Making sense of the world through data
The focus of this blog is #data #bigdata #dataanalytics #privacy #digitalmarketing #AI #artificialintelligence #ML #GIS #datavisualization and many other aspects, fields and applications of data
No, it is not true that most scientists support the Global Warming theory. Most do not and those who do add huge caveats to their tepid support. We just do not know enough.
The models are inaccurate and replicate the past while saying almost nothing about the future. The data is just too complex for our understanding. The base in the 19th Century is too low, etc...
Still, do not expect a return to sanity any time soon. There is too much money and power grab hiding behind the curtain. The madness is not about to stop!
Temperature
records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that
then forecast dangerous manmade global warming repercussions have
serious problems and even corruption in the data, multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue told The Epoch Times.
The Biden administration leans on its latest National Climate Assessment report
as evidence that global warming is accelerating because of human
activities. The document states that human emissions of “greenhouse
gases” such as carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the Earth.
The
U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds the same
view, and its leaders are pushing major global policy changes in
response.
But scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields are pushing back.
In peer-reviewed studies, they cite a wide range of flaws with the
global temperature data used to reach the dire conclusions; they say
it’s time to reexamine the whole narrative.
Problems with
temperature data include a lack of geographically and historically
representative data, contamination of the records by heat from urban
areas, and corruption of the data introduced by a process known as
“homogenization.”
The flaws are so significant that they make the
temperature data—and the models based on it—essentially useless or
worse, three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental
Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) explained.
The experts said
that when data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis”
supposedly caused by human activities disappears.
Instead, natural climate variability offers a much better explanation for what is being observed, they said.
Some
experts told The Epoch Times that deliberate fraud appeared to be at
work, while others suggested more innocent explanations.
But regardless of why the problems exist, the implications of the findings are hard to overstate.
With
no climate crisis, the justification for trillions of dollars in
government spending and costly changes in public policy to restrict
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions collapses, the scientists explained in a
series of interviews about their research.
“For the last 35 years,
the words of the IPCC have been taken to be gospel,” according to
astrophysicist and CERES founder Willie Soon. Until recently, he was a
researcher working with the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard &
Smithsonian.
“And indeed, climate activism has become the new
religion of the 21st century—heretics are not welcome and not allowed to
ask questions,” Mr. Soon told The Epoch Times.
“But
good science demands that scientists are encouraged to question the
IPCC’s dogma. The supposed purity of the global temperature record is
one of the most sacred dogmas of the IPCC.”
The latest U.S. government National Climate Assessment report states: “Human activities are changing the climate.
“The
evidence for warming across multiple aspects of the Earth system is
incontrovertible, and the science is unequivocal that increases in
atmospheric greenhouse gases are driving many observed trends and
changes.”
In particular, according to the report, this is because
of human activities such as burning fossil fuels for transportation,
energy, and agriculture.
Looking at timescales highlights major problems with this narrative, Mr. Soon said.
“When people ask about global warming or climate change, it is essential to ask, ‘Since when?’ The data shows that it has warmed since the 1970s, but that this followed a period of cooling from the 1940s,” he said.
While
it is “definitely warmer” now than in the 19th century, Mr. Soon said
that temperature proxy data show the 19th century “was exceptionally
cold.”
“It was the end of a period that’s known as the Little Ice Age,” he said.
Data taken
from rural temperature stations, ocean measurements, weather balloons,
satellite measurements, and temperature proxies such as tree rings,
glaciers, and lake sediments, “show that the climate has always
changed,” Mr. Soon said.
“They show that the current climate
outside of cities is not unusual,” he said, adding that heat from urban
areas is improperly affecting the data.
“If we exclude the urban
temperature data that only represents 3 percent of the planet, then we
get a very different picture of the climate.”
Homogenization
One issue that scientists say is corrupting the data stems from an obscure process known as “homogenization.”
According
to climate scientists working with governments and the U.N., the
algorithms used for homogenization are designed to correct, as much as
possible, various biases that might exist in the raw temperature data.
These
biases include, among others, the relocation of temperature monitoring
stations, changes in technology used to gather the data, or changes in
the environment surrounding a thermometer that might impact its
readings.
For instance, if a temperature station was
originally placed in an empty field but that field has since been paved
over to become a parking lot, the record would appear to show much
hotter temperatures. As such, it would make sense to try to correct the data collected.
Virtually
nobody argues against the need for some homogenization to control for
various factors that may contaminate temperature data.
But a closer examination of the process as it now occurs reveals major concerns, Ronan Connolly, an independent scientist at CERES, said.
“While the scientific community has become addicted to blindly using these computer programs to fix the data biases, until recently nobody has bothered to look under the hood to see if the programs work when applied to real temperature data,” he told The Epoch Times.
Since
the early 2000s, various governmental and intergovernmental
organizations creating global temperature records have relied on
computer programs to automatically adjust the data.
Mr. Soon, Mr.
Connolly, and a team of scientists around the world spent years looking
at the programs to determine how they worked and whether they were
reliable.
One of the scientists involved in the analysis, Peter
O’Neill, has been tracking and downloading the data daily from the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its
Global Historical Climatology Network since 2011.
He found that each day, NOAA applies different adjustments to the data.
“They
use the same homogenization computer program and re-run it roughly
every 24 hours,” Mr. Connolly said. “But each day, the homogenization
adjustments that they calculate for each temperature record are
different.”
This is “very bizarre,” he said.
“If
the adjustments for a given weather station have any basis in reality,
then we would expect the computer program to calculate the same
adjustments every time. What we found is this is not what’s happening,”
Mr. Connolly said.
These concerns are what first sparked the international investigation into the issue by Mr. Soon and his colleagues.
Because
NOAA doesn’t maintain historical information on its weather stations,
the CERES scientists reached out to European scientists who had been
compiling the data for the stations that they oversee.
They found
that just 17 percent of NOAA’s adjustments were consistently applied.
And less than 20 percent of NOAA’s adjustments were clearly associated
with a documented change to the station observations.
“When we
looked under the hood, we found that there was a hamster running in a
wheel instead of an engine,” Mr. Connolly said. “It seems that with
these homogenization programs, it is a case where the cure is worse than
the disease.”
A spokesman for NOAA’s National Centers for
Environmental Information downplayed the significance, but said the
agency was working to address the issues raised in the papers.
“NOAA
uses the well-documented Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm every day on
GHCNm (monthly)—version 4, and the results of specific adjustments to
individual station series can differ from run to run,” the spokesman
said, adding that the papers in question didn’t support the view that
the concerns about the homogenization of the data made it useless or
worse.
“NOAA is addressing the issues raised in both these
papers in a future release of the GHCNm temperature dataset and its
accompanying documentation.”
Canadian Preper is by nature on the dark side of events. But what if he is right?
"A defeat of Ukraine would be a defeat for Nato!"
These are not insignificant words. Clearly, Europe expected Russia to fold instead of becoming stronger. This has not happened and they are now in panic mode.
The US has its own source of energy and can survive a defeat in Ukraine. Europe is not in such a good position. Already many companies are exiting Germany thanks to high energy prices. How bad could it be? Add to energy absurd "green" policies and a loss of credibility of the Euro and you may indeed have a catastrophic mix.
This may be the reason why you get statements from Macro that France may have to send soldiers in Ukraine. The risks are high and rising fast. Remember that nobody wanted war in 1914 and that anyway all would be settled by Christmas!
If you understand what's going on then yes, it's bad.
CDDC + AI + control of almost all the governments around the world will give the people behind the Deep State total control over the world and our lives.
The only ray of hope is that concentration of power always fails in history because such a system has intrinsic weaknesses which are fatal eventually and will doom the project.
If you can find it, look for the long monologue of The Architect in the Matrix movie trilogy. It is brilliant and extremely prescient if you consider that it is already 20 years old.
The bet of these people is that this time is different. Hopefully it's not. History will repeat itself. But make no mistake, they are ready to place huge bets, including the risk of a nuclear war.
The coming months will be historic in the true sense of the word.
What is certain and can be said without risk nowadays is that the mRNA vaccines introduce mRNA within your body, that much was as expected. But instead of staying locally in a muscle, often the complex molecules will travel in the bloodstream and settle somewhere in a completely unrelated organ where the RNA will enter cells which will replicate the spikes, at which point your health problems begin. Then what happens can vary enormously. But is bad enough to show up statistically on vast populations as excess mortality and long Covid.
To say that this is not worth investigating is nothing short of criminal.
A recent study found that the
majority of patients who suffered from long COVID during a time when
vaccines and antiviral treatments were widely available were vaccinated.
The observational study
published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, researchers interviewed
390 people in Thailand who contracted COVID-19 during the “fifth wave of
the COVID-19 pandemic” when the omicron variant was dominant. Patients
were followed by phone from three months after their diagnosis for a
year to monitor their physical condition, mental health, sleep
disturbances, and quality of life.
Out of 390 people with COVID-19, 377 (97 percent) were vaccinated, 383 (98 percent) underwent antiviral treatment, and 330 (78 percent) developed long COVID syndrome.
The most frequently reported symptoms were fatigue and cough. Other
reported symptoms included depression, anxiety, and poor sleep quality.
The study found that patients under age 60 with a cough as an initial
symptom were more likely to develop the condition. In a subset of
patients with long COVID, researchers found a notable correlation in
females with headaches, dizziness, and brain fog.
“Despite the extensive distribution of vaccines and antiviral therapies, the prevalence of long COVID remains high,” the authors of the paper wrote.
Although
definitions of long COVID differ, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) broadly defines long COVID as “signs, symptoms, and
conditions that continue to develop after acute COVID-19 infection” that
can last for “weeks, months, or years.” The term “long COVID” also
includes post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection, long-haul COVID,
and post-acute COVID-19.
According to the World Health Organization, while most people with COVID-19 recover and return to normal health,
some patients, including those with mild illness, have symptoms that
persist for weeks or months after recovering from acute illness.
Nearly 7 percent of U.S. adults surveyed by the CDC in 2022 said they’ve experienced long COVID. Although U.S. regulatory agencies claim vaccinating against COVID-19
can reduce the risk of developing long COVID, the current paper did not
find a significant link between the presence of comorbidities or
infection severity and the emergence of long COVID symptoms.
Studies Link Long COVID to Vaccination
A February report published by the CDC
found that more than 8 percent of participants in seven U.S. states
reported having experienced long COVID symptoms. In West Virginia,
almost 11 percent of survey participants reported long COVID symptoms.
However, the agency did not disclose whether survey respondents were
vaccinated.
Some research suggests
long COVID may be caused by an immune overreaction to the SARS-CoV-2
spike protein that COVID-19 vaccines use to induce antibodies and that
vaccination causes some people to generate a second round of antibodies
that target the first.
In a February 2023 study published in the Journal of Medical Virology, researchers
analyzed the levels of spike protein and viral RNA in patients
hospitalized for COVID-19 with and without long COVID. They found that spike protein and viral RNA were more likely to be present in patients with long COVID.
In an August 2023 study published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases,
researchers found the risk of long COVID was lower in those who had
previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the risk of getting long COVID did
not differ by vaccination status. Researchers found that unvaccinated
people infected with omicron had the lowest risk of long COVID.
In a 2023 study in the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences,
researchers studied the serum of 81 individuals with long COVID. They
found viral spike protein in one patient after the infection had cleared
despite having a negative COVID-19 test, and vaccine spike protein in
two patients two months after vaccination.
In a December 2022 study published in PLoS One,
researchers found patients were more likely to experience long COVID if
they had preexisting medical conditions, a higher number of symptoms
during the acute phase of COVID-19 illness, if their infection was more
severe or resulted in hospitalization, or if they had received two doses
of a COVID-19 vaccine.
This most certainly is a long post. Sorry for those who prefer elevator pitch. But what happened during Covid is complex and needs to be understood thoroughly if we want to avoid another such episode.
This
excellent presentation meticulously breaks down exactly what went awry
throughout COVID-19. What everyone needs to know is summarized below...
Ron Johnson has gradually become one of my favorite senators in American history. In 2020,
he repeatedly advocated for early COVID-19 treatments to be made
available to Americans (which had they been made available would have
ended the pandemic).
Throughout 2021, he spoke out against the vaccine mandates and in November hosted a panel at
the Senate which scrutinized the federal vaccine mandates and exposed
how poorly those who experienced severe COVID-19 vaccine injuries were
being treated. In January 2022, he hosted a panel which scrutinized the entire COVID-19 response, and in December of 2022, he hosted a panel focusing on everything we now know about the vaccines.
Being
one of the most outspoken critics of the vaccination program in
American history got him a lot of pushback, and in 2022, he decided to
postpone his retirement to go through a grueling re-election campaign so
there would be someone in the government who could advocate for
everyone whose lives had been ruined by the COVID vaccines.
Despite
being public enemy number one of the pharmaceutical industry, Johnson
narrowly won, becoming the first politician in America’s history to run
on the vaccine safety issue and win. Since then Johnson has kept his
promise and fought for the vaccine injured (along with taking a variety
of other difficult but important positions such as giving one of the most poignant speeches I’ve heard on the Ukraine War when he tried to block the Senate from continuing to fund it).
A lot of work has gone into producing each of the vaccine panels he’s hosted. On Monday, he hosted “Federal Health Agencies and the COVID Cartel: What Are They Hiding?” When it was all said and done, Ibelieve
this panel was the most effective presentation I have seen for
explaining what happened throughout COVID-19 and waking people up to how
much they have been lied to. Because of this I strongly encourage you
to watch or share his presentation with people who you think might be
open to understanding exactly what was done to all of us. This article
will begin with his entire panel:
Note:
I have been struggling to find the best term for these criminals. The
four I’ve used are listed below; I would appreciate knowing what you
think is the best one.
What's the best term for the COVID criminals?
The COVID Cartel
The Pandemic Profiteers
The Pandemic Industrial Complex
The Biosecurity Agenda
Lastly, for those who prefer to read, a transcript of Johnson’s symposium can be found here.
Note: for each of the videos embedded within this article, I (or the Vigilant Fox) edited them down to their most important parts.A lot of time was put into this article because of the importance of what was presented.
Federal Health Agencies and the COVID Cartel: What Are They Hiding?
Since
the entire panel was 4 hours long, I recognize that many of you will
not be able to watch all of it. For that reason, I tried to highlight
what I felt were it’s most important parts.
First, in Johnson’s
opening statement, he discusses just how hard it has been over the last
three years to get any of the information his office is legally entitled
to from the government. For example with (Fauci’s) NIH:
We
are down to the last 50 pages [of the 4000 he originally requested].
They will not release these. It's been now going close to 2 years. This
is what has been provided to us. Do you think there might be some
incriminating information in this?
Likewise, these agencies have completely brushed off all evidence something is wrong. For example, with the NIH:
Just
like former NIH director Francis Collins Collins told me when I asked
about all the deaths being reported on VAERS, [he said], “Senator,
people die.” The fact that both of these statements are as true as they
are callous highlights the challenge we face in exposing the truth.
While with the FDA:
I've written 4 [letters on hot-lots]
starting in December of 2021. The first letter compared 25,000 lots of
COVID vaccine to 22,000 lots of flu vaccine. One COVID lot had 5,297
adverse reactions associated with it. The worst flu lot had a 137. So
5,300 versus 137.
365 COVID lots had more than 100 adverse events. Only 10 flu lots had
more than 100. And 80% of the serious adverse events, those with
emergency room visits, hospitalization, or death were associated with
only 5% of the lots. So, again, to me, I'm from manufacturing. That
shows to me a manufacturing process out of control.
[It] took us a year to get some kind of response and, basically,
response from the agencies was, “we don't see any variation in lots.”
Johnson then illustrates how the current political climate has undermined everything science once stood for:
“Vaccine injuries are rare.” “The benefits outweigh the risk and that the science is clear and overwhelming.”
“And anyone challenging this narrative is an is an anti science
conspiracy theorist.” In other words, second opinions are not allowed.
To me, this attitude is the antithesis of science.
I am amazed at the knowledge mankind has obtained over the millennia.
But I would argue that what we don't know vastly exceeds what we do
know. So as we pursue truth, we must pursue it with the humility that
that reality demands.
Johnson’s opening statement was then followed by Robert Malone:
I'll
be succinct. The SARS CoV 2 modified mRNA based vaccine products were
deployed via emergency use authorization without adequate nonclinical
and clinical testing and without full disclosure of known patient risk
and efficacy data. This violated well established legislatively mandated
patient informed consent requirements. The FDA and HHS justified these
actions as necessary due to reliance on deeply flawed modeling data indicating that SARS CoV 2 was associated with an infection fatality rate of 3.4%.
Note: the IFR was subsequently shown to average between 0.018%-0.03% for everyone under 60 and was approximately 0.506% for those between 60-69 years of age.
Subsequent
clinical research experience has revealed a number of problems with the
genetic vaccine technology based SARS COV 2 products, which have been
marketed as vaccines. In most cases, there has been an effort to obscure
or deny facts in public communication by government and pharmaceutical
industry representatives.
Malone then listed the key issues with the vaccines, to which Johnson replied:
Doctor
Malone, I think one of the things that always bothers me is [that] so
much of what we're learning in terms of harms of these vaccine was
clearly known before they were rolled out.
Jessica Rose spoke next. After concisely summarizing all of the issues that had been found within VAERS, she concluded with:
Standard
operating procedures for analysis of safety signals emergent from VAERS
when utilized reveal causal links between the COVID 19 injectable
products and the adverse events investigated. Standard operating
procedures are not being followed by the owners of the data, namely CDC,
HHS, and FDA, and this equates to hiding the millions of people
reporting not only adverse events but injuries in the context of the
COVID 19 injectable products.
Note: Rose also reviews the science behind why vaccinated individuals keep on catching COVID-19.
Edward Dowd then
concisely presented the years of work his team has done to quantify
just how devastating the vaccines have been for the world.
To quote part of Dowd’s testimony:
When
analyzing the excess death human cost…in 2020, there were approximately
458,000 excess deaths, of which 73% were aged 65 and older and 15 to 64
comprising just 27%. However, in 2021, with the rollout of the “safe
and effective vaccine,” there were approximately another 500,000 excess
deaths, but a mix shift had occurred from older to younger. In 2021, the
65 plus age category was [only] 57…while the 15 to 64 cohort increased
to 43%.
The absolute excess death increase from 2020 to 2021 for the productive working age 15 to 64 was 73% [124,000 to 215,000].
The
total excess death since the rollout of the vaccine in the US,
including 21, 22, and 23 is approximately 1,100,000. We estimate the
economic cost, productive working age people dying at $15,600,000,000
When analyzing disabilities, it's interesting to note that there were no
excess disabilities in 2020.
Using the
civilian labor force, we have calculated an increase of 2,300,000
individuals with disabilities costing the economy an estimated
$77,000,000,000. When analyzing lost work time, which we call injuries,
we estimate 28,400,000 individuals are chronically absent resulting in
an estimated economic cost of a $135,000,000,000 since 2021…Obviously,
the policy cure was undeniably worse than the illness.
Kevin McKernan then
discussed his groundbreaking discovery that there was widespread DNA
plasmid contamination of the COVID vaccines and how horrendously the
drug regulators have responded to that discovery.
This
work has been replicated by many labs around the world, and now the
FDA, the EMA, and even Health Canada, have admitted to this. The
regulatory agents have admitted that Pfizer also omitted the SV40
sequences that are in their vaccine. They've deemed this contamination
to be of little consequence, claiming the DNA is of too little
concentration to matter or to be containing DNA of no functional
consequence. These statements are false and are not supported by any
independent testing by these regulators.
After
the regulators have admitted to being deceived, they asked the opinion
of the party that deceived them how bad was the deception. They
shockingly believe the answer they were given, which is that these
sequences have no relevance to plasmid manufacturing. As someone who has
worked on the Human Genome Project manufacturing millions of plasmids, I
can assure you that this is an overt lie. DNA contamination can lead to
insertional mutagenesis. This is actually declared in Moderna's own patent regarding the mRNA vaccines.
This is also supported by Lim et al,
which speaks to the rate of spontaneous integration in the genome
during transfection. We are using transfection after all with LMPs. The
SV40 DNA is in fact functional. It is published as a potent gene therapy
tool in a nuclear targeting sequence as described by David Dean et al.
The SV40 promoter DNA is also known to bind to the tumor suppressor gene known as p53.
Note: p53 defects are commonly linked to cancers.
We've
applied these vaccine system cancer cell lines and have evidence that
it enters the cell and can survive several cell divisions. We have
preliminary evidence, although this requires replication in other labs,
that this DNA can integrate into the genome. We found 2 spike sequence
integration events in ovarian cancer cell lines of CAR 3 into chromosome
12 and 19 very recently. Since these vaccines were expected to only
contain mRNA, they were never assessed for genotoxicity studies. These
studies were therefore being conducted as guinea pig US citizens as we
witnessed an unprecedented rise in cancer drug sales since the vaccines
rolled out.
It is time for our representatives to repeal or review the PDUFA Act of 1992. This act allows regulators to defray the cost of regulation by accepting payments directly from the companies they regulate. Over half of the FDA's budget is sourced through this act.
Note: I discussed the significance of the vaccine plasmid contamination in more detail here.
Dr. David Gortler (who
previously served as a senior advisor at the FDA) then explains why the
contamination and widespread variability we are seeing in the vaccines
(e.g., the hot lots) being completely ignored is so unprecedented:
Federal
rules requiring ingredient transparency date all the way back, believe
it or not, to 1862 [and] it's the whole reason the FDA was started in
1906. Prior to COVIDsRNA injections, the FDA had approved 4 different
RNA based products. Onpattro, shown here, was the 1st RNA product approved back in 2018…as you can see by looking at this label, Onpattro prominently
details the exact structure, milligram strength, and molecular weight.
Highlighted in green at the very top, you'll see it specifies [what its]
lipid nanoparticles are engineered for.
In
contrast to the previous labels I've shown, here is the official FDA
label for COVID RNA injections. As you can see just looking at it, it
details a lot less information. We don't [even] have the structure.
Of note, in pharmacology, even very minor deviations in any molecular
structure can mean the difference between a drug and a poison…The lack
of transparency means that scientists can't use modeling to test lipid
nanoparticles for safety receptor specificity or analyze inequality [in
batches of those products].
Unfortunately,
around 70% of the 127 page document that explains the methodology to
perform quality control on RNA injections are redacted much like the
document I've shown here.
Next Dr. Harvey Risch
discusses the “crushingly obsessive push to COVID vaccinate every living
person on the planet” and provides a concise overview of the horrific
bioweapons industry which gave birth to COVID-19 and then tried to pivot
to vaccinating everyone rather than accept responsibility for what it
had done.
Note: This catastrophic industry is discussed in more detail here (e.g., I highlighted how numerous modern diseases are the results of lab leaks).
Next, Barbara Loe Fisher, an activist who has spent decades fighting for vaccine safety shared the broader context of what we are now dealing with.
I worked with parents in congress to secure safety and informed consent provisions in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
It was an historic law, the first official acknowledgment by government
that federally licensed and state mandated vaccines can and do injure
and kill some children. In January,
my eyewitness perspective of how and why child vaccine victims and
their parents were betrayed after that law was passed 38 years ago, was
featured in a 2 hour conversation I had on the Highwire.
I encourage everyone to watch it and
learn how parents trusted that the 5 years of work we put into that
1986 act to successfully secure life saving, informing, recording,
reporting, and research provisions in it, and to protect the legal right
of vaccine victims to sue vaccine manufacturers for product design
defects, and to sue negligent doctors for medical malpractice, and to
create an expedited, more just, less traumatic federal vaccine injury
compensation system alternative to a lawsuit were all destroyed by
congressional amendments, by federal health agencies, and the US
Supreme Court after that law was passed. Following that betrayal of
trust, Congress directed federal agencies to create lucrative public
private business partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry, a
business deal that has broken America's public health system.
Note: I previously wrote about
how the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act forced the government to create VAERS
(as parents had no way to report vaccine injuries) and ever since that
time, the government has done everything it could to undermine VAERS.
Johnson
then shares a poignant observation with Fisher that illustrates how
effectively the pharmaceutical industry has bought out our media:
By the way,I became aware of you from that excellent documentary which
I would also recommend. What struck me about [it] is back then in 1982
through 1986, you could talk about these things. You could advocate for
your child who's vaccine injured. You weren't ostracized. You were
actually welcomed here in the senate by people like Senator Hatch and
Senator Kennedy and you got this [law] signed by Ronald Reagan.
To which Fisher replies:
I
never imagined when I began this work in 1982 that the day would come
when I would not be able to exercise freedom of thought and conscience
in the country I love. And I thank you for allowing me to exercise that
right today.
Next, Bryan Hooker, the parent of a severely vaccine injured adult son shares his 23 years of work (e.g., 15 peer-reviewed papers) to get the data on vaccine injury the CDC has been hiding for decades.
In
1962, children received 5 vaccine doses, and in 1986, the schedule
expanded to 25 doses of 5 different vaccine formulations. Shortly after
the passage of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, the law
was amended to essentially erect a liability shield protecting vaccine
manufacturers, and the schedule expanded dramatically. By 2023, 73 doses
of 16 different vaccine formulations were given to children up to age
18. [As we discovered through lawsuits] the FDA approved these
formulations individually only with minimal and inadequate safety
testing, and the CDC has never tested the cumulative effect of the
vaccine schedule on childhood health outcomes.
Since
[proper trials] are really the only way to establish that a
pharmaceutical product is safe, it is misinformation to state that the
vaccines are safe.
However, independent researchers have assessed the outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children.
This [study] demonstrates
that vaccinated children were at least twice as likely to be diagnosed
with developmental delays, ear infections, and gastrointestinal
disorders.
[In this study] a control group of over 1800 unvaccinated children recruited from 46 different states in the US were compared to
the national average rates of the listed disorders…For each of the
autoimmune, neurodevelopmental, and other disorders considered, the
unvaccinated group fares much better with incidence rates between 4-20 times lower than their vaccinated counterparts.
The
CDC has a database called the vaccine safety data link. It's over
10,000,000 individuals with 2,000,000 children from 10 participating
HMOs. I would say that within that database, there were at least 10,000
unvaccinated children that can be studied.
Neither do they they publish the results [discovered from that data],
nor do they let any independent scientist in to look at that
information. [That’s] because [they know] the bloated vaccination
schedule is responsible is in part responsible for the epidemic of
chronic disorders that we see in children in the United States.
Note:
Hooker also discusses the evidence the COVID-19 vaccine harms children
(e.g., that it appears to kill 30 children for each child it saves from
COVID and has given many of our children myocarditis).
Next, Del Bigtree discusses the decade of work he and the non-profit ICAN have conducted to get that data from the government:
In his talk, he puts the results of a recent study which
monitored 99 million people for 45 days post vaccination into context.
It found that their risk for a variety of severe conditions increased by
2-7 times, something which quickly adds up as you when consider how
many of those “rare” conditions exist (that often take more than 45 days
to appear) and how many vaccines they’ve received. These results is
turn sheds a light on exactly what’s been happening to our children.
Every
one of the childhood vaccines has a similar [lengthy] list of [severe]
side effects. Though they are considered rare, how rare is it when you
multiply roughly 50 potential side effects 72 times, which is the total
number of doses given to a child by the time they're 18. The revelations
from the recent study of
the COVID vaccine explains what we have been saying for years. Vaccines
are not completely safe, and [though] those side effects are rare. What
happens when you add them altogether?
Next, Dr. Sabine Hazan shared
how her [self-funded] research to evaluate the use of existing
therapies to treat COVID-19 was blocked by the FDA, her discovery that
the severity of COVID-19 was directly linked to a loss of bifidobacteriain
the gut and that the vaccine also caused a loss of bifidobacteria in
the gut. She then contrasted this to how previous research she did
(which supported the pharmaceutical industry) never ran into similar
road blocks. Note: I synopsized that research here.
Pierre Kory then
discussed the lengthy number of mechanisms which are in place to ensure
that repurposed (off-patent) drugs can never have enough evidence to be
acknowledged as treatments for a disease someone is profiting off of.
Note: this talk has already been seen by over 1.6 million people on Twitter.
Next,
Christian Perron MD PhD (former chairman of the WHO’s committee on
vaccines and communicable diseases) recounted how early in the pandemic,
he completed a study which showed hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin
dramatically lowered the death rate from COVID-19. A political backlash
forced the withdraw of his study and he was fired from his 26 year
professorship.
Before long France then banned the use of hydroxychloroquine and began
enacting harsher and harsher sanctions against French dissidents like
Perron who tried to tell the truth—eventually forcing Perron to publish
in a French newspaper which had originally been created to defy the
Nazis (as every other publication censored him).
Perron was
followed by Raphael Lataster PhD, who is one of the leading researchers
working with the BMJ (one of the top 5 medical journals) to expose the
fraud within the COVID vaccine trials:
These
[abhorrent] policies [e.g., the vaccine mandates] were justified via
claims about the vaccine’s effectiveness and safety. Now recent research
published in major medical journals reveals that these claims were
highly exaggerated…we have found in the studies varying definitions of
fully vaccinated and unvaccinated. And, generally, what we find with the
term fully vaccinated is that they are ignoring COVID cases, COVID
infections, in the partially vaccinated…that effect was found to be up
to 48% using data from Pfizer's trial as an example.
We
can't be sure what the actual exaggeration is because we aren't
supplied with all the data. So it's impossible to actually know. But it
looks like there are huge exaggerations of effectiveness because of what
you could call manipulation of the data. So if these [omitted COVID
cases] were included, or if even just some of these were included, we
could have an effectiveness of the vaccines of around 10%...[which]is
well below the 50% required for approval. Furthermore, looking to safety
in the clinical trials, adverse effect counting windows are again
incredibly short.
Note: Lataster also discusses
many of the safety issues with the vaccines that were demonstrated
within the trial data but hidden from the public (e.g., that the
vaccines have a significant risk of myocarditis) and states “now Pfizer
also admits that they're still trying, this is a quote ‘to determine if
Cominati is safe and effective and if there is a myocarditispericarditis
association that should be noted’. That's on clinicaltrials.gov still
right now. They're trying to find out if it's safe and effective right now.”
Award winning investigative journalist Lara Logan then
provides a poignant summary of how her profession has been hijacked by
the government and how a variety of shadowy organizations now enforce
this vast propaganda apparatus. This was the most compelling part of
her talk:
Note: Her testimony was followed by one from Jason Christoff,
a propaganda expert, who explained why flooding the population with a
single narrative and way of thinking has caused many people to adopt
completely dysfunctional beliefs at odds with everything they’d held
dear
They were then followed by Rodney Palmer, who was a Canadian journalist for 20 years, sharing his perspectives on the current state of the media.
If the news reporters did their jobs instead of reporting propaganda, this fraud would have been exposed from the outset.
Censorship is what actually caused these deaths. It was the lie that assured us it was safe when it wasn't, and it still isn't
In
America, it's much worse. The vaccine companies are allowed to sponsor
the news directly…To a visiting Canadian, the news here looks like one
big ad for pharmaceutical products. It's a bit of a culture shock when
you turn on the TV. There wouldn't even be a US newscast without Pharma
ads. So the reporters on your newscasts are all conflicted.
They can't bite the hand that feeds them. They can't possibly investigate the most important stories of our time.
It
appears that the reporters are actually colluding with their sponsors
to break FDA advertising laws. FDA law requires them to conspicuously
describe the known risks of any pharmaceutical product [which news
anchors promoting vaccines never do.
The good news is no one believes the TV news anymore. Only 15% of Canadians, 15%, are getting the boosters.
[The media has] now canceled lunchtime news hours. It's canceled weekend newscasts. After these reporters are laid off,
we'll only be left with the trusted favor of the trusted faces of our
favorite news anchors, delivering the propaganda of the day, instead of
the news of the day. But when those trusted faces are telling us lies,
they're like a super weapon aimed directly at us. The news anchors are
now the finger on the trigger in that game of Russian roulette.
When
the news is poisoned, so is Democracy…most every other country is
letting this happen, but where goes America, so goes the world. You have
a unique role in setting the moral tone for Western democracies.
So I respectfully recommend that the senate investigate the role of
American television news networks, including with pharmaceutical
advertisers to skirt the FDA laws that require them to declare the known
risks of a pharmaceutical product. This investigation should extend to
any reporters, news anchors, editors, and executives who lied to their
audience about the safety of the COVID vaccines.
Note:
Palmer also describes how he gradually saw the corrupting influence of
the pharmaceutical industry enter Canada’s media over the last decade.
One of the most compelling observations he shared was that during the
pandemic, the doctors who spoke on television didn’t talk like doctors
but instead appeared to have corporate media training, which he took as
an early sign a lengthy PR campaign was being enacted to sell as many
vaccines as possible.
Next, Matthias Desmet provided
a concise summary of the crowd psychology which explained how it was
possible for so many people to refuse to see what was being hidden from
them, even thing after thing happened which made it clear we were all
being lied to:
Note: I recently completed an article relating
Desmet’s work on crowd psychology to how individuals commonly become
trapped in cults and dangerous spiritual practices.
Brett Weinstein then
describes the institutional breakdown gripping our society and the
malicious forces which are taking away each thing we had previously
depended upon for truth and justice (e.g., our premier scientific
apparatus). I wanted to quote one exchange he had with Johnson:
[Johnson]
Now I kind of want to ask you, I describe my eyes being opened up,
certainly during COVID to a number of things…Can you just describe your
[red pill] journey here?
[Weinstein] Well, I think we are all on a
similar journey. I did not think that I was naive 7 years ago, and then
I learned that I had been very naive and I keep learning that lesson.
Each new discovery reveals that I was missing something that was right
in front of me, and I think that's actually the hallmark of the exact
pattern I'm describing.
Canadian Randy Hillier served
in Ontario’s parliament for 15 years and was the first member to
publicly oppose his government's response to COVID. Like Canada’s
citizens, Hillier was targeted by the government for doing so, and
argues we are at the tip of a slippery slope with this. In this part of
his testimony, he shares how Ontario’s leadership told him they made
the decision to continually coverup the damage of the COVID policies
because they felt the political consequences would be too severe if they
admitted their mistakes:
Next, Dr. Sorin Titus Muncaciu shared
his experience as a Romanian member of parliament who watched the
central authorities use every tool at their disposal to forcefully
vaccinate Romania.
We are a party having probably 10%
of the votes we got in the parliament in 2020, and we, from the very
beginning of this pandemic, we decided that the rights of the people to
decide if they accept, or [do not accept receiving] an experimental drug
should be respected.
When the European
Union started behaving like the USSR with those commissars coming to us
and mister Barnier came to Romania. This gentleman was the commissioner
for internal affairs of the European Union and pushed us, pushed the
Romanian parliament to vote [for COVID vaccine mandates].
But
in Romania the problem they face is that we are 40 years after a
communist dictatorship, 30, 34 years after a communist dictatorship. And
it's in our genes to distrust the government because we knew every time
a communist government is saying anything or is directing anything, we
knew that's a lie, that's something that we should not trust or we
should not follow.
We did everything in
the book that we could to stop that and we stopped it. And, as a
consequence to that, the Romanian rate of vaccination was probably less
than half of what the other European countries experienced or United
States, Canada and Australia [experienced]. And, therefore we can
compare now the low rate and the excess mortality. And that's the best
proof I can bring to the table is the fact that having a relationship
between a low rate of vaccination and low excess mortality, which is
right there you see it on the, Romania is the last country on the right
which means we have negative excess mortality while all the other
countries in Europe have positive excess mortality.
Rob
Roos (a European member of Parliament) and Phillip Kruse (a lawyer)
then discussed who actually funds the WHO and the disastrous treaty it
is trying to sneak through which will force everyone to comply with the
pandemic cartel and silence anyone who challenges their next pandemic
response.
Note: I discussed this treaty and the grass roots effort to stop it in more detail here. I consider that article to be one of the most important articles I’ve published on Substack.
Finally, Ryan Cole concluded
the talk by discussing how he was punished for speaking out, how
everything which happened throughout the pandemic has violated our
fundamental constitutional rights and how critical it is for us to
reclaim what our Founding Fathers fought for.
Note: for anyone considering being a whistleblower, Johnson requested for you to contact his office here.
Conclusion
Since
Johnson packed this presentation with so many impactful points, it was
quite hard to decide which was the best one to conclude it with.
Eventually however, I settled on this one, which while brief, I believe
is the critically important message all Americans can agree with:
It
is remarkable how much each successive panel Johnson has hosted has
improved upon the one which preceded it. I consider this to be both a
product of how dedicated each participant has been to fixing this mess
and how much the alternative media has facilitated the production of
high quality information that has rapidly unravelled the immensely
complex web we were trapped within.
Without each of your
supporting the wonderful community of dissident authors on Substack,
much of this would likely have never happened, and I thank each of you
from the bottom of my heart for giving me the opportunity to be part of
it.
Lastly, if you have anyone close to you who is on the fence about the vaccines, please consider sharing this article or a video of Johnson’s panel with
them; it’s something than can persuade people who are at last beginning
to become open to hearing the truth and we have reached the moment
where it is critical for the truth to reach as many people as possible.
As most analysts describe him, Lloyd Austin is seldom the brightest bulb in the room. This definition also applies quite accurately to olaf scholz or Emmanuel Macron. Still, there is little doubt that behind closed doors, the West is panicking. Nobody knows exactly when the Ukrainian army will collapse but the question now only focuses on when, not if. The hundreds of billions of dollars and Euros are lost. The expected return on investment with the dismantlement of Russia is certain not to happen. Credibility is gone. What do you do next? Negotiate or double down?
This
is the single most important, dangerous and highly revealing statement
from a top defense official in the West in a long time... It also
demonstrates the precarious urgency of the moment and the huge stakes
going into the November US election. The world truly stands on the precipice of a nuclear nightmare with the following fresh assertion of Biden's Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who said before Congress on Thursday:
"If Ukraine falls, I really believe that NATO will be in a fight with Russia," Austin stated.
What's more is that this came the very day that Russian President Vladimir Putin warned things could easily spiral toward nuclear war in the scenario that NATO sends troops to Ukraine. Watch:
According
to the fuller context of the Pentagon chief's statements, he emphasized
that more Washington funding is crucial for Ukraine in order to prevent
a situation where "one country can redraw its neighbors’ boundaries and
illegitimately take over its sovereign territory."
"We know that if Putin is successful here, he will not stop.
He will continue to take more aggressive actions in the region. And
other leaders around the world, other autocrats around the world will
look at this and will be encouraged by the fact that this happened and
we failed to support a democracy," he added.
"If you are a Baltic state, you are really worried about whether you are next. They know Putin. They know what he is capable of. And, frankly, if Ukraine falls, I really believe that NATO will be in a fight with Russia," Austin said.
What
is even more alarming about this statement is that everyone now knows
that Ukraine forces are in retreat at this very moment, especially after
the Russian capture of the city of Avdiivka, and surrounding villages.
Bloomberg on Thursday issued a report predicting total collapse of the Ukrainian front lines by summer, as the headline suggests (Ukraine Sees Risk of Russia Breaking Through Defenses by Summer):
"Ukrainian officials are concerned that Russian advances could gain
significant momentum by the summer unless their allies can increase the
supply of ammunition, according to a person familiar with their
analysis," the report says. According to more from Bloomberg:
Internal assessments of the situation on the battlefield from Kyiv are growing increasingly bleak as Ukrainian forces struggle to hold off Russian attacks while rationing the number of shells they can fire.
Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi said Thursday that mistakes by frontline commanders had compounded the problems
facing Ukraine’s defenses around Avdiivka, which was captured by
Russian forces this month. Syrskyi said he’d sent in more troops and
ammunition to bolster Ukrainian positions.
So
the consensus narrative and belated mainstream media admission is that
Ukraine's military is a mere months away from clear defeat, and the top
US defense chief just said NATO will go to war with Russia "if Ukraine
falls".
The conflict has reached a dire and perilously
unpredictable moment indeed, and clearly the already slim chances of
jump-starting serious peace negotiations to end the war are slipping
away fast.
Great article which resume very well what happened during the last 4 years with the Global Pandemic, lockdowns and vaccination campaigns.
Personally, I believe the real coup d'etat took place in 2001 with the 9/11 crisis. Covid was just a further step to increase the control which is now almost total.
What seemed to be unfolding was a huge intellectual error for the history books.
A new virus had come along and everyone was freaking out and smashing all normal social functioning.
The excuse turns out just to be the cover story. Still, it bears examination.
Even
though plenty of outside commentators said the pathogen should be
handled in the normal way—with known treatment and calm while those most
susceptible stayed cautious until endemicity—some people on the inside
fell prey to a great fallacy. They had come to believe computer models
over known realities. They thought that you could separate everyone, drive down infections, and then the virus would die out.
This
was never a plausible scenario, as anyone who knew something about the
history of pandemics would report. All known experience stood against
this cockamamie scheme. The science was very clear and widely available:
lockdowns do not work. Physical interventions in general achieve
nothing.
But, hey, they said it was an experiment born of new thinking. They would give it a whirl.
When
it became clear that the lockdowners had gained sway over policy, many
of us thought, truly, how long can this really last? A week, maybe two.
Then we would be done. But then something strange happened. The money
began to flow. And flow. The states thought that was awesome so they
kept it up. The money printers got to work. And general chaos broke out:
social, cultural, educational, economic, and political.
It all happened so fast. The
months rolled on with no break in the narrative. It became crazy after a
time. There were so few critics. We didn’t know it but they were being
silenced by a new machinery that had already been constructed for this
purpose.
Among that which was censored was criticism of
the inoculation potion that was being rolled out and which would
eventually be forced on populations all over the world. They
said it was 95 percent effective, but it wasn’t clear what that could
mean. No coronavirus had ever been controlled by any vaccination. How
could this be true? It wasn’t true. Nor did the shot stop the spread.
Many
people said this at the time. But we couldn’t hear them. Their voices
were muffled or silenced. The social media companies had already been
taken over by government-connected interests working on behalf of
intelligence agencies. We had believed that these tools were designed to
increase our connections with others and enable free speech. Now they
were being used to broadcast a preset regime narrative.
Strange industrial shifts took place. Gas
cars were deprecated in favor of a new experiment in electric vehicles,
thanks to intense consumer demand caused by shortages owing to supply
chain breakages. Digital learning platforms got a huge boost because
physical classrooms were closed. Online ordering and doorstep delivery
became the rage because people were told not to leave their homes and
small businesses were forcibly closed.
The pharma companies were riding high of course, gradually acculturating the population to a subscription model. There
were attempts to convert whole countries to a health passport system.
New York City tried this, along with actual physical segregation of the
entire city, with the vaccinated considered clean while the unvaccinated
were not allowed into restaurants, libraries, or theaters. The digital
app didn’t work however, so that plan fell apart quickly.
Coups
of the past featured rebel armies from the hills storming the cities
and joined by the military as they invaded the palace and the leader and
his family fled in a carriage or helicopter depending on the epoch.
This
was different. It was organized and planned by intelligence agencies
within the structure of the global state, a great reset to reject the
forms of the past and replace them all with a new dystopia.
Initially,
the people who said this was a great reset were derided as crazed
conspiracy theorists. But then it turned out that the head of the World
Economic Forum (WEF), Klaus Schwab, had written a book by the very title that you could buy from Amazon. It turns out to be H.G. Wells’s “The Open Conspiracy” updated for the 21st-century technology.
There
turns out to be much more than that. There was an angle to all of this
that impacts the mechanisms we use for democratic control of societies.
Buried in the flurry of bills shoved through in March 2020 was a
liberalization of balloting and voting that would never have been
tolerated before. In the name of social distancing, mail-in ballots
would become the norm, along with the known irregularities they
introduce.
Implausibly, this too was part of the plan.
Researching
and realizing all of this in real time has been a bit much. It has
shattered the old ideological paradigms. The old theories no longer
explain the world as it is unfolding. It causes all of us to revisit our
priors, at least those with minds adaptable enough to pay attention.
For vast swaths of the intellectual class, this is not possible.
Looking back, we should have known something was up at the outset.
There were too many anomalies. Were the people in charge really so
stupid as to believe that you can make a virus go away by making
everyone stay home? It’s absurd. You cannot control the microbial
kingdom this way, and surely everyone with a modicum of intelligence
knows this.
Another clue: there never was an exit plan. What
exactly was fourteen days of frozen activity going to achieve? What was
the benchmark of success? We were never told. Instead, the elites in
media and government simply encouraged fear. And then met that fear with
ridiculous protocols like dousing ourselves with sanitizer, masking
while walking, and presuming every other person is a disease vector.
This was psychological warfare. To what end and how ambitious are these hidden plans for us?
Only four years later, we are grasping the fullness of what was going down.
For
those of us schooled in the persistent incompetence of government to
get anything right, much less deploy a plan with anything like
precision, elaborate conspiracy theories of plots and schemes always
seem implausible. We just don’t believe them.
This is why
it took us so long to see the fullness of what was deployed in March
2020, a scheme that combined a plethora of seemingly disparate
governmental/industrial ambitions including:
1) rollout of subscription/platform model of Pharma distribution,
2) mass censorship,
3) election management/rigging,
4) universal basic income,
5) industrial subsidies to digital platforms,
6) mass population surveillance,
7) cartelization of industry,
8) shift in income distribution and entrenchment of administrative state power,
9) crushing of ‘populist’ movements worldwide, and
10) the centralization of power generally speaking.
How far are we from a nuclear war? If both Russia and the West consider the war in Ukraine as existential, the answer may be very close!
With this in mind, the current policies of Europe are difficult to understand. They want to save the planet and for this are ready to deindustrialize and make our lives quite difficult indeed by focusing on one atom (C) , But conversely won't negotiate with Russia and take into consideration another far more dangerous atom (U).
So Global Warming is wrong but Global Scalding is fine?
This week the Financial Times
has published contents of a cache of leaked classified Russian
documents said to lay out the country's doctrine and strategy for
tactical nuclear weapons use. Included in the documents is info on the
Kremlin's minimum criteria for using tactical nukes.
The
criteria outlined in the secret files range "from an enemy incursion on
Russian territory to more specific triggers, such as the destruction of
20% of Russia's strategic ballistic missile submarines," according to FT.
The
question of the possibility of Russia and NATO stumbling toward nuclear
war is without doubt heavy on the minds of many this week, especially
after French President Emmanuel Macron's Monday comments wherein he raised sending Western troops to fight Russia in Ukraine and said of the possibility, "nothing should be ruled out."
Putin appeared to respond directly in his Thursday state of the nation televised address, spelling out: "Everything that they are coming up with now, with which they threaten the entire world – all this really threatens a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons, and therefore the destruction of civilization – don’t they understand this, or what?"
"They must ultimately understand that we also have weapons – and they know about it, just as I now said – we also have weapons that can hit targets on their territory," he warned.
As
for tactical nuke usage, Russia's tactical arsenal has more limited
range in comparison to strategic weapons, and thus are designed and
intended for the possibility of a 'nearer' war in Europe or Asia.
But worrisomely, the FT review of the documents (which date from 2008-2014) finds that the Kremlin likely has a threshold "lower than Russia has ever publicly admitted,
according to experts who reviewed and verified the documents." Experts
cited in the FT say the contents of the leaks likely remain part of
Moscow's current nuclear doctrine.
The documents show that Russia has recently rehearsed scenarios involving war with China. Per the leaks and the FT report:
One
exercise outlining a hypothetical attack by China notes that Russia,
dubbed the “Northern Federation” for the purpose of the war game, could
respond with a tactical nuclear strike in order to stop “the South” from
advancing with a second wave of invading forces.
“The
order has been given by the commander-in-chief . . . to use nuclear
weapons . . . in the event the enemy deploys second-echelon units and
the South threatens to attack further in the direction of the main
strike,” the document said.
And for another scenario involving a hypothetical enemy invasion of Russian territory:
A
separate training presentation for naval officers, unrelated to the
China war games, outlines broader criteria for a potential nuclear
strike, including an enemy landing on Russian territory, the defeat of
units responsible for securing border areas, or an imminent enemy attack
using conventional weapons.
The slides summarise the threshold as a combination of factors where
losses suffered by Russian forces “would irrevocably lead to their
failure to stop major enemy aggression”, a “critical situation for the
state security of Russia”.
Another
envisioned situation seems to apply more for something like a Ukraine
escalation scenario where there's runaway escalation. According to the
FT's analysis and citations of the documents:
Other potential conditions include the destruction of 20 per cent of Russia’s strategic ballistic missile submarines,
30 per cent of its nuclear-powered attack submarines, three or more
cruisers, three airfields, or a simultaneous hit on main and reserve
coastal command centres.
Russia’s military is also expected to be able to use tactical nuclear weapons for a broad array of goals, including “containing states from using aggression […] or escalating military conflicts”, “stopping aggression”, preventing Russian forces from losing battles or territory, and making Russia’s navy “more effective”.
The
particular above section has language in it which seems to lay out the
most minimal threshold, but which perhaps leaves open the most
interpretation for Russian leadership. Publicly at least, Kremlin
leadership has said nuclear weapons could only be deployed if Russian
territory and population face existential threat.
Putin
in his aforementioned Thursday major address seemed to appeal in his
nuclear warning given to NATO to this doctrine of "containing states
from using aggression" - given that's precisely what he's now accusing
the West of in Ukraine.
We are still witnessing the fallback of the Tucker Carlson interview of Vladimir Putin a couple of weeks ago but now the deep state is trying to regain control of the narrative.
This is an extraordinary fight between a Goliath which control all the news media and a David which has the ear of a majority of the population.
The underlying problem is that the US based system cannot live with an independent Russia or China and will therefore double down rather than negotiate. Europe is even in a worse position. Without cheap Russian energy, the continent is toast and condemned to de-industrialization. This explains the current panic.
The
international attacks on Tucker Carlson, especially from within US
mainstream media and NATO-connected circles, have only increased
following his hugely controversial eight day visit to Russia earlier
this month where he interviewed President Vladimir Putin. Russian state
media has even this week claimed authorities uncovered an "assassination plot" - rumored to have been backed by Kiev.
This
week the former FOX prime time host was interviewed about his trip and
the whole Putin interview experience in three-hour podcast hosted by Lex
Fridman. Tucker Carlson revealed more about what motivated him to do
the televised Putin segment, and further discussed his personal take on
the Russia-Ukraine war and where it could go from here, now having
entered its third year. Interestingly, Carlson's main critique of the
war focused not on Putin or the Kremlin's actions in Ukraine, which of
course are not under his control or influence, but on the impact to America.
Carlson
explained that the West's escalation of the conflict long ago into a
full-blown proxy war has not only resulted in more needless Ukrainian
deaths, but it has been devastating for the United States. "I reject the whole premise of the war in Ukraine from the American perspective," Carlson told Fridman. "There’s a war going on that is wrecking the US economy in a way and at a scale that people do not understand." He
also generally characterized the response of the US political class to
the conflict, along with the American public which has uncritically
followed, as naive.
Carlson
emphasized that what would be a cautiously realist approach was utterly
abandoned by Washington from the start, as has been typical of the past
decades of US interventionism abroad. "It doesn’t even matter what I
want to happen… that’s a distortion of what is happening," Carlson
explained, and pointed to Russia having 100 million more people and more defense industry might "than all of NATO combined."
He described that a big part of the rationale behind the Putin interview was to bring "more information" to the West so that "people could make their own decisions about whether" escalation of weapons to Kiev and jingoistic rhetoric from Western capitals is a good idea.
Ultimately, he said, Americans are being lied to:
"Just
to be clear, I have no plans to move to Russia. I think I would
probably be arrested if I moved to Russia. Ed Snowden, who is the most
famous openness, transparency, advocate in the world, I would say along
with Assange, doesn’t want to live in Russia. He’s had problems with the
Putin government. He’s attacked Putin. They don’t like it. I get it. I
get it. I’m just saying, what are the lessons for us?
The main lesson is we are being lied to in a way that’s bewildering and very upsetting.
I was mad about it all eight days I was there because I feel like I’m
better informed than most people because it’s my job to be informed. I’m
skeptical of everything and yet I was completely hoodwinked by it."
Topics
highlighted throughout the long-ranging conversion included Carlson's
personal take on being one-on-one with a seemingly "nervous" Putin, the
question of ending the war in Ukraine, the role of the CIA and Western
intelligence services, the prospect that the crisis could spiral into
nuclear confrontation with the West, the Alexei Navalny saga, as well as
a foray into the Israel-Palestine conflict near the end. Watch the full
Carlson-Fridman interview below...
The following are some key excerpts of Tucker Carlson's words from the interview, selected by ZeroHedge [emphasis ours]...
* * *
Carlson On Putin. "I want to know who this guy is."
I thought he seemed nervous, and I was very surprised by that.
And I thought he seemed like someone who’d overthought it a little bit,
who had a plan, and I don’t think that’s the right way to go into any
interview. My strong sense, having done a lot of them for a long time,
is that it’s better to know what you think, to say as much as you can
honestly, so you don’t get confused by your own lies, and just to be
yourself. And I thought that he went into it like an over-prepared
student, and I kept thinking, “Why is he nervous?” But I guess because he thought a lot of people were going to see it...
I
mean, I asked him as I usually do the most obvious dumbest question
ever, which is, “Why’d you do this?” And he had said in a speech that I
think is worth reading. I don’t speak Russian, so I haven’t heard it in
the original, but he had said at the moment of the beginning of the war,
he had given this address to Russians, in which he explained to the
fullest extent we have seen so far why he was doing this. And he said in
that speech, “I fear that NATO the West, the United States, the Biden administration will preemptively attack us.” And I thought, “Well, that’s interesting.” I
can’t evaluate whether that’s a fear rooted in reality or one rooted in
paranoia. But I thought, “Well, that’s an answer right there.”
And so I alluded to that in my question and rather than answering it, he went off on this long from my perspective, kind of tiresome, sort of greatest hits of Russian history. And the implication I thought was, “Well, Ukraine is ours, or Eastern Ukraine is ours already.”...
I want to know who this guy is. I think a western audience, a global audience, has a right to know more about the guy,
and so just let him talk. Because I don’t feel like my reputation’s on
the line. People have already drawn conclusions about me, I suppose to
the extent they have. I’m not interested really in those conclusions
anyway, so just let him talk. And so I calmed down and just let him
talk. And in retrospect, I thought that was really, really interesting.
Whether you agree with it or not, or whether you think it’s relevant to
the war in Ukraine or not, that was his answer. And so it’s inherently
significant.
American falsehoods & the Ukraine war
I mean, I guess I reject the whole premise of the war in Ukraine from the American perspective,
which is a tiny group of dumb people in Washington has decided to do
this for reasons they won’t really explain. And you don’t have a role in
it at all as an American citizen, as the person who’s paying for it,
whose children might be drafted to fight it. To shut up and obey, I just
reject that completely. I think, I guess I’m a child of a different
era. I’m a child of participatory democracy to some extent, where your
opinion as a citizen is not irrelevant. And I guess the level of lying
about it was starting to drive me crazy.
The idea that Ukraine would inevitably win this war.
Now victory was never, as it never is, defined precisely. Nothing’s
ever defined precisely, which is always to tell that there’s deception
at the heart of the claim. But Ukraine’s on the verge of winning. Well, I
don’t know. I mean, I’m hardly a tactician or military expert. For the
fifth time, I’m not an expert on Russia or Ukraine. I just looked at
Wikipedia. Russia has a hundred million more people than Ukraine, a hundred million.
It has much deeper industrial capacity, war material capacity than all of NATO combined.
For example, Russia is turning out artillery shells, which are
significant in a ground war at a ratio of seven to one compared to all
NATO countries combined. That’s all of Europe. Russia is producing seven
times the artillery shells as all of Europe combined. What? That’s an
amazing fact, and it turns out to be a really significant fact. In fact,
the significant fact. But if you ask your average person in this
country, even a fairly well-informed person of good faith who’s just
trying to understand what’s going on, who’s going to win this war? Well,
Ukraine’s going to win. They’re on the right side.
...And I
raised that question in my previous job, and I was denounced as of
course a traitor or something. But okay, great, I’m a traitor. What’s
the answer? What’s the answer? [Vic]Toria Nuland, who I know,
not dumb, hasn’t helped the US in any way, an architect of the Iraq war,
architect of this disaster, one of the people who destroyed the US
dollar. Okay, fine, but you’re not stupid. So you’re trying to
get a war by acting that way, what’s the other explanation? By the way,
NATO didn’t want Ukraine because it didn’t meet the criteria for
admission. So why would you say that? Because you want a war, that’s
why. And that war has enriched a lot of people to the tune of billions.
So I don’t care if I sound like some kind of left-wing conspiracy nut,
because I’m neither left-wing nor a conspiracy nut. Tell me how I’m
wrong.
On feeling sorry for Zelensky
If I’m a Russian or a Ukrainian, let’s just be sovereign countries now. We’re not run by the U.S. State Department. We’re just our own countries. I believe in sovereignty, okay? So that’s my view.
I also want to say one thing about Zelensky. I attacked him before
because I was so offended by his cavalier talk about nuclear exchange
because it would kill my family. So I’m really offended by that. Anyone
who talks that way I’m offended by. But I do feel for Zelensky. I do. He didn’t run for president to have this happen.
I think Zelensky’s been completely misused by the State Department, by Toria Nuland,
by our Secretary of State, by the policymakers in the U.S. who’ve used
Ukraine as a vessel for their ambitions, their geopolitical ambitions,
but also the many American businesses who’ve used Ukraine as a way to
fleece the American taxpayer, and then by just independent ghouls like
Boris Johnson who are hoping to get rich from interviews on it. The
whole thing, Zelensky is at the center of this. He’s not driving
history. NATO and the United States is driving history. Putin is
driving history. There’s this guy, Zelensky. So I do feel for him, and I
think he’s in a perilous place.
The prospect of nuclear war
Well it’s been what, 80 years? Not even 80 years, 79. And so we haven’t had a world war in 79 years. But one nuclear exchange would of course kill more people than all wars in human history combined.
I am counting. Because I think it obviously, it’s completely demonic and everyone pretends like it’s great. Nuclear weapons are evil.
The
use of them is evil, and the technology itself is evil. And in my
opinion, I mean, it’s like if you can’t, that’s just so obvious. And
what I’m saying is I’m not against all technology. I took a shower this
morning. It was powered by an electric pump, heated by a water heater. I
loved it. I sat in an electric sauna. I’m not against all technology, obviously, but the mindless worship of technology?
The possibility of Russia-Ukraine Peace: Putin "wants a settlement"
He [Putin] wants a settlement, he wants a settlement.
He doesn’t want to fight with them rhetorically and he just wants to
get this done. He made a bunch of offers at the peace deal. We wouldn’t
even know this happened if the Israelis hadn’t told us. I’m so grateful
that they did that, that Johnson was dispatched by the State Department
to stop it. I mean, I think Boris Johnson is a husk of a man. But
imagine if you were Boris Johnson and you spend your whole life with
Ukraine flag, “I’m for Ukraine,” and then all those kids died because of
what you did, and the lines haven’t really moved. It hasn’t
been a victory for Ukraine. It’s not going to be a victory for Ukraine.
It’s like, how do you feel about yourself if you did that? I mean, I’ve
done a lot of shitty things in my life, I feel bad about them, but I’ve
never extended a war for no reason. That’s a pretty grave sin in my
opinion.
Well, the U.S. government’s not allowing negotiations.
So that for me is the most upsetting part. It’s like in the end, what
Russia does, I’m not implicated in that. What Ukraine does, I’m not
implicated in that. I’m not Russian or Ukrainian. I’m an American who
grew up really believing in my country. I’m supporting my country
through my tax dollars. It’s like I really care about what the U.S.
government does because they’re doing it in my name, and I care a lot
because I’m American. We are the impediment to peace, which is another
way of saying we are responsible for all these innocent people getting
dragooned out of public parks in Kiev and sent to go die. What? That is
not good. I’m ashamed of it.
On the Alexey Navalny saga
Well, it’s awful. I mean, imagine dying in prison.
I’ve thought about it a lot. I’ve known a lot of people in prison a
lot, including some very good friends of mine. So I felt instantly sad
about it. From a geopolitical perspective, I don’t know any more than
that. And I laugh at and sort of resent, but mostly find amusing the
claims by American politicians, who really are the dumbest politicians
in the world actually, “This happened and here’s what it means.” And
it’s like, “Actually as a factual matter, we don’t know what happened.
We don’t know what happened.” We have no freaking idea what
happened. We can say, and I did say, and I will say again, I don’t think
you should put opposition figures in prison. I really don’t. I
don’t, period. It happens a lot around the world, happens in this
country, as you know, and I’m against all of it.
But do we know how we died? The short answer? No, we don’t. Now,
if I had to guess, I would say killing Navalny during the Munich
Security Conference in the middle of a debate over $60 billion in
Ukraine funding, maybe the Russians are dumb. I didn’t get that vibe at all. I don’t see it.
But maybe they killed him. I mean, they certainly put him in prison,
which I’m against. But here’s what I do know is that we don’t know. And
so when Chuck Schumer stands up and... Joe Biden reads some card in front of him with lines about Navalny, it’s like, I’m allowed to laugh at that because it’s absurd. You don’t know.
An interesting CIA anecdote
I
was like, live in foreign countries, see history happen. I’m for that. I
applied to the Operations Directorate. They turned me down on the basis
of drug use actually. True. But anyway, whatever. I was
unsuited for it so I’m glad they turned me down. But the point is I
didn’t see CIA as a threat, partly because I was bathing in propaganda
about CIA and I didn’t really understand what it was and didn’t want to
know. But second, because my impression at the time was it was
outwardly focused. It was focused on our enemies. I don’t have a problem
with that as much. The fact that CIA is playing in domestic
politics and actually has for a long time, was involved in the Kennedy
assassination, that’s not speculation. That’s a fact. And I confirmed that from someone who had read their documents that are still not public, it’s shocking.
You
can’t have that. And the reason I’m so mad is I really believe in the
idea of representative government. Acknowledging its imperfections, but I
should have some say, I live here, I’m a citizen. I pay all your
freaking taxes. So the fact that they would be tampering with American
democracy is so outrageous to me. And I don’t know why Morning Joe is
not outraged. This parade of dummies, highly credentialed
dummies they have on Morning Joe every day. That doesn’t bother them at
all. How could that not bother you? Why is only Glenn Greenwald mad
about it? I mean, it’s confirmed. It’s not like a fever dream.
It’s real. They played in the last election domestically, and I guess it
shows how dumb I am because they’ve been doing that for many years. I mean, the guy who took out Mosaddegh lived on my street. One of the Roosevelt's, CIA officer.
Carlson on the Israel-Palestine conflict
I mean, it’s not a topic that I get into a lot because I’m a non-expert and because I’m not… Unlike every other American, I’m not emotionally invested in other countries just in general.
I mean, I admire them or not, and I love visiting them. I love
Jerusalem, probably my favorite city in the world, but I don’t have an
emotional attachment to it. So maybe I’ve got more clarity. I don’t
know, maybe less. Here’s my view. I believe in sovereignty as mentioned,
and I think each country has to make decisions based on its own
interest, but also with reference to its own capabilities and its own
long-term interest.
And it’s very unwise for… I’m not a huge fan
of treaties. Some are fine, too many bad. But I think US aid, military
aid to Israel and the implied security guarantees, some explicit, but
many implied, security guarantees of the United States to Israel probably haven’t helped Israel that much long-term.
It’s a rich country with a highly capable population. Like every other
country, it’s probably best if it makes its decisions based on what it
can do by itself. So I would definitely be concerned if I lived in
Israel because I think fair or unfair-
But now it’s not possible.
If you had a coalition of countries against Israel, I know Israel has
nuclear weapons and has a capable military and all that and the backing
of the United States, but it’s a small country, I think I’d be very
worried. So there’s that. I don’t see any advantage to the United
States. I mean, I think it’s important for each country to make its own
decisions.
