the jurymen were crying. A Department of Justice agent said to a reporter at the press table: ‘You’ve got to hand it to the old man. He came through clean.’
Edwin S. Wertz, the Federal attorney, used the remainder of the afternoon to sum up for the prosecution. He reviewed all of the testimony that had been given, and attributed to Debs the willful obstruction of the draft act. Eugene Victor Debs, said the prosecutor, was ‘an old ewe’ who was trying to lead his flock of innocent followers into prison. Debs’ professions on international friendship were held up to ridicule. ‘I’ll tell you what internationalism is,’ exclaimed Mr. Wertz. ‘Pitch all the nations into one pot with the Socialists on top and you’ve got internationalism.’ At these words the Socialists in the courtroom flushed; Judge Westenhaver looked restive; the Federal attorney seemed pleased. Hadn’t Debs said that he was as guilty as Rose Stokes, and hadn’t Rose Stokes been convicted by a jury in Kansas City? The conclusion was too apparent to require emphasis, but the prosecutor drew four heavy black lines under it to enlighten the jury.
. . .
Shortly before five o’clock the jury men filed back into the courtroom. The youngest among them, Cyrus H. Stoner, aged fifty-eight years, rose to read the verdict. The inevitable words were droned out. On three separate counts: ‘Guilty as charged in the indictment.’ Judge Westenyhaver fixed Saturday morning, September 14, as the time for passing sentence, and Debs left the courtroom facing a possible prison term of sixty years. Walking up the corridor, he said of the jury; ‘There is something pathetic about dressed up faces – smug bodies. If they had been dressed in rags it would have been all right. What a contrast to turn toward the back of the court-room and find a little group of beautiful socialists with stars for eyes – you can always tell them!
. . .
When court opened on Saturday, the Federal attorney moved for the imposition of sentence. The clerk asked if the defendant would like to make a final statement. Eugene Debs again rose from his chair and began talking as he moved toward the bench. There were not notes to be gathered up, no papers to guide him, but all that an honest man can learn in sixty years was contained in his opening remark: ‘Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living things, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest of the earth. I said then, I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I an not free.’(pp.390-394)
Debs concluded his statement that last day before his sentencing, by assigning a social meaning to his dire situation:
‘In the struggle . . . the unceasing struggle between
toilers and produces and their exploiters, I have trued
. . . to serve those among whom I was born, with whom
I expect to share my lot until the end of my days.
. . .
‘ I am thinking this morning of the men in the mills
and factories; I am thinking of the women who, for a paltry
wage, are compelled to work out their lives; of the little
children who, in this system, are robbed of their childhood,
and in their early, tender years, are seized in the remorseless
grasp of Mammon, and forced into the industrial dungeons,
there to feed the machines while they themselves are being
starved body and soul. I can see them dwarfed, diseased,
stunted, their little lives broken, and their hopes blasted,
because in this high noon of our twentieth century civilization
money is still so much more important than human life.
Gold is god, and rules in the affairs of men. . . .’(p.394)
Judge Westenhaver sat unmoved. He declared that he was “second to no man in his sympathy for the poor,” and that he was amazed by the “remarkable self-delusion and self-deception of Mr. Debs who assumes that hie is serving humanity and the down-trodden.”
And in the end, “Those who violate the law must suffer the penalties. This applied with double force to those persons ‘within our borders who would strike the sword from the hand of this nation while she is engaged in defending herself against a foreign and brutal power.’
Declaring himself ‘a conserver of the peace and defender of the Constitution of the United States,’ Judge Westenhaver imposed a sentence of ten years in prison upon the Socials leader.(p.395)
The 19 + items below reflect the moral bankruptcy and general loss of credibility that the U.S. ruling class is suffering at this moment in history. The deceptions and contradictions – large and small – that pass as "reliable information" have produced a wide-spread skepticism, large enough to sink a ship. The use of police and military force will not be enough to hide the true criminal intent of the ruling class and to save it from sinking. No amount of money can buy off their opposition indefinitely, and their "progressive" charades are no less than obscene.
But "doubt" is not a guiding first principle at any construction site, and hopefully, we can learn from our mistakes and proceed to build upon a positive vision which will produce an authentic democratic republic, worthy of the name. Creating new structures and revitalizing old ones - without hierarchical command structures - will be necessary if the economy is to excel with a newly democratic orientation towards the principle of voluntary association. The grim authoritarian and imperialist relationships that have dominated us for so long have been thoroughly exposed in articles such as the ones found in this bulletin. The hope for a better future – the same aspirations that were embodied one hundred years ago in the character of Eugene Debs - is still alive. The self-deceptions and phony posturing of charlatans will quickly unravel in broad daylight and become irrelevant as we learn to judge people by what they do, and not by what they say they are. The process of constructing a new society must proceed voluntarily from a collective vision, and we must continue to learn as we work together daily to build a better society – more egalitarian, more just, and more true.
As Fred Hampton, the Black Panther community organizer and national leader in Chicago advised before his murder by Chicago police on December 4, 1969 at the age of 21: "You say, 'Fight fire with fire!'; I say, 'Fight fire with water!' Only non-violent socialist organizing will defeat capitalist aggression!"
honoraire de l'Université Grenoble-Alpes
Ancien Directeur de Researches
Université de Paris-Nanterre
Director of The Center for the Advanced Study
of American Institutions and Social Movements
The University of California-San Diego
Gaslighted by the Ruling Class
by Chris Hedges
Syria in Seattle: Commune Defies the U.S. Regime
by Pepe Escobar
The Great Reset Plan Revealed: How COVID Ushers In The New World Order
with Spiro Skouras
In the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Towards A New World Order? The Global Debt Crisis and the Privatization of the State
by Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Has the Pandemic Been Used to Precipitate the World into a Spiral of Mass Unemployment, Bankruptcy and Despair?
with David Harvey
The Great US 2020 Wealth Transfer Heist. Deep Inequalities in US Society
by Stephen Lendman
“UN Agenda 2030 exposed”
with Rosa Koire
“We're all in this psy-op together.”
(So what's coming next? And will you just REACT to it?)
Shocking Evidence That Indicates That Somebody Is Trying To Orchestrate An Internal Uprising Inside The United States
by The Duran
“Street theater” in LA: Fakeanarchists destroy
an old police car
by hamishpatterson high frequency tribe
US Protests Show Challenge Is How to Rise Above the Violence Inherent in State Power
by Jonathan Cook
Angela Davis on Abolition, Calls to Defund Police, Toppled Racist Statues & Voting in 2020 Election
From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020
Subject: [MCM] All the (alarmist) news that's fit to print: COVID-19 death rates are declining, though you wouldn't know it from the New York Times et al.
From Bob Klein:
From the alarmist coverage by the New York Times and other major media, all screaming that "CORONAVIRUS CASES ARE INCREASING," you'd never know that COVID-19 death rates—the only meaningful statistic—are falling steeply, or gradually declining, everywhere in the US, even in states that reopened five weeks ago. Likewise, the death rate in Brazil—where, according to the Times, the coronavirus has been "surging"—has not increased, but has held steady at a level far below the officially reported death rate in the USA.
The lurid coverage has obscured this crucial point: While COVID-19 cases are increasing due to increased testing, the death rate has been going down. Moreover, the number of those killed by COVID-19 constitutes a very small percentage—0.16%—of the cases overall; most of those who have succumbed are elderly, with comorbidities; and, in the worst-hit states, those deaths have occurred mainly in hospitals and nursing homes.
The death rate is increasing in Mexico and India, but the actual rate is one-sixth or -seventh what it ever was in the US (2,000 per day, at least according to official figures), and it will never reach the level that the “exceptional” US has suffered for several reasons, such as the homicidal protocol, approved by (Democratic) governors like New York's Andrew Cuomo, Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer and California's Gavin Newsom, whereby COVID patients have been moved to nursing homes, and ventilators have been used in hospitals, with often fatal consequences. Such lethal measures, in conjunction with insurance regulations that encourage diagnosing patients with COVID-19, whether they have it or not, and noting COVID-19 as the cause of death, even when it isn't, have artificially inflated the COVID-19 death rate in America.
Check out the New York Times' own statistics, which contradict the doom-saying in the Times' headlines and ledes. COVID-19 is on its way out, having largely run its natural course, as such pandemics always do (unless they're artificially revived). As the virus weakens, those managing this crisis are intensifying their efforts to rush out a new vaccine to "fight" it, and then force it on us all; and, even as the virus keeps on weakening, and even though it doesn't threaten children, the masters of this crisis want to keep the panic going, either by closing schools this fall, or by so tightly regulating every move by every single student that our schools will be like mental hospitals, or prisons.
Don't let them get away with it.
NY Times Stats :
The Corruption of Science.
The Hydroxychloroquine Lancet Study Scandal. Who Was Behind It? Anthony Fauci’s Intent To Block HCQ on Behalf of Big Pharma
by Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Url of this article: https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-corruption-of-science-the-hydroxychloroquine-lancet-study-scandal-who-was-behind-it-anthony-faucis-intent-to-block-hcq-on-behalf-of-big-pharma/5715568
The Guardian has revealed the scandal behind the hydroxychloroquine study which was intent on blocking HCQ as a cure for COVID-19. “Dozens of scientific papers co-authored by the chief executive of the US tech company behind the Lancet hydroxychloroquine study scandal are now being audited, including one that a scientific integrity expert claims contains images that appear to have been digitally manipulated. The audit follows a Guardian investigation that found the company, Surgisphere, used suspect data in major scientific studies that were published and then retracted by world-leading medical journals, including the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine. ….
Vaccine Ingredients - Learn The Risk
Do You Know What’s in a Vaccine?
Aluminum, Formaldehyde, MSG, E.Coli & More…
As with all pharmaceutical products, it’s important to know what exactly you’re taking — or injecting. Vaccines are no exception.
In fact, because vaccines are injected rather than taken orally, it even more important to know exactly what you’re putting in your body. Why? Because science shows that whatever is injected is far more potent than anything ingested. Injections, like vaccines, bypass the body’s natural detox pathway.
This means more of the injected material in vaccines stays in the body and reaches vital organs and tissues via the bloodstream. This causes both acute and chronic inflammation that leads to many of the health issues that are common nowadays. It can even lead to sudden death.
Dangerous nano-particles contaminating many vaccines: groundbreaking study
by Jon Rappoport
From: Mark Crispin
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020
Subject: [MCM] Sharyl Attkisson still pushing for the truth about hydroxychloroquine
From Dick Atlee:
Attkisson has long been among the best of the vanishing breed of
investigative reporters (not to mention among photogenic news anchors). She
gets into all kinds of controversial issues and tells the truth about them.
You can get a sense of them despite the somewhat biased coverage at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharyl_Attkisson. One of my favorite
instances of her coverage was her 2008 interview with former NIH head
Bernadine Healy, who talked about the fear the CDC has of finding that
there is a subset of children who are predisposed to developing autism
symptoms as a result of vaccination:
She left CBS due to problems with their refusing to publish some of her
work, and eventually started her own program, Full Measure, never letting
up on her probing for truth.
Recently she and her team did a piece on the covid-treatment controversy
between hydroxychloroquine and Remdesivir. She invited Remdesivir
proponents (manufacturer Gilead, Anthony Fauci) and hydroxychloroquine
opponents to participate, and all declined. I think this piece makes it
pretty clear what is going on with this controversy:
Facts about Covid-19
From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020
Subject: [MCM] Patients in WHO trials of hydroxychloroquine are getting "potentially lethal" doses, FOUR TIME HIGHER than appropriate
Looks like they want to kill some patients, so as to kill the drug itself, in favor of Gates/Fauci's rushed vaccine.
As of 3 June 2020, more than 3500 patients have been recruited in 35 countries, with over 400 hospitals actively recruiting patients. Overall, over 100 countries have joined or expressed an interest in joining the trial, and WHO is actively supporting 60 of them...
The hydroxychloroquine arm of the Solidarity trials restarted enrolling patients June 3, after being halted May 25 by WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus and the Executive Group of the Solidarity Trial. (The hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) arm of the trials was stopped after publication of the Lancet Surgisphere study, which claimed 35% higher death rates in patients who received hydroxychloroquine, but the study was quickly retracted when its authors could not verify that the database existed).
Below are the drugs being tested in Solidarity:
● Lopinavir with Ritonavir
● Lopinavir with Ritonavir plus Interferon beta-1a.
However, the doses were not specified on WHO's list of the drugs to be trialed, nor were they specified, surprisingly, in WHO's 4 person consultation on chloroquine (CQ) dosing, dated April 8. Instead, the Introduction of the Report of that meeting notes, "The chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine schedule selected for the trial includes two oral loading doses (250 mg per tablet CQ or 200 mg per tablet HCQ), then oral twice-daily maintenance doses for ten days. This meeting convened to discuss the appropriateness of the selected doses for the trial."
Last week, I was alerted to the fact that India's ICMR, its official medical research agency, had written to the WHO, telling WHO that the hydroxychloroquine doses being used in the Solidarity trial were 4 times higher than the doses being used in India. Then I learned that Singapore has been hesitant to participate in the WHO trial, due to the hydroxychloroquine dose.
The UK "Recovery" trial was very similar to, but not part of the international Solidarity conglomeration of clinical trials. The Recovery trial ended its HCQ arm on June 4, reporting no benefit. In-hospital mortality of the 1542 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine was 25.7%, or 396 people.
The Recovery trial Study Protocol notes it is funded in part by the Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and by UK government agencies. The Protocol provides the doses of hydroxychloroquine used, on page 22. Twitter users began to notice a dosing issue, with hashtag #Recoverygate.
The HCQ dosing regimen used in the Recovery trial was 12 tablets during the first 24 hours (800mg initial dose, 800 mg six hours later, 400 mg 6 hrs later, 400 mg 6 hours later), then 400 mg every 12 hours for 9 more days. This is 2.4 grams during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 9.2 grams over 10 days.
The quote from the WHO report on dosing, 4 paragraphs ago, seems to be deliberately vague regarding the dose used in the Solidarity trial. The trial is registered but the registration fails to specify dosages.
The registration of the Canadian arm of the Solidarity informs us of its dose: 8 tablets during the first 24 hours (800 mg initial dose, 800 mg 12 hours later) then 400 mg every 12 hours for 9 more days. This is 1.6 grams during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 8.8 grams over 10 days, or only 0.4 grams less than what Recovery used. The Norwegian arm of the trial uses dosing identical to Canada.
Co-Principal Investigators of the Recovery trial, Drs. Peter Horby and Martin Landray, said they followed the WHO dosing. Landray also claimed in an interview that the maximum allowed HCQ dose was "6 or 10 times" the dose used in Recovery, and that he was using the same hydroxychloroquine dose used for amebic dysentery. However, the accepted use for HCQ in amebiasis is only for a liver abscess and only then in pregnancy, when other drugs cannot be used. That dose is 600 mg per day for 2 days, then 300 mg per day, less than half the Recovery dose. Professor Horby said that Paris Soir misinterpreted Landray's comments, but Paris Soir said Landray had confirmed what he told them in an email prior to publication. Landray is a very busy man, too busy, apparently, to look up the proper dose of a drug he gave to over 1500 subjects, who were randomized to the treatment and had no say in the matter.
We know that in Brazil, both a high HCQ dose and a low HCQ dose were trialed, and by April 17 the high dose arm was stopped prematurely due to an excess of deaths. The low dose trial continues in Brazil.
How is the drug hydroxychloroquine normally used? For chronic daily use in systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis, patients usually receive between 200 and 400 mg daily. In acute Q fever, 600 mg daily may be given at the start of treatment.
We also know from WHO's March 13 Informal consultation on the potential role of chloroquine that the Gates Foundation had been studying the drug's pharmacokinetics, and of the 25 participants at this meeting, 5 were from the Gates Foundation.
The only treatment dose mentioned in the March 13 report was in a paragraph about preventive doses. It said, "Higher doses would be considered for treatment, i.e., 10mg/kg base, followed by 5mg/kg twice daily for seven days."
What is the "base"? A 200 mg dose of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine contains 155 mg "base" drug.
The typical 70 kg person would, if this suggestion had been followed, receive 700 mg base, or 900 mg of hydroxychloroquine, as a loading dose. Generally, a loading dose refers only to a high first dose, not to several high additional doses.
What is a toxic dose? All experts agree. "... chloroquine has a small toxic to therapeutic margin," according to Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies. It is very safe when used correctly in the right patients, but a bit more can potentially kill. Prof. Nicholas White, who attended both WHO consultations on the chloroquines, has mentioned this.
The WHO hired a consultant to explore the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine in 1979. The consultant, H. Weniger, looked at 335 episodes of adult poisoning by chloroquine drugs. Weniger on page 5 notes that a single dose of 1.5-2 grams of hydroxychloroquine base "may be fatal."
The Recovery trial used 1.86 grams hydroxychloroquine base (equal to 2400 mg of hydroxychloroquine) in the first 24 hours for treatment of already very ill, hospitalized Covid-19 patients, a potentially lethal dose. The Canadian and Norwegian trials used 2,000 mg of HCQ, or 1.55 grams of HCQ "base." Each trial gave patients a cumulative dose during the first 24 hours that, when given as a single dose, has been documented to be lethal. (The drug's half life is about a month, so the cumulative amount is what's important.)
The dose used in these trials is not recommended for therapy of any medical condition, which I confirmed with Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacology textbook, the drug's label, and the online subscription medical encyclopedia UptoDate.
Excessive dosing continues to be used in WHO Solidarity trials. These trials are not testing the benefits of HCQ on Covid-19, but rather testing whether patients survive toxic, nontherapeutic doses.
The WHO Solidarity trials, in order to rapidly enroll patients and spare clinicians a lot of paperwork, collect only limited information on side effects. No information has yet been provided regarding causes of death in the completed hydroxychloroquine arm of the Recovery trial, in which 396 patients died, and it may never be.
The Solidarity trial design being employed by WHO obscures whether mortality is due to drug toxicity (in which case, one would expect cause of death to be arrhythmias such as torsade de points, neuropsychiatric effects, or hypoglycemia) versus Covid-19.
In fact, the lack of safety data being collected is downright scary. Here is a description of the data collected on patients enrolled in Solidarity, as reported in Science magazine:
The participant has to sign an informed consent form that is scanned and sent to WHO electronically. After the physician states which drugs are available at his or her hospital, the website will randomize the patient to one of the drugs available or to the local standard care for COVID-19.
“After that, no more measurements or documentation are required,” says Ana Maria Henao Restrepo, a medical officer at WHO’s Emergencies Programme. Physicians will record the day the patient left the hospital or died, the duration of the hospital stay, and whether the patient required oxygen or ventilation, she says. “That’s all.”
The WHO report of its meeting on chloroquine dosing states, "Although the preponderance of opinion tilted towards a reasonable benefit risk profile for the intervention, there was some scepticism about what was considered a ‘minimalistic safety data collection’ currently included in the protocol."
The high dose regimen being used in these trials has no medical justification. The trial design, with its limited collection of safety data, may make it more difficult to identify toxic drug effects, compared to standard drug trials. This is completely unethical.
Excessive dosing makes it impossible to assess therapeutic benefit, if any, of HCQ.
Giving the drug only to hospitalized patients means that the window of time during which HCQ would be expected to provide the most benefit, when viral titers are rising, has passed.
To sum up:
1. HCQ is being given in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose.
2. HCQ is being given too late in the disease course to determine its value against SAR-CoV-2.
3. Limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serve to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosure of adverse drug effects, including death.
4. I suspect WHO has deliberately withheld information from the public on hydroxychloroquine dosing in its trial. Fortunately, the information is discoverable from registries of national trials.
5. The conclusions to be drawn are frightening:
a) WHO and other national health agencies, and charities, have designed huge clinical trials to assure that hydroxychloroquine will fail to show benefit, presumably to advantage its much more expensive competitor(s) and vaccines in development.
b) In so doing, these agencies and charities have conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.
c) In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug during a major pandemic. This could lead to prolongation of the pandemic and many increased cases and deaths.
Out of Options in Terms of Reform”: Khalil Gibran Muhammad on the Racist History of Police in U.S.
with Khalil Gibran Muhammad
New Security Video Shows Events Leading Up To George Floyd's Arrest
from NBC News
Breonna Taylor shooting: 911 calls released
Say Her Name: Breonna Taylor Was Killed by Police in March. Why Haven’t the Officers Faced Charges?
from Democracy Now!
No Compromise, No Retreat: Defeat the War Against the African/Black People in the U.S. and Abroad
by Ajamu Baraka
The justice for George Floyd mobilizations today reflected the state’s worst nightmare – a multi-national and multi-racial action initiated by Black people with Black leadership.
“A shift must occur away from the focus on individual justice for Floyd back to a critique and opposition to the ongoing structural violence of the system.”
So, we say: Justice for George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland; for our political prisoners; for the super-exploited Black and Brown working class; for oppressed Indigenous nations; and for the millions subjected to U.S. warmongering, sanctions and criminality. We say this to shift the focus from the individualization of this week’s rebellion back to the objective structures of white supremacist, global colonial/capitalist domination. (BAP Newsletter )
Who Wants to be a Slave? The Technocratic Convergence of Humans and Data (a video essay)
from OKINAWA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
Marshall McLuhan observed in the 1960s that humans are toolmakers whose tools eventually reshape them. Fifty years hence, we suggest that the aphorism should include ‘rewire’ humans as the present age of the internet serves as the global nervous system for humankind. This article explores how, in this present period of the Information Age, media manipulate public opinion about and consent for new digital tools and techniques threatening human agency and sovereignty. This essay introduces the concept of convergence as developed by Henry Jenkins and explores how the practice has expanded in the current global pandemic milieu wherein the interests of a technocratic elite converge to cultivate a general acceptance of the digital tools of a new socioeconomic order. Alongside this analysis stands the historical development of computing tools and the development of data as tools of social control. In a world where the manufactured need for ever-increasing speed and efficiency have largely co-opted human reason, we analyze how digital tools threaten to merge with humans. Enlisted in the effort to examine the integration propaganda are historical accounts of this emerging order as elaborated by key public servants and intellectuals of the 20th century. The primary aim is to situate the top-down attempt to acquire control over the masses in a larger historical context when sophisticated computing tools began serving the need to track and control populations. The essay is an effort to grapple with the complex historical attempt to wield control over people through public relations and technologies.
Cornel West on Pandemic Capitalism
with Richard Wolff
Noam Chomsky: Trump Has Adopted a “Viva Death!” Approach to the Presidency
by George Yancy
Economic Update: “Dark Times, Hard Truths”
with Richard Wolff
From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020
Subject: [MCM] Get ready for the Davos "Great Reset"—a/k/a "Hell on earth," for all except the billionaires
09.06.2020 Author: F. William Engdahl
For those wondering what will come after the COVID-19 pandemic has successfully all but shut down the entire world economy, spreading the worst depression since the 1930s, the leaders of the premier globalization NGO, Davos World Economic Forum, have just unveiled the outlines of what we can expect next. These people have decided to use this crisis as an opportunity.
On June 3 via their website, the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) unveiled the outlines of their upcoming January 2021 forum. They call it “The Great Reset.” It entails taking advantage of the staggering impact of the coronavirus to advance a very specific agenda. Notably enough, that agenda dovetails perfectly with another specific agenda, namely the 2015 UN Agenda 2030. The irony of the world’s leading big business forum, the one that has advanced the corporate globalization agenda since the 1990s, now embracing what they call sustainable development ,is huge. That gives us a hint that this agenda is not quite about what WEF and partners claim.
The Great Reset
On June 3 WEF chairman Klaus Schwab released a video announcing the annual theme for 2021, The Great Reset. It seems to be nothing less than promoting a global agenda of restructuring the world economy along very specific lines, not surprisingly much like that advocated by the IPCC, by Greta from Sweden and her corporate friends such as Al Gore or Blackwater’s Larry Fink.
Interesting is that WEF spokespeople frame the “reset” of the world economy in the context of the coronavirus and the ensuing collapse of the world industrial economy. The WEF website states, “There are many reasons to pursue a Great Reset, but the most urgent is COVID-19.” So the Great Reset of the global economy flows from covid19 and the “opportunity” it presents.
In announcing the 2021 theme, WEF founder Schwab then said, cleverly shifting the agenda: “We only have one planet and we know that climate change could be the next global disaster with even more dramatic consequences for humankind.” The implication is that climate change is the underlying reason for the coronavirus pandemic catastrophe.
To underscore their green “sustainable” agenda, WEF then has an appearance by the would-be King of England, Prince Charles. Referring to the global covid19 catastrophe, the Prince of Wales says, “If there is one critical lesson to learn from this crisis, it is that we need to put nature at the heart of how we operate. We simply can’t waste more time.” On board with Schwab and the Prince is the Secretary-General of the UN, Antonio Guterres. He states, “We must build more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change and the many other global changes we face.” Note his talk of “sustainable economies and societies”—more on that later. The new head of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, also endorsed The Great Reset. Other WEF resetters included Ma Jun, the chairman of the Green Finance Committee at the China Society for Finance and Banking and a member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the People’s Bank of China; Bernard Looney, CEO of BP; Ajay Banga, CEO of Mastercard; Bradford Smith, president of Microsoft.
Make no mistake, the Great Reset is no spur-of-the moment idea of Schwab and friends. The WEF website states, “COVID-19 lockdowns may be gradually easing, but anxiety about the world’s social and economic prospects is only intensifying. There is good reason to worry: a sharp economic downturn has already begun, and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s. But, while this outcome is likely, it is not unavoidable.” The WEF sponsors have big plans:”…the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.” This is big stuff.
From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020
Subject: [MCM] What's Antifa, really? And why does neither left nor right consider looking into it?
Antifa—like every other feature of the current crisis—has intensified the national division. The left sees Antifa as heroes; the right sees Antifa as ultra-leftist thugs. However much they hate each other, both tribes agree that Antifa is an authentic corps of anti-fascist civilians, and, therefore, not a "movement" guided by state agents acting under cover.
This likelihood explains why so few Antifa (if any) have been arrested. This oddity has been reported only to "debunk" Trump's claim that the protests are Antifa-driven:
The assumption there is that Antifa can't be active in/around the protests, since,
if they were, the cops would have arrested them. The likelihood that the police
have not arrested any Antifa because those ruffians are cops themselves is as
inconceivable to those reporters as it is to Antifa's leftist fans and haters on the right.
Speaking of the latter, here's the link to Project Veritas' video exposing Antifa's
secret training for ultra-violence. Since Project Veritas is conservative, an
investigative outlet run by rightist James O'Keefe—notorious for going after
ACORN and Planned Parenthood—he reflexively casts Antifa as a real grass-roots movement led by the "far left." Myopic though it is, this video is well worth watching for its revelation of the brutal tactics coolly taught to Antifa's shock troops behind closed doors.
What's really threatening us the most right now is not the cops or Antifa (assuming there's a difference), or any other of the looming threats before us, but the abject credulity of left and right alike, all (so far) dangerously uninformed as to how propaganda works, and stone-blind to the ever-clearer evidence of mass manipulation at its most sophisticated, happening here, and all over the world, right now.
From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020
Subject: [MCM] Police brutality against PROTESTERS is off the charts, as is the cops' passivity toward VANDALS.
Extreme police brutality against protestors appears to be deliberate policy
from coast to coast, as this harrowing video makes clear.
Meanwhile, vandals go about their business undisturbed, as the police
stand back, show up too late, or, as we have seen in certain videos,
actually let those rampaging "get away" by passing through the cops'
own ranks—which tells us that those criminals are cops themselves,
of one kind of another.
Where and when have we seen hordes of cops so viciously and openly
attacking peaceful demonstrators? Have we seen anything like this in Russia,
or in China?
And—more important—what's the purpose of this schizoid policy?
Too Little, Too Late? India Stands Up to the CDC
by James Corbett
From: Global Research News [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020
Subject: Israel’s Illegal Annexation of West Bank
Zero Hedge - Archive
Battle For the Arctic Heats Up
by James Corbett
Towards the Annexation of Palestine
Wolff Responds: US Economy in Chaos
with Richard Wolff
Wikipedia formally censors The Grayzone
as regime-change advocates monopolize editing
by Ben Norton
From: Mark Crispin
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 20201:19 AM
Subject: [MCM] How Facebook/USA Today do their "fact-checking"
On Facebook yesterday, I posted the link to Larry Doyle and John Moynihan's
report that, six months before the coronavirus crisis started, Bill Gates had
negotiated the $100-billion contact tracing program with Rep. Bobby Rush,
who lately introduced the TRACE Act (H.R. 6666) into the House. That link,
which I'd sent out to this list, is here:
Not long after my post, Facebook notified me that "fact-checkers" at
USA Today had deemed that news "false information." Period. What was
false about it, and what the evidence that it's untrue might be, Facebook
didn't say; so, in search of that correction, which I would naturally send
out, I found the USA Today piece, which is here:
The sources cited to "debunk" the story are the Gates Foundation, which
denies it, and Bobby Rush's office, which denies it. Case closed.
It gets worse. My friend Josh Mitteldorf, an evolutionary biologist, wrote a
follow-up piece about that scandal, and posted it on Op Ed News—whose
editor, Rob Kall, then posted this snide comment under it:
Does this cause you some inner conflict between your scientist self and your believe anything that smacks of conspiracy self?
And of course, we have our member who sees everything through New World Order colored glasses chiming in.
Sorry. This is anything but convincing. Can you lower your criteria any further?
The thing is, posting lame content like this to OEN lowers OEN. How do you assess content? What are your standards?
Note that Kall hadn't bothered listening to those "two podcasts," but just
assumed they couldn't possibly be worth his precious time, since, in his
view, any criticism of Bill Gates is just "Gatessteria." Likewise, any writings
on the New World Order are, necessarily, insane, even though it's hurtling
at us like a giant asteroid that anyone with eyes can see, as those pushing
it have made no bones about it, even if they don't call it "the new world order"
(as, say, Bush the Elder did, and, more recently, Chicago's Mayor Lori
Lightfoot did), but "the new normal," or—to be more precise—the UN's 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development (which is all about "transforming the
world") and/or the UN's Agenda 21.
Thus Rob Kall, editor of the "alternative" Op Ed News, deploys the sturdy
tactics of the CIA to "answer" a report at odds with the Official Story of
Bill Gates as a towering humanitarian, contact tracing as a necessary
measure to protect the public health, and Bobby Rush as the progressive
legislator who came up with H.R. 6666 entirely on his own. Rather than
look into it, Kall reflexively dismisses Mitteldorf's entirely reasonable
piece with personal insults and mere snorting ridicule, just as the New
York Times and all the other CIA-affiliated media have been "answering"
dissenting views since 1967, when they first started doing it to safeguard
the Big Lie about JFK's state-managed murder.
Getting back to Facebook's quasi-censorship, and to end this with a bit
of humor, here is Josh Mitteldorf's response to USA Today's "fact-checking":
I asked Bonnie if she robbed the bank, and she said no. Then I
asked Clyde, and he confirmed exactly what Bonnie said.
They can't both be lying.
From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020
Subject: [MCM] "There are fates worse than death"—and we CAN prevent them: Catherine Austin Fitts & James Corbett's MUST-WATCH conversation on the Gates syndicate, "the vaccine fraud," and more
This is the most important video to watch about what's happened, and what's
happening—and what will come, if we don't act to stop it.
"There Are Fates Worse Than Death"
written by: Sayer Ji, Founder
Catherine Austin Fitts Exposes the Injection Fraud
Catherine Austin Fitts of solari.com interviews James Corbett about his new documentary, Who Is Bill Gates? They go beyond the focus on Gates to discuss the syndicate that he is leading, the business model it relies on, and the new form of collateral that will underlie the digital economy: the human body. Don't miss this vital conversation that fills in the missing pieces of the puzzle and draws back the curtains on the real purpose of the injection fraud.
SHOW NOTES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=36739
View all episodes of the groundbreaking documentary Who Is Bill Gates?
Exclusive images from inside British court expose Assange’s
by Max Blumenthal
The Movement Gets BIG – and Its Enemies Reveal Themselves
by Glen Ford
US police state faces revolt as Trump expands it at home and abroad
with Gerald Horne
“The Ruling Elite Has Lost All Legitimacy”
with Chris Hedges
“How to Fix Democracy”
with Richard D. Wolff
Reform and revolution | Richard D. Wolff is Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst and a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University, New York City. In this interview, host Andrew Keen and Professor Wolff discuss the definition of capitalism from the Marxist perspective. When the system of capitalism experiences dire crises, Wolff argues, it has been natural to question the nature of the system itself, just as the financial crises of the early 20th and 21st centuries have prompted reforms of capitalism to varying extents. Today, the path to better political democracy, says Wolff, lies in stronger economic democracy.
Antifa in Theory and in Practice
“Fascists are divided into two categories: the fascists and the anti-fascists.”
– Ennio Flaiano, Italian writer
and co-author of Federico Fellini’s greatest film scripts.
In recent weeks, a totally disoriented left has been widely exhorted to unify around a masked vanguard calling itself Antifa, for anti-fascist. Hooded and dressed in black, Antifa is essentially a variation of the Black Bloc, familiar for introducing violence into peaceful demonstrations in many countries. Imported from Europe, the label Antifa sounds more political. It also serves the purpose of stigmatizing those it attacks as “fascists”.
Despite its imported European name, Antifa is basically just another example of America’s steady descent into violence.
Historical Pretensions. . . .
Russian criminologist on the Floyd killing and the truth about Antifa
by Seraphim Hanisch
What Governments Aren't Telling You About the Coronavirus Pandemic
with John Pilger
On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to legendary journalist and film-maker John Pilger about the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. He discusses the fact that the Conservative government was warned about shortages leaving the NHS vulnerable in pandemics 4 years ago, the damage privatisation has done to the National Health Service, budget cuts which have seen bed capacities fall to record lows, his criticisms of the Boris Johnson administration’s response to Coronavirus, the lack of mass-testing in the U.K. which has been seen in other countries such as Germany, South Korea and China, the government blaming China for the Coronavirus crisis, the threat to Julian Assange’s life as he is denied release from prison as Coronavirus claims its first victim in Belmarsh Prison and more!
Coronavirus may have been a 'cell-culture experiment' gone wrong
Spanish Flu Developed for Germ Warfare? By the Allies?
from Quirky Science
Coronavirus may have been a 'cell-culture experiment' gone wrong
from Sky News Australia
EXCLUSIVE: The coronavirus that has become a world-wide pandemic may have been created in a “cell-culture experiment” in a laboratory, according to prominent scientists who have conducted ground-breaking research into the origins of the virus. Flinders University Professor Nikolai Petrovsky has completed a scientific study, currently undergoing peer review, in conjunction with La Trobe University in Victoria, which found COVID-19 was uniquely adapted for transmission to humans, far more than any other animal, including bats. Professor Petrovsky, from the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University who has spent the past 20 years developing vaccines against pandemic influenza, Ebola and animal SARS, said this highly unusual finding left open the possibility that the virus leaked from a laboratory. “The two possibilities which I think are both still open is that it was a chance transmission of a virus from an as yet unidentified animal to human. The other possibility is that it was an accidental release of the virus from a laboratory,” he said. “Certainly we can’t exclude the possibility that this came from a laboratory experiment rather than from an animal. They are both open possibilities.” Professor Petrovsky, who is the Chairman and Research Director of Vaxine Pty Ltd, said COVID-19 has genetic elements similar to bat coronaviruses as well as other coronaviruses. The way coronavirus enters human cells is by binding to a protein on the surface of lung-cells called ACE2. The study showed the virus bound more tightly to human-ACE2 than to any of the other animals they tested. “It was like it was designed to infect humans,” he said. “One of the possibilities is that an animal host was infected by two coronaviruses at the same time and COVID-19 is the progeny of that interaction between the two viruses. “The same process can happen in a petri-dish. If you have cells in culture and you have human cells in that culture which the viruses are infecting, then if there are two viruses in that dish, they can swap genetic information and you can accidentally or deliberately create a whole third new virus out of that system. “In other words COVID-19 could have been created from that recombination event in an animal host or it could have occurred in a cell-culture experiment.” Professor Petrovsky was originally modelling the virus in January to prepare a vaccine candidate. He then turned his attention to “explore what animal species might have been involved in the transmission to humans” to understand the origins of the virus - and had a “surprising” result when none were well-adapted. “We found that the COVID-19 virus was particularly well-adapted to bind to human cells and that was far superior to its ability to bind to the cells of any other animal species which is quite unusual because typically when a virus is well-adapted to an animal and then it by chance crosses to a human, typically, you would expect it to have lower-binding to human cells than to the original host animal. We found the opposite so that was a big surprise,” he said. Scientists worldwide have, to date, overwhelmingly said the virus was more likely originated in a wet-market and was not created in a laboratory. Even the United States Office of National Intelligence ruled out COVID-19 being created in a laboratory. Asked why scientists have had this view, Professor Petrovsky said scientists “try not to be political” and do not want their research impacted adversely by tighter laboratory controls. “We just try to base our findings on facts rather than taking particular political positions but sometimes obviously the alternatives may have unintended consequences,” he said. “For instance, if it was to turn out that this virus may have come about because of an accidental lab release that would have implications for how we do viral research in laboratories all around the world which could make doing research much harder. “So I think the inclination of virus researchers would be to presume that it came from an animal until proven otherwise because that would have less ramifications for how we are able to do research in the future. The alternative obviously has quite major implications for science and science on viruses, not just obviously political ramifications which we’re all well aware of.” Professor Petrovsky said an inquiry needs to start straight away, not when the pandemic is finished. “The idea of putting it off to the pandemic is over, it would be a mistake,” he said. “I’m certainly very much in favour of a scientific investigation. It’s only objective should be to get to the bottom of how did this pandemic happen and how do we prevent a future pandemic…. not to have a witch-hunt.”
COVID-19 Q&A (from the UK)
From Keith Rushworth:
1 My Husband and I made love last night. I read in the Daily Mirror that we should have worn masks, but we didn’t. Will we die?
Yes, you will. But not of Covid19.
2 My Granddad is 93. He has diabetes, dementia, and heart issues and lives in a care home. What is his life expectancy with this deadly virus around?
About the same.
3 Is Boris Johnson able to run the country properly without Parliament sitting in the normal way?
This is a silly question. Our MP’s are happy to sit at home being paid for running the country. Boris’s ability is not an issue, since Dominic Cummings runs the country.
4 My husband has committed suicide due to the lockdown. He was 25. I am left with a small daughter. Can I claim against the Government for causing his death?
Don’t be silly.
5 The epidemic seems to be running down everywhere. If the vaccine is not ready until it’s over, will I still need the vaccine?
6 Will the vaccine be dangerous, given that there will have been so little time to produce and safety test it?
7 I understand that the Government is taking on billions of debt in order to fund the lockdown. How will they repay it?
Raise your taxes, cut your services, and possibly sell off the NHS to American corporations.
8 I understand that children are virtually immune from the virus. But now that schools might reopen, I worry that my little boy might die as a result of going to school. Is that possible?
It certainly is. He could be run over by a bus.
9 Is it true that people used to die before Covid19 appeared? I never remember the BBC reporting deaths like they do now.
There is some scientific research showing that people did die before Covid19, but none of it has been peer-reviewed. I seem to remember a huge number died in the Iraq War, but they were all foreigners.
10 I understand that there are still travel restrictions between different countries, even when the countries concerned both have the virus. Does this make sense?
Yes. For example, if you are French you are more likely to die of English Covid, and if you are English you have an estimated 30 times higher risk of death from garlicky French Covid.
11 The Swedes didn’t have a lockdown. Are they all dead now?
Of course. Stockholm is now for sale on Rightmove.
12 How can we be so certain that the Chinese lie about their deaths and other things, while our own Government does not?
I’m getting tired of answering such idiotic questions. Even the Duke of Edinburgh knew the answer to that in the 1980’s when he pointed out that the Chinese have slitty eyes.
13 I’ve heard it said that the docility of the British public in the face of the lockdown is equivalent to a sloth on Valium. Do you agree?
What dose of Valium is the sloth on?
14 Will the Government give us back all our Human Rights when this is over?
15 It has been 12 years since the 2008 bank collapse, and we have not fully recovered. Will it take another twelve years to recover from the lockdown collapse? I don’t like to be a pessimist.
I know how you feel. But there is this wretched thing called Reality.
16 I feel really, really scared of the Coronavirus. Is there a cure?
Stop watching TV News.
James Corbett Documents the Collapse of the COVID-1984 Narrative
with Gary Null
From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020
Subject: [MCM] US Army has long been producing bio-weapons, and (covertly) testing them all over Africa, Asia and the Middle East
From two years ago.
That was then, and COVID-19 is now; so any argument that that program
might somehow pertain to this pandemic has to be "false information."
The Pentagon Bio-weapons
April 29, 2018
The US Army regularly produces deadly viruses, bacteria and toxins in direct violation of the UN Convention on the prohibition of Biological Weapons. Hundreds of thousands of unwitting people are systematically exposed to dangerous pathogens and other incurable diseases. Bio warfare scientists using diplomatic cover test man-made viruses at Pentagon bio laboratories in 25 countries across the world. These US bio-laboratories are funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under a $ 2.1 billion military program– Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP), and are located in former Soviet Union countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa.
Georgia as a testing ground
The Lugar Center is the Pentagon bio laboratory in Georgia. It is located just 17 km from the US Vaziani military airbase in the capital Tbilisi. Tasked with the military program are biologists from the US Army Medical Research Unit-Georgia (USAMRU-G) along with private contractors. The Bio-safety Level 3 Laboratory is accessible only to US citizens with security clearance. They are accorded diplomatic immunity under the 2002 US-Georgia Agreement on defense cooperation.
The Lugar Center, Republic of Georgia
The US Army has been deployed to Vaziani Military Air Base, 17 km from the Pentagon bio-laboratory at The Lugar Center.
The USA-Georgia agreement accords diplomatic status to the US military and civilian personnel (including diplomatic vehicles), working on the Pentagon program in Georgia.
Information obtained from the US federal contracts registry clarifies some of the military activities at The Lugar Center – among them research on bio-agents (anthrax, tularemia) and viral diseases (e.g. Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever), and the collection of biological samples for future experiments.
How Will WWIII Be Fought?
with James Corbett