Sunday 20th of June 2021

the war on terror continued...


Back in January I wrote about how the Capitol Hill “insurection” was laying the groundwork for Biden’s administration to introduce a much-talked-about new “domestic terrorism” law.


From kit Knightly

The piece speculated that any definition of “domestic terrorism” will be very loose, and include essentially anybody the state finds problematic. Including those who spread “anti-vaccine misinformation” [emphasis added]:

What will “Domestic Terrorism” mean in this law? The answer to that is pretty much always “whatever they want it to mean.”

It will probably be tied into the Covid “pandemic” in some way, too. After all, what is discouraging people from taking vaccines if not the very definition of “terrorism”, right? 


It took less than two months for the mainstream media to prove OffG right. Just last week the Washington Post ran an op-ed piece by California State Senator Richard Pam headlined:

Anti-vaccine extremism is akin to domestic terrorism

The article goes on to insist that “Laws need to be strengthened” to protect people administering vaccines from being “harassed”. That “Social media companies should not be complicit in this dangerous movement”, and caps it all off with glorious jingoism:

Getting vaccinated is a patriotic act. So is speaking up to support public health efforts. Let’s not allow extremism, division or fear to slow the efforts to end this deadly chapter in our nation’s history.


The message is clear: anyone who questions vaccination, especially the Covid “vaccine”, is a threat to public health and national security. A terrorist.

The WaPo is the first mainstream outlet to make the parallel so blatantly, but they almost certainly won’t be the last.

Be on the lookout for other examples. They’ll probably start building up this narrative quite fast.

And we can likely expect a new false-flag.

Something along the lines of a “lone wolf extremist” who was “radicalised online” by “militant anti-vaxxers” and then allegedly does something crazy like mail Bill Gates a suitcase full of home-made explosives or drives a tanker truck into a vaccination centre. 

Of course, that will mean we need to start shutting down and censoring “vaccine misinformation” which is “encouraging violence” and “damaging public health”.

It’s all very predictable at this point.


Read more:

the war on disinformation...

Covid-19 has presented a MASSIVE dilemma for scientists, as well as for the plebs like us... We would be ignorant and naive to dismiss the possibility of eminent scientists bullshitting us like Alvan Feinstein did. But we cannot dismiss Galileo's insight. 


At this stage, because most of sciences are in the pockets of multinational laboratories, we have to make a choice that is disconcerting: To believe the vaccine merchants or not.


Sciences tells us:



How to stop disinformation

When you encounter a piece of disinformation, the best thing to do is stop its spread. A good first step is to practice the “inoculation method”: instead of repeating the disinformation, warn your friends, family, and co-workers about the types of COVID-19 disinformation and tactics. Research shows that when we are alerted that disinformation may occur, we tend to think more critically about the information we are encountering, thereby inoculating us from further deception.

Note that it’s critical that you don’t reshare the disinformation—even if it’s in an effort to point out that it is wrong—as you are still helping the disinformation to spread. For instance, if you share a piece of disinformation on social media in an attempt to debunk it, you are telling a social media algorithm that this item is popular, and thus encouraging it to spread even more widely. Instead, you can try the fact-myth-fallacy framework: lead with the facts, then provide a summary of the disinformation and an explanation of how or why it distorts the science.

In place of disinformation, share clear, accurate information from reputable sources. The following international and U.S. agencies, organizations, and academic institutions are trusted sources of information related to COVID-19.

Do your part to ensure that public health decisions are informed by the best available science, not disinformation. Ask your elected officials and other key decisionmakers these questions:

  • How will methods of collecting, assessing, and reporting COVID-19 surveillance data be made public? Are data broken down by race/ethnicity (including Indigenous groups?)
  • How are CDC recommendations being incorporated into decisionmaking? Are the impacts to underserved communities being incorporated into reopening plans?
  • Do marginalized communities have adequate access to affordable testing for COVID-19?
  • How are testing kits and PPE being used and distributed?
  • How are decisionmakers ensuring that treatments and vaccines (when available) are distributed where they are needed most? What transparency and accountability mechanisms will be built into those decisionmaking processes?

The responsibility for parsing out disinformation should not fall entirely on individuals. Social media companies, journalists, and government agencies have an important role to play in limiting disinformation and its spread. First and foremost, the federal government needs to allow the free flow of information, including amongst its own scientists, and affirm the independence of the news media. The news media needs to responsibly cover COVID-19 news by interviewing health experts, directing readers to official sources, and debunking disinformation. Social media companies have taken some steps toward removing harmful disinformation from their sites, but more must be done to improve transparency and to reduce the echo chamber effect.


Read more:


Okay... We need more statistics on the level of success and also on who REALLY died of Covid-19 with a solid breakdown of the importance of Covid-19 in the death of a person and the death certificate. Furthermore, even WHO is concerned about rich versus poor...:


GENEVA -- The World Health Organization chief on Monday lambasted drugmakers' profits and vaccine inequalities, saying it’s “not right” that younger, healthier adults in wealthy countries get vaccinated against COVID-19 before older people or health care workers in poorer countries and charging that most vaccine makers have targeted locations where “profits are highest.”

Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus kicked off WHO’s week-long executive board meeting — virtually from its headquarters in Geneva — by lamenting that one poor country received a mere 25 vaccine doses while over 39 million doses have been administered in nearly 50 richer nations.

“Just 25 doses have been given in one lowest income country -- not 25 million, not 25,000 -- just 25. I need to be blunt: The world is on the brink of a catastrophic moral failure,” Tedros said. He did not specify the country, but a WHO spokeswoman identified it as Guinea.

“It’s right that all governments want to prioritize vaccinating their own health workers and older people first," he said. “But it’s not right that younger, healthier adults in rich countries are vaccinated before health workers and older people in poorer countries. There will be enough vaccine for everyone.”

He noted the WHO-backed COVAX program, which aims to get vaccines out to all countries, rich or poor, based on need, has so far secured 2 billion vaccine doses from five producers and options on a billion doses more.

“We aim to start deliveries in February,” he said. "COVAX is ready to deliver what it was created for.”

That target date could be a tall order, because a key producer of vaccines for the developing world — the Serum Institute of India — has not confirmed a date and predicted that its rollout might not happen before March or April.

In his opening remarks, Tedros aired some of his toughest public words yet toward vaccine makers, criticizing “bilateral deals” between them and countries that WHO says can deplete the effectiveness of the COVAX facility — and went further to raise the issue of profits.

“The situation is compounded by the fact that most manufacturers have prioritized regulatory approval in rich countries, where the profits are highest, rather than submitting full dossiers to WHO,” he said.

That appeared to allude to a shortage of data the U.N. health agency says it has received from vaccine makers so that WHO can approve their shots for wider emergency use.

Dr. Clement Martin Auer, a board member from Austria, had sharp words and questions for GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, that also with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations is leading the effort on COVAX.

While calling its principles of equal access to vaccines a “fantastic idea,” Auer faulted COVAX as being “slow” and unable to close “crucial numbers" of contracts. He defended the European Union, which counts among its 27 members many of the world's richest countries, for getting vaccines for its 450 million citizens and being “the single largest donor” in supporting COVAX.

“We were, in the European Union, skeptical that GAVI-COVAX had the means and the capabilities to fulfill its tasks and negotiate the necessary contracts and to secure the needs of our citizens,” Auer said, adding that COVAX management had “rejected” proposals negotiated by GAVI and the EU.

He said GAVI-COVAX early last year had not included mRNA vaccines like those developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna in the COVAX portfolio.

“This was a major mistake, taking into account that the mRNAs are the early ones on the market and the gold standards when it comes to COVID vaccines,” Auer said.

WHO has approved Pfzier-BioNTech for emergency use against coronavirus and could approve Moderna this week.

WHO officials or other board members did not immediately address Tedros' concerns at the meeting.

In related vaccine news, Israel has struck a deal with Pfizer, promising to share vast troves of medical data with the international drug giant in exchange for the continued flow of its hard-to-get vaccine.

Proponents say the deal could allow Israel to become the first country to vaccinate most of its population, while providing valuable research that could help the rest of the world. But critics say the deal raises major ethical concerns, including possible privacy violations and a deepening of the global divide in access to coronavirus vaccines.

Due to the ultra-cold storage needed for the Pfizer vaccine, it is more expensive and harder to use than some rivals, including the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, but studies show it is very effective. Israeli media have reported that Israel paid at least 50% more than other countries for the Pfizer vaccine.



Read more:

So, there is outrageous profits to be made from selling vaccines... Is there a conflict of interests? Is creating/feeding a pandemic part of a profit making venture? Are there better ways to deal with the problem? Considering that NO vaccine is 100 per cent efficient, what happens to the people who fall between the cracks? Should the vaccine makers take FULL RESPONSIBILITY for any side-effects, considering that NONE have been tested in the necessary and sufficient manner?


What do we do about the INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS/Doctors who object to the whole saga — and/or have alternative cures that the media and the general scientist community reject without testing?


We need far more info than what's on the packet...



Read from top.


the virus is quaking in its boots...

On March 4 and 5, Canada, the United KingdomAustraliaSwitzerland and Singapore released identical guidelines for fast-tracking release onto the market of vaccines for the new variants.

The countries issued the recommendations under the banner of the ‘ACCESS Consortium.’ ACCESS is an acronym based on the first letters of the five countries’ names.

A few days earlier, on February 22, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a similar set of recommendations. They allow Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for “investigational” vaccines for new variants, letting them be used on the general public without first showing evidence of safety or effectiveness.

The recommendations all state that companies don’t need to conduct new clinical trials before putting the new-variant vaccines onto the market and potentially into millions of people’s arms. Requiring new trials, the ACCESS document asserts, would cause “considerable delay” and “bears the risk that the virus is evolving even further, potentially making a new vaccine version outdated at the time of approval again.”

Instead, the safety record of the currently used Covid vaccines can be used to judge the safety of the new ones, the countries’ regulatory agencies declare.

And they claim that the currently used vaccines are safe and effective: “[T]here is considerable safety experience accumulating as the pandemic progresses and vaccines are rolled out, and [in any case] efficacy has been established for the initial vaccine candidate [i.e., the original Covid vaccines] via large clinical Phase 3 studies,” the ACCESS document states.

This is despite the fact that many observers have documented significant safety problems associated with the Covid vaccines, including high death rates.

That helps explain why public-health officials and politicians around the world are bending over backwards to assert that Covid vaccines are very safe and effective. This gives the green light for all future forms of these vaccines to be used without safety testing.

(The regulatory authorities also say these new guidelines can only be used for vaccines that are modifications of the Covid vaccines already in use. But there’s enough wiggle room in the new recommendations that I believe they also will be used for new entrants into the Covid-vaccine race.)

Rather than full clinical trials, only a small amount of data needs to be put together by the manufacturers prior to seeking an EUA. Then after the EUA is granted further data can then be gathered from people in the general population who are given the vaccines.

This approach apparently is modeled on the approval of new flu vaccines every year. The flu-vaccine regulations were in turn, “developed based on ample experience gained through years of seasonal vaccinations, and the 2009 H1N1 pandemic,” the ACCESS guidelines state.

The latter claim is particularly alarming. The H1N1 swine-flu ‘pandemic’ never materialized. Hundreds of people were needlessly severely injured by the main vaccine for it, GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix. Furthermore, Glaxo was not required to compensate victims; instead, the UK government paid tens of millions of pounds to people who were brain injured by Pandemrix.

The ACCESS and US FDA recommendations only require that companies measure the level of antibodies that people produce when they are given the vaccine. The regulatory agencies will accept this as a proxy for effectiveness.

The ACCESS document states that “the correlations of antibody titres [levels] to effectiveness is not established.” They therefore suggest that the World Health Organization (WHO) create an “International Standard and Reference Panel for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody as use of standardized reference material” for all such antibody-level tests.

Such antibody testing is conducted by measuring whether a quantity of virus or other protein-containing substance are or aren’t all bound by antibodies in a person’s blood sample. This method has been used for years.

However, as I showed in my last article and video, The Antibody Deception, there is no objective evidence that there is in fact binding of antibodies only to the novel coronavirus. Instead, antibodies that purportedly are specific to the novel coronavirus frequently bind to other things.

Therefore this is a fatally flawed approach to determining whether vaccines are effective in any way.

There is a field of other red flags in these new recommendations. For example:

  1. They don’t address the fact that until 2020 scientists were unable to develop any effective vaccines against coronaviruses, despite decades of effort. Then suddenly in 2020-2021 they were able to create at least seven. And now six countries are poised to allow vaccines for new variants to be used one after another in quick succession. The regulatory authorities don’t appear interested in objectively reconciling this contradiction.
  2. The ACCESS guidelines have no references. So it’s very hard to check whether their points are accurate. The U.S. FDA recommendations have 13 references. That’s more than zero, but it’s still not a lot in a document that’s rewriting how Covid vaccines are authorized for use in hundreds of millions of people.

  4. There’s not a single mention of the fact that pummelling populations with vaccines will make the viruses they’re aimed at become less susceptible to the vaccines. This phenomenon is known as resistance. Resistance has been a concern for many decades with respect to antibiotics. But we rarely  hear about viral resistance — even though it is inevitable, particularly because other treatments such as antivirals and monoclonal antibodies.are being used against the novel coronavirus in parallel with vaccines.
  5. On February 22, 2021, the USA FDA also issued a new guidance (PDF here) for development of monoclonal antibodies for treating Covid including the new variants. The document outlines how the FDA will significantly speed up this approval: “when scientifically supported, FDA will streamline the data necessary to support the development of monoclonal antibody products targeting SARS-CoV-2 and also expedite the review of these data.”


In addition, the document states that the “FDA strongly recommends that individual monoclonal antibody products be developed with the expectation that they will be combined with one or more monoclonal antibody products that bind to different epitopes [very short protein segments] to minimize the risk of losing activity against emergency variants.”

However, as I indicated in my ‘The Antibody Deception’ video and article, there’s no proof that antibodies, whether used singly or in combination with others, are effective against Covid, whether the ‘original’ virus or variants.

This all seems designed to allow new vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for the new variants onto the market with very little regulatory oversight.


Rosemary Frei has an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, was a freelance medical writer and journalist for 22 years and now is an independent investigative journalist. You can watch her June 15 interview on The Corbett Report, read her otherOff-Guardian articles follow her on Twitter and read her website here.




Read more:


Read from top.

covaxing with gavi...

The Group of Seven (G7) convened by videoconference at the heads-of-state level on 19 February 2021, with President Biden attending for the first time.

The final press release, infused with an ultra pro-active tone, contains only two concrete announcements: 

- The G7 will participate in the “COVAX facility” to ensure the equitable worldwide distribution of anti-Covid vaccines; 

- The G7 is relaunching globalization better: henceforth it will be "fair-and-square".

To understand what is hidden behind this deluge of pious intentions, you need to know:

- The "COVAX facility" is the vaccines component of ACT-Accelerator; a G20 initiative launched on 24 April 2020. It is a multilateral group that coordinates among: • governments • WHO, an intergovernmental organization • the Coalition for Innovations in Epidemic Preparedness (CEPI), a private enterprise; • Gavi - Vaccine Alliance, a public and private sector partnership; • finally, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a private organisation.

The expression "COVAX facility", which was deceptively translated in the French version of the final G7 communiqué to suggest facilitation, actually refers to the ability to produce vaccines and to license them in one fell swoop for the whole world. For governments without large licensing services, such coordination is meant to save time. For the private sector, it should “open up markets”.

This structure will not be chaired by states, but by Gavi*, that is, in fact, by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which founded Gavi and controls it. It therefore has no democratic legitimacy, which is why President Trump refused to have the United States take part in it.

There is no way of verifying how the public money going to the COVAX facility will be earmarked. We are therefore witnessing the flourishing of a gigantic system of corruption, as always under the guise of emergency.

Civil society is concerned that the epidemic will be exploited by large laboratories to enrich themselves disproportionately; nonetheless they will be involved in the decision-making process within a deliberately coordinating framework.

For the moment, the "COVAX facility" only works with two pharmaceutical companies (AstraZeneca and Pfizer); both of which have already breached their contracts with the European Union.

- In line with this decision, the G7 is consolidating its multilateralist and globalist profile.

• "Multilateralism" in this context should be distinguished from "intergovernmental" in that it is based on public/private partnerships. The G7 takes note of the sociological changes that have intervened during the health crisis. Financiers currently hold fortunes greater than the annual budget of many states. Western governments have read the writing on the wall and have decided to share their democratic authority with these multi-billionaires.

• At the economic level, globalization implies the free movement of products and capital. This is precisely the mechanism that the G7 has just ushered in for anti-Covid vaccines, which will consequently no longer require the approved of individual States, but can now be approved globally by a private authority with which the States are associated.

The flip side of globalization is the disintegration of the middle class throughout the West and the civil strife it will give rise to. But then we have the G7 announcing a “fair” globalization (sic). However, no one can really say what lies behind this sweet-sounding oxymoron.


Read more:




Gavi's core focus and a new five-year strategy. In June 2019, the Gavi Board approved a new five-year strategy ('Gavi 5.0') with a vision to 'leave no-one behind with immunisation' and a mission to save lives and protect people's health by increasing equitable and sustainable use of vaccines. Learn more....



From SCIENCE magazine:


Each month, COVID-19 kills hundreds of thousands of people, reduces global gross domestic product (GDP) by hundreds of billions of dollars, and generates large, accumulating losses to human capital by harming education and health (14). Achieving widespread immunization 1 month faster would thus save many lives and mitigate short- and long-run economic harm. Although the value of vaccines may seem obvious, government action and investment in vaccines have not been commensurate with the enormous scale of benefits, with many countries not likely to achieve widespread immunization until the end of 2022.

We estimate below that installed capacity for 3 billion annual vaccine courses has a global benefit of $17.4 trillion, over $5800 per course. Investing now in expanding capacity for an additional annual 1 billion courses could accelerate completion of widespread immunization by over 4 months, providing additional global benefits of $576 to $989 per course. This dwarfs prices of $6 to $40 per course seen in deals with vaccine producers, indicating the wide gap between social and commercial incentives. We urge governments and international organizations to contract with vaccine producers to further expand capacity and encourage measures described below to “stretch” existing capacity (such as lower-dose regimens) and efficiently allocate courses (such as a cross-country vaccine exchange).

Our analysis involves two exercises, first estimating the global benefits from vaccine capacity already in place, then estimating the benefits of undertaking additional capacity investment starting now (see supplementary materials for all data and methods). The enormous estimates from both exercises provide a wake-up call relevant for the current pandemic—that it is not too late to invest in more capacity—and future pandemics—that preparations to shorten delays in rolling out vaccines, treatments, and other countermeasures at global scale could prevent enormous harm.


Science  12 Mar 2021:


Vol. 371, Issue 6534, pp. 1107-1109



Read from top.

CIA jabs...

IN EARLY JANUARY, as much of the country awaited the Covid-19 vaccine, personnel at the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia, had already begun receiving their shots, according to three former CIA officials with knowledge of the matter.

Yet the agency has lagged in getting vaccines to overseas personnel, according to former officials. The former officials, many of whom continue to engage in similar work and lacked authorization to speak publicly, were granted anonymity in order to speak freely. While it’s understandable that getting vaccines to war-torn or otherwise impoverished countries, which may currently lack the infrastructure for vaccine distribution, might be difficult, former officials say that the problem has affected field officers in Western Europe.

The failure to vaccinate field officers flies in the face of the agency’s long-standing commitment to prioritizing field officers’ missions and safety; officers still have to go out into crowds to meet with people, even in countries with high rates of Covid-19, former officials explained. “The field is so mad. … Even people who barely go into the office [at HQ] are vaxxed,” one former official told me. “At CIA, they tell you the field comes first.”

“Nobody gives a shit about the overseas workforce,” another former CIA officer complained.

In an ironic twist, CIA personnel in Europe who have grown cynical about Washington’s response are holding out hope that they might receive Russia’s “Sputnik V” vaccine, which some European Union member stateshave acquired via the black market.

While they acknowledged that getting vaccines to parts of the developing world could be challenging, former officials expressed disappointment and disbelief that the agency specializes in exactly this and can do so with its own fleet of aircraft.

“We got into Afghanistan before the military did, we can get into the worst war zones, but we can’t get into the embassy in London?” one former official remarked.

The prioritization of personnel at the CIA’s headquarters, whose employees largely operate within the building, has rankled people outside the agency as well. Current and former Pentagon intelligence officials expressed outrage that their agencies have had so few personnel vaccinated. One former Defense Intelligence Agency officer who had heard about the CIA headquarters’ vaccinations expressed frustration that hardly any civilians at DIA’s headquarters had been vaccinated. An NSA official conveyed similar concerns.

Diplomats at the State Department, which works closely with the CIA, have reported that the department has prioritized domestic employees over those abroad. Though the State Department denies prioritizing senior leadership, it vaccinated a dozen senior Trump administration appointees before they left the government, according to the New York Times. And as of early January, the United States Agency for International Development had not, for example, vaccinated a single employee, despite being the agency tasked with administering relief, including health services, overseas.



Read more:


Read from top


FREE JULIAN ASSANGE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


mining your pockets...

THE U.S. PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS behind the approved coronavirus vaccines — Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, and Pfizer — have quietly touted plans to raise prices on coronavirus vaccines in the near future and to capitalize on the virus’s lasting presence.

While the companies have enjoyed a boost in goodwill from the rush to develop vaccines, drug industry executives have noted, the public is still sensitive to drug pricing and the reputational risk has, so far, curtailed their ability to reap large financial rewards.

But that environment, they hope, will change once the pandemic ends: a date that drugmakers themselves reserve the right to declare. Pharmaceutical officials, speaking at recent conferences and on calls with investors, say they expect the virus will linger, morphing from a pandemic into a perennial endemic. And as Covid-19 mutations continue to spread and booster shots may be required on a regular basis, leaders from the three companies are enthusiastic about cashing in.


Read more:


Read from top.



See also:   uncertainties, probabilities and certainties, with time limits...



FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!