Author: MCM

So he does not see Assange’s unwilling “vaccination” as yet one more monstrous crime against the latter?

From Alex Hills in NZ:

Dear Mark

I dont know what I’d do without your news! Thank you!! I have a request:

I am sending through my response to Nicky Hager’s attack (bottom link) on freedom fighting kiwis (both video with nz protest footage & written open letter)

I would love this published anywhere possible as I can only assume this attack was ‘pay for say’. Very disappointing for someone who gave evidence at Julian Assange’s trial!

My letter: https://alexhills.substack.com/p/coming-soon/

https://youtu.be/Yy5T7HFZNM0 (reading it out with protest footage in background!)

Offending Article:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/12-11-2021/nicky-hager-my-message-to-friends-who-joined-this-weeks-protest/

My YouTube channel is small but I am founder of Candles4assange (twitter fb .com) who list protests, co-founder FreeAssangeNZ as well as being a former academic who taught Agenda 21 to architecture students. I am now horrified by this agenda after nearly 4 years full time on this propaganda battle – the wider agenda has come horribly to light.

I did a rogue speech in nz parliament once which got widely picked up and retweeted by Kristin Hrafnsson. Wikileaks Editor in Chief.

https://youtu.be/PD9ojHYKM1U (there is another 2 min version without the music)

I’m also doing music activism with my violin and gradually laying down all the songs on a brand new YT channel. This one is the EU database of adverse reactions in alphabetical order. https://youtu.be/yPZ1e4Gn7j0

Thank you so much.

Alex Hills

From June.

https://www.purplelionproject.com/post/all-about-the-swab

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufy2AweXRkc

… but Trump’s a fascist. 

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/11/18/us-blacklists-strategic-culture-foundation-in-attack-on-independent-journalism-and-political-dissent/

FDA asks for 55 years to release data on Pfizer’s COVID vaccine

The FDA promised “full transparency” due to “tremendous public interest” in a drug that it approved after studying the data for just 108 days.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/317161

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) filed over three months ago, in August of 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has asked a federal judge for 55 years to review its data before releasing it to the public in its entirety.

The data refers to the FDA’s decision to license what is now known as the Comirnaty vaccine against Covid-19, produced by Pfizer in collaboration with BioNTech. Back in November of 2020, when considering Pfizer-BioNTech’s request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of its product, the FDA promised that:

“In keeping with the FDA’s commitment to ensuring full transparency, dialogue and efficiency, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee … will meet to discuss the totality and safety and effectiveness data provided … The FDA understands there is tremendous public interest regarding vaccines for COVID-19. We remain committed to keeping the public informed about the evaluation of the data … so that once available, the public and the medical community can have trust and confidence in receiving the vaccine for our families and ourselves.”

Click on the link for the rest.

The managed destruction of Australia’s oldest faculty of Arts

• By Nick Riemer
• 17.Nov.21

https://overland.org.au/2021/11/the-managed-destruction-of-australias-oldest-faculty-of-arts/

Four months ago, Mark Scott succeeded Michael Spence as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney. Scott’s predecessor was, in many ways, the Samuel Marsden of higher education—the ‘flogging parson’ who whipped the university into greater conformity with the prevailing sociopolitical order. Spence spent a decade at Sydney courting philanthropic donors and imposing chaotic and punitive austerity on teaching and research, the proceeds of which he used to fund grandiose building works and a mushrooming of senior administrative roles. He was rewarded for these achievements by appointment to the top job at University College London, a position he took up earlier this year after fastidiously decorating the Sydney campus with various monuments to himself.

Unlike Spence, Scott has no experience in higher education. He comes to Sydney following stints heading the NSW Department of Education and the ABC: in 2021, being a high-powered bureaucrat is, apparently, the only requirement needed to run a major university. He has never taught undergraduates, conducted research, or published an academic article. Alone among Australian Vice-Chancellors, and even unlike the CEOs of some large organisations, he does not hold a PhD. His appointment marks a further stage in the managerial occupation of higher education, and the progressive abandonment of any recognition of universities as specific institutions with their own distinct values. Untainted by any real understanding of what academics do, Scott is even better qualified than his predecessor to accelerate Sydney’s dissolution in the universal solvent of market rationality.

It’s unsurprising, then, that the first major operation of his Vice-Chancellorship is a frontal attack on Sydney’s oldest and most iconic faculty—Arts, the one that embodies the ‘idea of the university’ as the source of humanistic, non-vocational education intended to broaden students’ minds.

A massive neoliberal fist is now poised to swing into Arts at Sydney. Staff have been told that subjects with fewer than twenty-four enrolled students are to be discontinued. Autonomous departments—many of them the oldest in the country—are to be abolished, breaking even more sharply the bond between the faculty’s organisational structure and its educational and intellectual purposes. Academics in the new structure will be grouped into ‘disciplines’ under the thumb of academic managers. Most incredibly, perhaps, discipline-specific content is to be removed from many Honours programs, which will leave students studying more generic courses instead of receiving specialised education in their chosen field.

If management get their way, hundreds of subjects will disappear from the faculty’s books: according to figures analysed by the student newspaper Honi Soit, at least 252 of 478 undergraduate courses risk being cut, and 251 of 432 postgraduate courses. All these initiatives draw Sydney even further away from the international peer institutions it ludicrously claims to want to emulate. Many colleagues feel that this travesty will not only strip the Sydney BA of its academic credibility, but inevitably put their own jobs at risk.

At the other end of the fist being brandished in the faculty’s face looms a coalition of senior university bureaucrats: the newly-promoted university Provost, Professor Annamarie Jagose, who previously, as Dean of Arts and Social Sciences, masterminded the reforms; the previous temporary Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stephen Garton, another former Dean of Arts; and the faculty’s present interim Dean. So far, Scott has largely kept himself at arm’s length from the plans for the faculty. Now, however, the proposed changes have erupted into a major controversy, and he has a problem: how to decide what to do? Since he has no direct understanding of what academic work is actually like or how it is best organised, he will have to rely on others’ judgement about how the faculty and curriculum should be structured. But whose? The senior bureaucrats’, or the faculty’s academics’, who overwhelmingly oppose the changes? The insulation of upper management from the majority of the university’s staff would make it easy for Scott to ignore them if he wanted to. If he was smart, he wouldn’t want to.

In accordance with the collective agreement governing the university, some weeks ago staff were shown a draft outlining management’s intentions for the faculty and were invited to respond to it. In submission after submission, Arts faculty colleagues warned of the ‘risk(s)’, ‘clear risks’, ‘serious risk,’ ‘increased risks’, ‘very high risk’, ‘very strong risk’, ‘significant risk(s)’, ‘significant unknown risk’, ‘significant strategic risk’ or ‘massive risks’ entailed by different aspects of the plans. These risks concern such central factors as the faculty’s intellectual and academic integrity, its enrolments, its international standing, its navigability to students and community, and its finances, as well as the workload, mental health and morale of its members. These are hardly trivial matters, but the management responses to the feedback brushed them aside. The Provost and the interim Dean thanked academics for their ‘important’ input, and refused point-blank to engage with it.

Management claims that the new arrangements will ‘support’ research—even though the people whose research is supposed to be supported, the faculty’s academics, are telling them that it definitely won’t. Governmentality in the university, it would seem, knows academics better than they know themselves. But if management don’t even trust academics to know what will and won’t support their own work, it’s hard to see why they should trust them to do any other aspect of their jobs properly. This infantilising and contemptuous attitude from management towards highly-trained professionals has aroused greater anger than I have ever seen in the sixteen years I have worked at the university.

Management’s general rationale for the changes to the Arts faculty is that the university’s ‘business model’—a phrase used without any trace of embarrassment—necessitates it. Expenditure is growing faster than income, and the uncertain geopolitical situation means that international fee-income from Chinese students is no longer guaranteed—despite the fact that the proposed changes won’t actually save much money, and despite the university being in a better financial position now than predicted even in its pre-Covid forecasts. It has even just paid a $2000 Covid-bonus to all staff, including some casuals.

The threat to the university’s income, in other words, is potential rather than actual. But if higher education received proper federal funding, it wouldn’t be exposed to the vagaries of the international student market, and the potential of a decline in the number of students from China wouldn’t be so threatening. In these circumstances, Sydney’s leaders should be doing everything in their power to mobilise the university’s significant social capital in a public campaign for reliable government funding. Instead, they have completely surrendered to Morrison and Canberra’s other cretinous and scholasticidal policy-makers. As the NTEU argued in its submission on the changes in the faculty, ‘if the university leadership believes that higher education is facing an ‘historic’ challenge, then nothing less than an historic—public, assertive, determined—response from the university’s management is called for.’ Nothing of the sort is even being contemplated. Like the rest of the sector, the leadership at Sydney has simply forfeited the demand for properly funded, public higher education. And Arts is paying a higher price than any other faculty.

*

University education in the humanities, arts and social sciences should reflect the diversity of possible ways of being human. Among the courses to be discontinued, according to Honi Soit, are significant numbers (between seven and twenty-nine) from Education and Social Work, Hebrew, Jewish and Biblical Studies, Classics and Ancient History, the Sydney College of the Arts, Chinese Studies, Modern Greek and Byzantine Studies, Arabic Language and Cultures, Philosophy, Germanic Studies, Religion, Sociology, Economics and Italian Studies. All departments, indeed, will have fewer available subjects for students to study after the cuts.

A genuinely liberal—‘free’—education is oriented towards broadening students’ conceptions of the different ways of thinking and living that creatures like us can, together, make our own. Nothing could be further from the intention of the current leadership of Arts at Sydney. Their plans involve an uncritical embrace of contemporary ideological and political settings, and a slavish worship of a spectral and continually shape-shifting financial bottom line. This all entails a wholesale disrespect for and denial of the autonomy of both students and academics—with students to be forced into a narrower, more uniform range of intellectual pathways, and academics to be further excluded from any meaningful say in the organisation of their workplace.

At the same time as the reforms to the Arts faculty are to be undertaken, the university management, under Scott’s leadership, is pursuing a new collective agreement with staff that will marginalise and subalternise academics even further. Scott’s Enterprise Agreement, if he gets it, will remove academics’ right to conduct research as an inherent component of their job, deprive them of any participation in monitoring workload, and force them to negotiate their teaching-research balance with their head of school, annually. Any idea that research—the active pursuit of scholarly knowledge—is an intrinsic part of an academic’s job will be gone forever. Meanwhile, university management is bullishly refusing to make amends for the systematic wage theft it has perpetrated for years against its enormous casualised workforce.

All this amounts to large-scale vandalism of an institution whose value is widely appreciated, except by the people in charge of it.

*

Instrumentalisation of knowledge by politics runs deep in Australian history: Cook’s very act of appropriation of the continent for the British Crown in 1770 was accomplished under the cover of a scientific mission to Tahiti to observe the transit of Venus (observations themselves valued for their utility to marine navigation). Two hundred and fifty years on, university managers are putting the finishing touches to the total annexation of learning by the market. The logic of the globe-trotting careers of university managers means that they will never be held accountable for, let alone have to live with, the long-term consequences of their reforms: they will wreak havoc wherever they are currently based, and then, like Spence, vanish from the institution into some other senior job somewhere else, scot-free.

Humanities academics often talk about the intrinsically critical role of their disciplines, which they envisage as contributing to a smarter, more sensitive, more just world. This self-conception obscures the profoundly ambivalent role of the humanities in the contemporary political order, as I’ve explored in several other places. But if we want people to take claims of the social value of our work seriously, we cannot be indifferent to the institutional arrangements that embody them, and we have to make it a priority not to be complicit in the assisted institutional suicide to which we are regularly asked to contribute.

Academics have, of course, far better things to be doing than organising and polemicising against their own employers, an activity that occupies an inordinate amount of time that would be more satisfyingly spent on creating and disseminating knowledge. But when the structures in which that knowledge can be generated and spread are themselves threatened, we are left with little choice.

Not least among the ironies of the present situation is that the one clear way to improve the ‘performance’ of the university—the goal to which management, including Scott, continually professes its commitment—would be simply to abolish the managers, and let staff and students manage their own affairs, including their relations with Canberra. This would be an infinitely more rational, efficient, collegial and democratic model of institutional governance, thoroughly appropriate to the purpose of an institution of higher learning. The current command-and-control model favoured by university managers is light years away from this, and demeaning and time-wasting for everyone—university staff, students, and the managers themselves.

Nick Riemer is in the English and Linguistics departments at the University of Sydney. These are his own views. 

From Israel National News, a story that I, for one, can’t find anywhere in US media. 

FDA report finds all-cause mortality higher among vaccinated

FDA report shows Pfizer’s clinical trials found 24% higher all-cause mortality rate among the vaccinated compared to placebo group.

Tags:CoronavirusVaccineBiotechnologyUS FDA
David Rosenberg , Nov 17 , 2021 1:51 PM
Share

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/317091

The clinical trials of Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine found that the all-cause mortality rate of the vaccinated group was higher than that of the control group, months after the trials were launched, according to a recently released FDA report.

According to the report, which was released by the US Food and Drug Administration to provide background information on its August 2021 decision to grant full approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine after offering limited emergency authorization of use in last December, six months after the vaccine’s clinical trial began, the total number of deaths reported in the vaccinated group was nearly one-quarter higher than the number of deaths in the placebo group.

Just under 22,000 participants were included in each group, with half receiving the coronavirus vaccine, and half receiving a saline solution injection.

Click on the link for the rest.

So if you want to know how valuable a “free press” is, just ask the man who owns one.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/documents-show-bill-gates-has-given-319-million-to-media-outlets/278943/

From Jerome:

Alex Berenson seems to be the only one shouting this out, but OSHA has SUSPENDED ACTIVITIES related to the private employer (larger than 100 employee) mandate. There is no private employer mandate until the lawsuit in Texas is resolved, which all indications are that the government will lose that case. This is big and it is important that everyone know about it:

The OSHA statement: (https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets2)
On November 12, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a motion to stay OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard, published on November 5, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 61402) (“ETS”). The court ordered that OSHA “take no steps to implement or enforce” the ETS “until further court order.” While OSHA remains confident in its authority to protect workers in emergencies, OSHA has suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of the ETS pending future developments in the litigation.

Thanks to Jeff Strahl:

Hi all, normally i’d hold these items over for a day or two for the next edition,  but the first is way too timely, and the second one i meant to include in yesterday’s send and forgot.  

Putin, Russia, Operation “Pandemic,” Great Reset,…
https://off-guardian.org/2021/11/16/myth-vs-reality-in-covid-russia/
Myth vs. reality in COVID Russia It’s time to part ways with the conscience-soothing fairytales. Riley Waggaman, 11/16/21. Graphics aplenty. 
Riley Waggaman is your humble Moscow correspondent. He worked for RT, Press TV, Russia Insider, yadda yadda. In his youth, he attended a White House lawn party where he asked Barack Obama if imprisoned whistleblower Bradley Manning (Chelsea was still a boy back then) “had a good Easter.” Good times good times. You can subscribe to his Substack here, or follow him on twitter.

“Sputnik V is safe!”; “Putin is just ‘playing along’ with the COVID narrative until the petrodollar collapses!”; “Russia is the last bastion of freedom!”

Alternative media has created an alternative reality about Russia.

The Kremlin has embraced all the same soul-raping “public health measures” currently terrorizing the Western world—and people are either in denial or making excuses.

Internet Russia (left) is slightly different from Actual Russia (right)

“There is no compulsory vaccination in Russia!”

All 85 federal subjects of the Russian Federation now have vaccine mandates, as well as rules requiring digital “health” certificates for entry to certain businesses, venues, and public institutions. Many regions are denying routine medical care to those without QR codes.

At the federal level, the Kremlin has voiced support for “any measures” that “encourage” Russians to get jabbed—while insisting vaccination remains completely voluntary.

A sample of regional flavors of “voluntary” vaccination in Russia:

• In the Novgorod region, children whose parents have not been vaccinated are banned from afterschool clubs and other extracurricular activities.
• Digital vaccine passports will be required to use public transport in Tatarstan. The new regulation applies to all residents over the age of 18 without a medical exemption.
• In St. Petersburg, a negative PCR test cannot be used to obtain a QR code. This means theaters, museums and restaurants in Russia’s second-largest city are reserved exclusively for the vaccinated and those with proof of prior infection.
• Muscovites over the age of 60 have been ordered to self-isolate until the end of February. Those who have been vaccinated or have proof of prior infection are exempt from the rule.
Probably you read somewhere that Vladimir Putin outlawed compulsory vaccination as part of his master plan to destroy the fractional reserve banking system and bring peace and harmony to the world. Someone lied to you. Sorry about that.

“…But Sputnik V is safe!”

Does the Kremlin have access to a time-bending wormhole? Because we keep reading boastful claims about the non-existent results of Sputnik V’s “long-term” (ha-ha) safety and efficacy trials—which are scheduled to end on December 31, 2022.

Like other COVID vaccines, Sputnik V has zoomed through clinical trials, with an “interim” report consisting of six months’ worth of data used as proof of its unassailable long-term safety and efficacy. It didn’t help that this already limited dataset was plagued by controversy (as well as an alarming lack of transparency).

Phase III vaccine trials typically require at least five years of careful observation. For example, the long-term safety study for J&J’s Ebola vaccine—which uses the same Ad26 viral vector platform as Sputnik V—began in 2016 and won’t end until 2023.

Sputnik V: zooming past all the unnecessary red tape

Alexander Redko, chairman of the St. Petersburg Professional Association of Medical Workers, noted in July that declaring Sputnik V “safe” without even waiting for ludicrous-speed clinical trials to end is about as scientific as reading tarot cards. Is he wrong? The Russian government clearly thinks so.

In December 2020, Russia’s health ministry announced it was prematurely ending enrollment for Sputnik V trials, arguing that it would be unethical to administer placebo shots when a proven, life-saving vaccine was already available to the public.

“Everything has now been proven, while the pandemic is ongoing,” Alexander Gintsburg, director of the Gamaleya Center—which developed Sputnik V—explained, just four months after Phase III trials had begun.

“Science-deniers claim it’s irresponsible to coerce tens of millions of people to get injected with an untested drug, but what these conspiracy theorists don’t understand is that any long-term issues would have become apparent within four months.

Furthermore, Russia has a robust and transparent system in place for flagging side effects.”

The Russian government does not have a VAERS-like database for reporting and monitoring suspected adverse reactions, and doctors who question the vaccine’s safety or efficacy are being threatened with exorbitant fines and prison time.

“The fact is that nothing is registered in Russia at all. Therefore, it is very difficult to understand how many serious complications there are. There are many cases, and we can say that they are related to the vaccine. There is a lot to say. Or you can stick your head in the sand and say that there is nothing at all,” Pavel Vorobyov, Chairman of the Moscow Scientific Society of Physicians, said in a recent interview, making him an anti-science hate speech criminal in the eyes of the Russian government.

Argentina’s health ministry is similarly guilty of High Crimes Against Sputnik V. In October, the South American state revealed that Russia’s flagship vaccine was the nation’s leader when it came to causing adverse reactions, beating Sinopharm and AstraZeneca by significant margins (the full report can be read here):

There are even thought crimes being carried out by Russia’s elected representatives. Duma Deputy Mikhail Delyagin argued in an August op-ed that the government’s own data suggested that mass compulsory vaccination had no clear neutralizing effect and was making things worse.

For months, the Russian government maintained it was basically impossible to be hospitalized with COVID if you were fully vaccinated. When it became obvious that this was a slight exaggeration, Gamaleya’s director claimed 80% of jabbed Russians falling ill with the virus had purchased fake certificates and were lying about their vaccination status.

Gintsburg’s tall tale inspired some colorful commentary in Russian media. As one outlet opined:

“At first they said that it was enough to get vaccinated once every two years so as not to get sick at all, then once a year, then once every six months. Now it turns out that vaccination does not even really protect against getting into intensive care or death. And what is the solution? True, the Minister of Health, Mr. Murashko, still claims that there are no deaths among citizens who have received the vaccine. But people do not live on Mars, they, alas, face these deaths of the vaccinated in life…And then the PR naturally stops working.”

It’s doubtful if the PR ever worked. Last month, Deputy Speaker of the State Duma Pyotr Tolstoy conceded that the government had completely failed to convince the public that Sputnik V was safe and effective.

“There are few answers to the questions why those who are vaccinated are ill, why those who are vaccinated die, why there are problems and complications after the vaccinations themselves,” the high-ranking lawmaker said.

The total lack of transparency has spurred the creation of informal databases and Telegram channels where adverse events can be tracked. Instead of stepping up efforts to address safety concerns, the Russian government has compared concerned citizens to terrorists.

The Kremlin and its credulous cheerleaders maintain that there’s no need to worry about long-term safety because Sputnik V is based on the Gamaleya Center’s proven, time-tested viral vector-based delivery platform. For example, Kirill Dmitriev, the Harvard-educated ex-Goldman Sachs banker who heads the Russian Direct Investment Fund (which provides financing for Sputnik V), claimed in an op-ed published by RT:

“Russia has benefitted from modifying for COVID-19 an existing two-vector vaccine platform developed in 2015 for Ebola fever, which went through all phases of clinical trials and was used to help defeat the Ebola epidemic in Africa in 2017.”

But on Sputnik V’s website, we learn:

“About 2,000 people in Guinea received injections of Ebola vaccine in 2017-18 as part of Phase 3 clinical trial.”

Is Dmitriev really suggesting that a Phase III trial held in 2017-18 helped Guinea defeat Ebola?

That’s quite a brave claim, considering Guinea was declared Ebola-free in June 2016 following an outbreak two years earlier. By the time Gamaleya’s magic Ebola slurry arrived in Guinea (as part of a clinical trial), there was no Ebola left to fight. In February of this year, Guinea reported its first Ebola death since 2016.

Can Dmitriev or RT offer some clarification here? Send your questions to RT’s famously fearless and objective Russia Desk.

By the way: why would Dmitriev (and Sputnik V’s own website) brag about injecting 2,000 Africans as part of a clinical trial held a year after Guinea was declared Ebola-free? Well, because that’s basically Gamaleya’s greatest triumph — before inventing Sputnik V in record-time.

Sputnik V is the Gamaleya Center’s first “viral vector-based” vaccine to receive emergency use authorization outside of Russia. Gintsburg—who has been the director of Gamaleya since 1997—has yet to bring a fully approved vaccine to market, despite multiple attempts.

In fact, Gintsburg’s first vector adenovirus vaccine, AdeVac-Flu, resulted in a multimillion-dollar embezzlement scandal.

“{Gamaleya’s} scientists have ‘copy-pasted’ {Sputnik V} from their previous, not accepted by the scientific community, research. In their genetic memory—a criminal case, WHO skepticism and zero drugs introduced into the market,”

…read the teaser of an investigation published by fontanka dot ru in July 2020.

With such an impressive track record, it’s hardly surprising that the Gamaleya Center refers to itself as “the world’s leading research institution.” The Center also has world-leading facilities. Seriously, feast your eyes upon these cutting-edge facilities:

A lot of Russians are also very impressed by the fact that Sputnik V’s #1 fan (and one of the drug’s original investors) is a friendly banker who is trying to introduce a QR code-based payment system in Russia, and is also developing a digital currency in partnership with JP Morgan.

When your favorite WordPress geopolitical analyst exclaims “Sputnik V is safe!” the appropriate response is: how could you possibly know, and why does the Russian government not want to know?

“…But the Russian government would never deceive its own people!”

In June, the emergence of a highly deadly “Moscow strain”—later deemed a “hypothetical phenomenon” — forced authorities to introduce Russia’s first vaccine mandate in the capital. Other regions followed suit.

Yes, the people grumbled — but COVID “cases” immediately began to plummet! COVID “deaths” plateaued! It was a true miracle.

Duma election was a super-spreader event or something?

Then something really strange happened: the amazingly effective (but highly unpopular) coercive COVID policies suddenly stopped working immediately after Duma elections in late September.

What a weird coincidence. Obviously, the ruling United Russia party—which had just secured parliament for another five years after an unexpectedly decisive electoral victory—was forced to impose even more coercive COVID policies. If Russians don’t like it, they can express their dissatisfaction at the polls, in 2026.

Russia’s descent into compulsory vaccination is a case study in industrial-scale lying and government duplicity. It’s a very interesting story.

“…But…but…Putin!”

In January, Russia’s president presented a keynote address at the World Economic Forum—his first speech before the esteemed international body since 2009.

Beginning his address with a very friendly and intimate “dear Klaus,” Putin recalled how he first met Mr. Schwab in 1992 and since then had regularly attended events organized by the Fourth Industrial Revolution visionary.

Putin used this very important speech to call for “expanding the scale of testing and vaccinations” around the world, describing COVID as an existential threat that required close international cooperation. The entire global economy will need to be rebuilt from the ground up by central banks, because the virus is just so deadly and destructive:

“[T]he key question today is how to build a program of actions in order to not only quickly restore the global and national economies affected by the pandemic, but to ensure that this recovery is  sustainable in the long run, relies on a high-quality structure and helps overcome the burden of social imbalances. Clearly, with the above restrictions and macroeconomic policy in mind, economic growth will largely rely on fiscal incentives with state budgets and central banks playing the key role.”

Is that how you say “Build Back Better” in Russian?

We’re all trapped in the same oligarch-controlled panpoopticon. Maybe it’s time to accept that, instead of pretending that some jailers are more “based” than others?

Crazy times. Good luck to all.

A comment i posted: “Thank you, thank you, thank you! I’ve had it up to here (points to the ceiling above his head) with Putin apologists and folks who think that Sputnik V is an alternative and a great “vaccine,” as if it contains an actual isolated virus, unlike the US/European brands. Some people see the world entirely in terms of pro US/anti US terms, and hence assert Russia needs to be supported, but the passage about Putin, Schwab and the WEF should put a rest to this.

Speaking of isolated viruses, an update.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/68-health-science-institutions-globally-all-failed-to-cite-even-1-record-of-sars-cov-2-purification-by-anyone-anywhere-ever/
137 health/science institutions globally all failed to cite even 1 record of “SARS-COV-2” purification, by anyone, anywhere, ever, Christine Massey, original piece posted 6/6/21, keeps getting updated. 

As of November 13, 2021:

137 institutions (mainly health and science institutions) in >25 countries have all failed to provide or cite even 1 record describing “SARS-COV-2” purification by anyone, anywhere, or containing proof of “its” existence. Below is a list of the institutions. Also, note that from several of these institutions (i.e. the CDC, Public Health England, UK DHSC, India’s ICMR) we have multiple responses.

Click here to see an Excel file listing the 137 institutions (last updated November 13, 2021):
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Institution-list-for-website10.xls

Click this link to see the actual responses: 
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

Jeff