Assange Momentarily Democratized Information - For That - His Life Has Been Destroyed

craigmurray  |   Thordarson has now told Icelandic magazine Stundin that his allegations against Assange contained in the indictment are untrue, and that Assange had not solicited the hacking of bank or police details. This is hardly a shock, though Thordarson’s motives for coming clean now are obscure; he is plainly a deeply troubled and often malicious individual.
Thordarson was always the most unreliable of witnesses, and I find it impossible to believe that the FBI cooperation with him was ever any more than deliberate fabrication of evidence by the FBI.

Edward Snowden has tweeted that Thordarson recanting will end the case against Julian Assange. Most certainly it should end it, but I fear it will not.

Many things should have ended the case against Assange. The First Amendment, the ban on political extradition in the US/UK Extradition Treaty, the CIA spying on the preparations of Assange’s defence counsel, all of these should have stopped the case dead in its tracks.

It is now five months since extradition was refused, no US government appeal against that decision has yet been accepted by the High Court, and yet Julian remains confined to the UK’s highest security prison. The revelation that Thordarson’s allegations are fabricated – which everyone knew already, Baraitser just pretended she didn’t – is just one more illegality that the Establishment will shimmy over in its continued persecution of Assange.

Assange democratised information and gave real power to the people for a while, worldwide. He revealed US war crimes. For that his life is destroyed. Neither law nor truth have anything to do with it.

For Adam Serwer Radically Distorting The Truth Appears To Be The Point

theamericanconservative |  Adam Serwer’s “The Cruelty Is the Point” is the most toxic piece of journalism of the Trump era. After the shocking election of 2016, the liberal establishment showed glimmers of willingness to ask hard questions about how it had happened. If millions of Obama voters were now switching their allegiance to a reality show billionaire, perhaps the Democratic party had done something to ill-serve these people? Then along came Serwer in the Atlantic to tell them that, no, Trump voters did not have any legitimate grievances. They were evil racists, simple as that.

The phrase took on a life of its own. Politicians from presidential candidate Julian Castro to “Squad” member Rep. Ayanna Pressley started using it. “Do these five words define the Trump years?” asked Brian Stelter on CNN. It became ubiquitous on cable news and Twitter.

Now Serwer has published a book under the same title. You might think the 2020 election, which saw Trump gain among black and Hispanic voters, would have caused him to reconsider his thesis that the source of Trump’s appeal is racist hate. Not a bit. Each essay in this collection comes with a short introductory essay describing how Serwer came to write the piece and how he thinks it has held up in retrospect. He makes very clear that, with the benefit of hindsight, he has no regrets.

Looking at the title essay fresh, two and a half years after it was first published, one is struck by how offensive it is, and with how little justification. It opens with a lynch mob. “Grinning white men stand next to the mutilated, half-naked bodies of two men lashed to a post in the street,” writes Serwer, describing an old photograph. He leaps from this haunting image to a Trump rally, where he detects the same “rejoicing in the anguish of those they see as unlike them.”

His evidence for this incendiary claim is a rather hasty list of talking points, very few of which live up to his tendentious billing. He accuses Trump of “seeking to ethnically cleanse 193,000 American children,” which refers to his not renewing temporary protected status for certain Salvadoran refugees. “Mocking Puerto Rican accents shortly after thousands were killed and tens of thousands displaced by Hurricane Maria” refers to this clip, which you can watch for yourself to see how innocuous it is.

Demonizing Political Opposition Seems To Be The Point

theatlantic |   The Museum of African-American History and Culture is in part a catalog of cruelty. Amid all the stories of perseverance, tragedy, and unlikely triumph are the artifacts of inhumanity and barbarism: the child-size slave shackles, the bright red robes of the wizards of the Ku Klux Klan, the recordings of civil-rights protesters being brutalized by police.

The artifacts that persist in my memory, the way a bright flash does when you close your eyes, are the photographs of lynchings. But it’s not the burned, mutilated bodies that stick with me. It’s the faces of the white men in the crowd. There’s the photo of the lynching of Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith in Indiana in 1930, in which a white man can be seen grinning at the camera as he tenderly holds the hand of his wife or girlfriend. There’s the undated photo from Duluth, Minnesota, in which grinning white men stand next to the mutilated, half-naked bodies of two men lashed to a post in the street—one of the white men is straining to get into the picture, his smile cutting from ear to ear. There’s the photo of a crowd of white men huddled behind the smoldering corpse of a man burned to death; one of them is wearing a smart suit, a fedora hat, and a bright smile.

Their names have mostly been lost to time. But these grinning men were someone’s brother, son, husband, father. They were human beings, people who took immense pleasure in the utter cruelty of torturing others to death—and were so proud of doing so that they posed for photographs with their handiwork, jostling to ensure they caught the eye of the lens, so that the world would know they’d been there. Their cruelty made them feel good, it made them feel proud, it made them feel happy. And it made them feel closer to one another.

The Trump era is such a whirlwind of cruelty that it can be hard to keep track. This week alone, the news broke that the Trump administration was seeking to ethnically cleanse more than 193,000 American children of immigrants whose temporary protected status had been revoked by the administration, that the Department of Homeland Security had lied about creating a database of children that would make it possible to unite them with the families the Trump administration had arbitrarily destroyed, that the White House was considering a blanket ban on visas for Chinese students, and that it would deny visas to the same-sex partners of foreign officials. At a rally in Mississippi, a crowd of Trump supporters cheered as the president mocked Christine Blasey Ford, the psychology professor who has said that Brett Kavanaugh, whom Trump has nominated to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, attempted to rape her when she was a teenager. “Lock her up!” they shouted.

Jason Whitlock And Adam Curry Meet Near The Truth Adjacent Middle...,

theblaze  |  Why won't your favorite white cable newsman or newswoman tell you what I'm telling you? Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo, Joe Scarborough, aren't they our allies? No. They're not. They're political lobbyists working on behalf of the corporations and politicians pushing the reset.

OK. What about me? You might think I'm a political partisan working on behalf of conservative Republicans. That is certainly how I've been painted by left-leaning media outlets and social media platforms. And I'm now partnered with Blaze Media, a platform that leans right.

Judge my career. I have been at this for more than 30 years. I have been equally despised by the left and the right. I have publicly feuded with Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann. I've been a guest on their old Fox News and MSNBC shows. I've worked and/or written for ESPN, Fox Sports, the Huffington Post, Playboy Magazine, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal. I spent years bashing Sarah Palin.

I don't play for any political team. I've never voted. I go wherever I believe I can speak, follow, and write the truth. The truth I believe the most is that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior.

I believe Jesus is under attack. That's why I'm at Blaze Media. You can't defend Jesus at corporate media outlets. Advertisers won't allow it. You can discuss the religion of racism every day at ESPN, CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox Sports. But it's taboo to discuss the cure for racism — Jesus — on those platforms.

I'm not saying any of this because there's a big paycheck for black men espousing my views. The money for black broadcasters and journalists is connected to preaching the race-bait religion.

Let me be clear. I'm not broke by any stretch. I've earned and saved a substantial sum of money. But I've bypassed far more money than I've earned with the choice I've made to follow the truth wherever it leads and my refusal to support the racial groupthink dictated by global elites.

My faith won't allow me to jump on board with the lunacy, racism, and sacrilege of Black Lives Matter, a movement founded by three lesbian self-admitted trained Marxists. BLM is an atheist movement in support of LGBTQ issues and the reshaping of America into a communist country. BLM is part of the deception.

Black people tell me all the time: "I don't support the BLM organization, but I support the slogan and sentiment."

Let me translate that. You despise the devil's tree but love the fruit it produces. That's some Don Lemon-Lori Lightfoot-Van Jones-Colin Kaepernick level of hypocrisy. You know, all the Malcolm X-wannabe, anti-white radicals in relationships with white partners. They hate the white tree but can't live without the white fruit.

We have to stop letting everyone use us. We're being played. We're all being played, black and white working-class people. It's all a giant setup. Look at what they did to Trump supporters. They were manipulated into storming the Capitol, and then the corporate media portrayed it as a bloody, violent KKK rally intended to overthrow democracy. The so-called "insurrection" is an excuse for the government to seize more power and crush dissent.

We, black people, have been convinced the crushing of working-class white people is good for us.

It's not. Working-class white people, Christian white people, are our true allies, not the elites. We can't see that because of the made-for-TV hyper-focus on racial conflict.

The defunding and demoralizing of police are tactics deployed to increase violence in major cities. Local media outlets are focusing on this rise in crime, national media outlets have followed suit, and social media platforms are generating viral videos exposing the crime wave.

Guess who are the stars of this content. Black perpetrators.

It's all a massive setup. The stirring of racial animus between Obama worshippers and Trump worshippers is orchestrated by billionaire elites, executed by trained Marxists, promoted by millionaire influencers in the media, sports, and entertainment worlds, and co-signed by religious leaders pursuing popularity.

ADOS Advocacy Foundation Rebuts Harvard's Replacement Negroe Disinformation Attack

adosfoundation  |  At a time when our wealthiest colleges and universities ought to be reckoning with the distinct role that slavery played in creating and sustaining them, and working with Black communities outside of academia to secure racial justice, it is regrettable to see Harvard University using its institutional might to try and discredit and libel activists most committed to that cause.

The Harvard Kennedy School's Misinformation Review's recent publication, "Disinformation creep: ADOS and the strategic weaponization of breaking news", is a clear attempt to use the Ivy League institution's esteemed name to legitimize an ongoing smear campaign directed at the American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) movement. The report ascribes a familiar set of demonstrably false motivations to our political advocacy, with the authors frequently substituting subjective claims, innuendo, and outright lies for the sort of empirically-backed assertions one would expect to find in a publication from such a prestigious university.

Indeed, Disinformation creep's own language highlights the authors' corrupt and biased approach: "The tweets in Figures 2-5," they write, "are examples of breaking news stories which led to a spike of activity within the ADOS network (which do not necessarily correspond to the overall spikes shown in Figure 1). We then chose the ones that best illustrated the point we wanted to make" (emphasis ours).

In other words, the authors acknowledge combing through the data and seeking to make their findings conform to a predetermined opinion of what the ADOS movement represents. Leaving aside the matter of how this method is the very antithesis of the kind of spirit that should animate and guide honest inquiry and investigation into a particular subject, the examples used by the report's authors do not actually bear out the "point [they] wanted to make". Instead, the authors' careless relationship to methodology and analysis frequently propels the material squarely into the terrain of libel.

We intend to enumerate the report's chief claims and supply evidence to the contrary that will lay bare the defamatory nature of the report. In so doing we will prove how, in an attempt to police the acceptable bounds of black political agency in America, it maliciously conveys false information to its audience.

We demand a formal apology from Harvard and that the publisher issue a full and timely retraction of this document. The retraction must appear in Misinformation Review's next issue so its readers can gain a full understanding of the report's unsound scholarship and how the authors have baselessly vilified our movement and directly violated the journal's own stated mission of combating misinformation.

Harvard Uses Mercenary Replacement Negroe To Launch Disinformation Attack On ADOS

harvard |  ADOS leverages legitimate moral and legal arguments for reparations and grievances about the failure of the Democratic party to adequately support one of its most loyal and critical voting blocs but brings in immigration.  Including  immigration  as  a  distinguishing  factor  is  justified  by  legitimate  statistics  around how Black immigrants have much higher levels of wealth and educational achievement, as well as better health outcomes (Brown etal., 2017) versus native-born Black Americans, differences that can indeed be directly attributed to racial stress and intergenerational trauma that started in slavery and persists today (Doamekpor  &  Dinwiddle,  2015),  despite  evidence  that  this  divergenceis  the  fault  of  treatment  by  the dominant white culture (Iheduru, 2013), and not of the immigrants. Animating ADOS grievances are the negative attitudes that Black immigrants can hold about native-born Black Americans (Nsangou & Dundes, 2018; Telusma, 2019), as well as perceptions of dominant cultural narratives favoring those who are apart from  the  direct  legacy  of  the  trauma  of  slavery  and  the  indictment  that  legacy  presents  for  the  moral foundations of the United States.

ADOS also resents what it sees as justice claims of other groups being prioritized over those of native-born Black  Americans. However,  it  sees  the  solution as  narrowly advocating  for  the  interests  of  native-born Black  Americans  alone,  and rejecting  any  solidarity  or  larger  coalitions  (N’COBRA, 2020), including trans-national movements for reparations or coalitions that address how systematic racism also lethally affects   Black   immigrants   and   other   groups.   Significantly,   Carnell  previously   sat   on   the   board   of Progressives  for  Immigration  Reform  (PFIR),  a  subsidiary  of  the  Federation  for  American  Immigration Reform (FAIR), which has been identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (Boehlert, 2019) because of its violent opposition to foreign nationals living in the United States.

The ultimate impact that ADOS may have had on the 2020 election will be hard to ascertain; however, it  did have  a notable  media moment  when  rapper  Ice  Cube  talked  with the  Trump campaign about  his “Contract WithBlack America” in October, which was heavily based on ADOS ideas (Watts, 2020). The Trump campaign used this moment to claim approval from Ice Cube, an example of disinformation creep in trying to distract from Trump’s often outright racism and deep hostility  and  opposition  to  the  far broader Movement for Black Lives coalition.

We scraped a set of 534 thousand tweets using “#ADOS” or two related terms (“#LineageMatters,” “AmericanDOS,” which we found were not widely used) and posted between November 1, 2019,and September  30,  2020,  running  analyses  on  weekly  subsets  to  first  understand  the  content  of  the  ADOS network  and  to  select  tweets  on  which  to  carry  out  descriptive  content  analysis.  The  status_ids  of  the tweets, and scripts for both collection and analysis, are available from the Harvard Dataverse (Nkondeet al.,  2021).  For  having  accurate  counts  of  daily  frequencies  to  compare  to  real-world  events,  we supplemented this scraped set with access, via a third-party service, to a set of 1.36 million tweets pulled from the Twitter firehose. This includesa total of 1.1 million tweets using the #ADOS hashtag that were publicly visible on Twitter as of the end of 2020.

While The Woke Sleep - Plutocrats And Their Political SockPuppets Continue Their Plunder...,

commondreams  |  After President Joe Biden and U.S. lawmakers on Thursday announced a bipartisan deal on infrastructure that Democrats say they will only support alongside a reconciliation bill, progressives doubled down on concerns about the compromise proposal's financing plans.

Rather than pushing for taxes targeting rich individuals and corporations, a White House fact sheet on the bipartisan package outlines various other potential financing sources, from unused unemployment insurance relief funds to reinstating Superfund fees for chemicals.

The proposal that has progressives alarmed is relying on "public-private partnerships, private activity bonds, direct pay bonds, and asset recycling for infrastructure investment."

Asset recycling involves the sale or lease of public assets to the private sector so the government can put that money toward new investments. The policy was previously encouraged by former U.S. President Donald Trump, despite lessons from Australia about its pitfalls.

As negotiations over the infrastructure deal dragged on last week, Rianna Eckel, an organizer with Food & Water Watch, cautioned that it could "facilitate a Wall Street takeover of public services like water." Mary Grant, the advocacy group's Public Water for All director, echoed that warning Thursday.

"This White House-approved infrastructure deal is a disaster in the making," Grant said in a statement. "It promotes privatization and so-called 'public-private partnerships' instead of making public investments in publicly owned infrastructure."

Grant noted that "communities across the country have been ripped off by public-private schemes that enrich corporations and Wall Street investors and leave the rest of us to pick up the tab."

One infamous example, as Common Dreams recently reported, is the privatization of Chicago's parking meters. Illinois drivers filed a class-action lawsuit on Thursday alleging that Chicago granted a private company "monopoly control over the city's parking meter system for an astonishing 75-year-long period, without regard for the changes in technology and innovations in transportation taking place now and for the rest of the century."

Grant charged that "privatization is nothing more than an outrageously expensive way to borrow funds, with the ultimate bill paid back by households and local businesses in the form of higher rates." She called the White House's decision to support the proposal "disappointing and outrageous."

 

 

In Terms Of Public Trust U.S. Media Ranks Dead Last

jonathanturley |  For years, we have been discussing the decline of journalism values with the rise of open bias in the media. Now, a newly released report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford has found something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. The United States ranked dead last in media trust among 49 countries with just 29% saying that they trusted the media. The most tragic aspect is that it does not matter. The media has embraced the advocacy journalism and anyone questioning that trend risks instant cancellation.  The result is a type of state media where journalists are bound to the government by ideology rather than law.

The plunging level of trust reflects the loss of the premier news organizations to a type of woke journalism. We have have been discussing how writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. Even journalists are leading attacks on free speech and the free press.  This includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy. Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll has denounced how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. Likewise, the University of North Carolina recently offered an academic chair in Journalism to New York Times’ Nikole Hannah-Jones. While Hannah-Jones was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for her writing on The 1619 Project, she has been criticized for her role in purging dissenting views from the New York Times pages and embracing absurd anti-police conspiracy theories. Even waiting for the facts is viewed as unethical today by journalism professors who demand that reporters make political or social declarations through their coverage.

One of the lowest moments came with the New York Times’ mea culpa for publishing an opinion column by a conservative senator.  The New York Times was denounced by many of us for its  cringing apology after publishing a column by Sen. Tom Cotton (R, Ark.). and promising not to publish future such columns. It will not publish a column from a Republican senator on protests in the United States but it will publish columns from one of the Chinese leaders crushing protests for freedom in Hong Kong. Cotton was arguing that the use of national guard troops may be necessary to quell violent riots, noting the historical use of this option in past protests. This option was used most recently after the Capitol riot.

The Effects Of Platform Social Media On Politics And Identity Politics

newleftreview |   The reputation economy undergirded by platform capitalism has played an important role in the growth and mutation of the politics of recognition since the financial crisis. This is not simply to blame ‘the internet’ for identity politics, but to highlight how a new type of rationality has penetrated the social and cultural sphere, turning the distribution of esteem into a type of inter-capitalist competition. Controversies about the supposed threat to the liberal public sphere emanating from universities and the left often ignore a more structural transformation driven by Silicon Valley.

Cultural-political arguments in the Anglosphere frequently turn upon the question of free speech, and the need to rescue it from ‘identitarians’. In the uk, the Johnson government is intent on legislating to force universities to uphold ‘free-speech’ norms. While these allegations are often made in bad faith and on slim evidence—not to mention the accompanying crackdown on any free expression of Islamist views—the task should be to provide a more accurate diagnosis of the decline of liberal norms, not to deny that anything has changed. This requires paying close attention to the capitalist business model and the interfaces on which civil society and the public sphere increasingly depend. Arguments about censorship and ‘no-platforming’ of speakers are often driven by the quest for reputational advantage—on the part of institutions, individuals and social movements—and a need to avoid reputational damage. This is how the politics of recognition is now structured.

As Gramscian scholars have long argued, a capitalist business model does not only determine relations of production, but is mirrored in the mode of political and cultural activity that accompanies it—potentially providing a foothold for critique and resistance. Debates around Fordism and post-Fordism posed questions of what cultural and political analogues they facilitated, and of what new modes of organization and collectivism might emerge. For Jeremy Gilbert, similar questions need to be asked about the type of political-party mobilizations that might or might not be available through the template of the digital platform.footnote¹⁹ New technologies and economic relations also reconfigure the processes of political and cultural life, beyond their own immediate application.

This perspective tends to emphasize positive opportunities for new political strategies, but the negative outcomes also need to be identified. Platforms represent a watershed in the moral and cultural contests of modernity. They not only transform relations of production, but re-format how status and esteem are socially distributed. They are refashioning struggles for recognition no less decisively than the birth of print media did. At the same time, their logic is such that their principal effect is to generalize a feeling of misrecognition—heightening the urgency with which people seek recognition, but never satisfying this need. One effect of this process is the rise of groups who feel relatively deprived, to the point of political insurrection. In terms of Fraser’s perspectival dualism, one of the main questions raised by contemporary politics is how and why many people who are both economically privileged and culturally included can end up feeling like they are neither of those things.

Two paths of critique have opened up in this context, an internalist and an externalist one. The internalist path follows the example of pragmatist sociology in urging political movements to work with the grain of the speculative reputation economy, so as to sabotage centres of power. On a small scale, this might simply mean the mobilization of memes and trolls to build the capital value of a political insurgent or to undermine that of an incumbent power. This type of reputation warfare was notoriously used by the Trump campaign but is widely deployed on the left. Organizations like Greenpeace have worked to attack brand value through graphically disrupting the art galleries and museums that receive oil-industry sponsorship, for instance. Feher advocates a kind of ‘investee activism’, which posits the principal class conflict within neoliberal capitalism as a financial one, between investor and investee. In this perspective, resistance should take aim at the market value of company stocks and operate via debtor strikes that threaten the interests of finance capital and banks. Optimistically, Feher calls for the left to mobilize its own quasi-financial vision of a good society for investment: ‘Creditworthiness is worth vying for, lest we leave it to investors to determine who deserves to be appreciated and for what motives’.footnote²⁰ The very volatility of the moral-economic marketplace offers an opportunity to compete politically over the future.

The externalist critique focuses on the platform itself and its inherent injustices, both for its exploited workers and its users. Srnicek’s approach shows how Marxian political economy can identify the underlying structural conditions of this extractive business form and the variations that it can take. A materialist assessment and critique of the platform business model is a necessary starting point for rethinking the position of organized labour within the gig economy, in which employees are legally reconfigured as ‘contractors’. It is also the starting point for the real-utopian analysis and activism envisaged by Erik Olin Wright, which seeks to establish platform cooperatives and other forms of digital civic infrastructure.footnote²¹ Resistance to Amazon and Uber could involve inventing alternative means of mediating civic life that would not be dedicated to the extraction of rents. And yet, as Seymour’s critique of the ‘social industry’ reminds us, there are other aspects of platform technologies—their addictive, gamified qualities, which exploit and perpetuate our anxieties—whose very function is to suck the life out of social existence.

The challenge for social movements is how to update Fraser’s perspectival dualism for an age in which the platform is becoming a dominant distributor of both reward and mutated forms of recognition. Few movements can afford to abstain entirely from the reputation economy. A lesson from Black Lives Matter is that social media’s accumulation of reputational capital can be harnessed towards longer-standing goals of social and economic justice, as long as it remains a tactic or an instrument, and not a goal in its own right. Campaigns may trigger or seize reputational bubbles that spread at great speed—#MeToo is an example—and potentially burst soon after, making a political virtue of the ability to shift movements into other spaces, including the street. The quest for recognition is more exacting and slower than that for reputation, and appreciating this distinction is a first step to seeing beyond the cultural limits of the platform, towards the broader political and economic obstacles that currently stand in the way of full and equal participation.

Is Dr. Robert Malone Qualified To Speak On The Safety And Efficacy Of mRNA Therapeutics?

dailymail  |  Malone pioneered 'in-vitro RNA transfection' and also 'in-vivo RNA transfection' in 1987 and 1988 at the Salk Institute, according to his biography. He did that on frog embryos and mice.      

Conventional vaccines are produced using weakened forms of the virus, but mRNAs use only the virus’s genetic code.

An mRNA vaccine is injected into the body where it enters cells and tells them to create antigens. These antigens are recognized by the immune system and prepare it to fight coronavirus.  

No actual virus is needed to create an mRNA vaccine. 

This means the rate at which it can be produced is dramatically accelerated. As a result, mRNA vaccines have been hailed as potentially offering a rapid solution to new outbreaks of infectious diseases. 

The findings were presented in a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which is the official journal of the US National Academy of Sciences and has been published since 1914.  

But Malone said the federal government is recommending COVID vaccines for everyone over 12 without the research to back that up. 

'Young adults in the prime of their lives are being forced to take the vaccine because Tony Fauci said that,' Carlson said during Wednesday night's show, adding that Malone 'has a right to speak,' given his expertise.

Malone was a guest speaker on a podcast that included Bret Weinstein, who is an evolutionary biologist, and Steve Kirsh, an American serial entrepreneur who has started seven companies.

The Panicdemic Backfired Exposing ALL Of The Ruling Classes Weaknesses

americanthinker |  What happens when a population of introverts, hypochondriacs, and obsessive-compulsives is continuously bombarded with messages to seclude and disinfect themselves, for fear that COVID-19 prickle-balls lurk everywhere, waiting to attack?

What happens is that emotionally damaged people start driving bad politics and bad policy.

"Fifteen days to flatten the curve."  That phrase is surely now banned by corporate media, for it reminds us how the supposedly acute health threat of March 2020 was repeatedly re-packaged to keep populations off-balance and out of business not for 15 days, but for 15 months. 

“Outrageous.” @BillMaher railed against Facebook and Google for banning and suppressing content about lab leak. “You were wrong, Google and Facebook....The CDC’s been wrong about a lot shit, this is outrageous that I can’t look this information up.” #RealTime pic.twitter.com/28dwaQGz9W

— Brent Baker (@BrentHBaker) June 26, 2021

Never in modern times has a health issue been so flagrantly politicized, nor wielded as a club, as the Wuhan virus has been.  Outside a few rational locales, almost every nation drank the COVID Kool-Aid, competing to see who could enforce the stupidest rules.

Naturally, academia would lead the way: 

Among Americans aged 15–24, a total of 587 died of COVID in 2020, according to the CDC, representing about 0.16%, or about 1 in 642, of COVID deaths.  If you are young, you have essentially no chance of dying of COVID.  The low youth mortality impact from COVID was known by April 2020.

Yet many universities now require these low-risk young people to inject the experimental vaccine or be banished from campus.  Did you already catch the WuFlu and have antibodies?  Too bad.  The great pulsating brains of academia cannot differentiate.

Young people who want to serve their country are also targets: the passive-aggressive command at West Point compels the unvaccinated to sacrifice a week's vacation to quarantine and then to wear masks in the most ridiculous circumstances imaginable — to harass them and make them look like fools.  Military leaders do not care whether the experimental vaccines might do more harm than good, especially on a previously COVID-exposed youth.  Take the jab and shut up, cadet; Colonel Suckup needs to PowerPoint his 100% compliance success.

From Industrialization Back To Feudalism (Neofeudalism)

medium  |  The pandemic housing bubble has multiple, complex causes among them:

• A housing shortage resulting from a decade of anemic construction following the Great Financial Crisis and a wave of homebuilder bankruptcies;
• Supply-chain shocks created by the pandemic, which was especially hard on “efficient” industries, where financialization and monopolization drained vital industries of their cash and inventory reserves and turned them over to the richest people in America;
• The trillions that the Trump stimulus pumped into the financial markets, which are now being used to buy up every single-family dwelling that hits the market, for cash-above-the-asking-price, in order to convert it to a subprime rental whose predatory rents, savage evictions and dangerous neglect are the basis for a boom in bonds that financialize the rent they generate.

Generations of Americans have dreamed of owning a home, both to insulate themselves from the whims of their landlords and to create intergenerational wealth. Home ownership was a key driver of social mobility, allowing working class people to enter the middle class. A horrible “natural experiment” shows just how important property acquisition is to economic stability: redlining and restrictive covenants froze Black people out of the home-purchasing boom of the New Deal and the GI Bill, exacerbating and accelerating the racial wealth gap.

Two factors drove the growth of the American middle-class: property ownership and unionization. Of the two, unionization was more universal — by no means free of institutional racism, but far more accessible than home ownership.

Of the two, unionization was the one that underwent sustained assault from business, finance and the state. After decades of declining union participation, amid stagnating wages and worker misclassification, the dream of social mobility through stable employment has evaporated for most workers (especially workers from the poorest households, burdened beyond belief by student debt, this debt assumed on the assurance that it would create employment-based access to a stable, middle-class existence).

But the American belief in home ownership as a path to a better future for homeowners and their descendants remains intact. And housing shortages — and the bubbles that attend them — only fuel this belief. When the house your working-class parents bought for $30,000 is appraised at $1.5 million, home ownership becomes a solution to all of life’s insecurities.

The Emergence Of Murcomycosis Represents Catastrophic Immune Failure Induced By Covid Reinfection

 

Since the first reports about murcomycosis black fungus infection started coming out of the vast south asian gain of function human petri dish, it has been conspicuously clear - to even the most casual observer - that something very strange is going on.

 

The organism causing Mucormycosis is actually everywhere. 

 

We humans are exposed to black fungus daily, the level of exposure depending on where you are in the world and your location’s climate. Normal immune hosts dispatch black fungus infection immediately upon contact.

 

The only times you clinically observe black fungus infection in humans is with catastrophically immunosuppressed individuals. Most notably AIDS and diabetics with chronic A1C levels above 12.

 

Murcomycosis black fungus infection is horrible. It cannot be remedied by antifungals, and to the extent that it can be remedied, it requires drastic exculpatory extraction. That means it has to be cut out. It has a predilection for the sinuses. That means that the patient gets half their face cut out often with eyes included. 

 

As you might imagine, when you become nutrient media for black fungus, that's that ass. You're over, done, kaput, DEAD-ASS...,

The immunsuppression required for this to get started normally requires years to develop. Even in the chemo related scenarios - months are required.

 

The humans conducting this vast in vitro gain of function experiment are still in the early stages of their experiment with the sars-cov2 bioweapon. 

 

This black fungus fork is screaming something about how sars-cov2 goes mob deep on the human immune system. It is obviously very important. 

 

What living memory history involves a retrovirus that directly attacked the immune system?  These types of observations are instrumental in understanding the motivations of those behind this very curious epidemic.

Are AR-15 LARPS Wondering About General Milley's Intentions Toward Them?

greenwald |  Within that domestic War on Terror framework, Gen. Milley, by pontificating on race, is not providing cultural commentary but military dogma. Just as it was central to the job of a top Cold War general to embrace theories depicting Communism as a grave threat, and an equally central part of the job of a top general during the first War on Terror to do the same for Muslim extremists, embracing theories of systemic racism and the perils posed to domestic order by “white rage” is absolutely necessary to justify the U.S. Government's current posture about what war it is fighting and why that war is so imperative.

None of this means that Gen. Milley's defense of critical race theory and woke ideology is purely cynical and disingenuous. The U.S. military is a racially diverse institution and — just as is true for the CIA and FBI — endorsing modern-day theories of racial and gender diversity can be important for workplace cohesion and inspiring confidence in leadership. And many people in various sectors of American life have undergone radical changes in their speech if not their belief system over the last year — that is, after all, the purpose of the sustained nationwide protest movement that erupted in the wake of the killing of George Floyd — due either to conviction, fear of loss of position, or both. One cannot reflexively discount the possibility that Gen. Milley is among those whose views have changed as the cultural climate shifted around him.

But it is preposterously naive and deceitful to divorce Gen. Milley's steadfast advocacy of racial theories from the current war strategy of the U.S. military that he leads. The Pentagon's prime targets, by their own statements, are sectors of the U.S. population that they regard as major threats to the national security of the United States. Embracing theories that depict “white rage” and white supremacy as the source of domestic instability and violence is not just consistent with but necessary for the advancement of that mission. Put another way, the doctrine of the U.S. intelligence and military community is based on race and ideology, and it should therefore be unsurprising that the worldview promoted by top generals is racialist in nature as well.

Whatever else is true, it is creepy and tyrannical to try to place military leaders and their pronouncements about war off-limits from critique, dissent and mockery. No healthy democracy allows military officials to be venerated to the point of residing above critique. That is especially true when their public decrees are central to the dangerous attempt to turn the war posture of the U.S. military inward to its own citizens.

The Irrepairably Broken Trust/Distrust Axis In Science And Medicine

taibbi  |  Telescope out a little further, however, and the ivermectin debate becomes more complicated, reaching into a series of thorny controversies, some ridiculous, some quite serious.

The ridiculous side involves the front end of Lorigo’s story, the same story detailed on this site last week: the censorship of ivermectin news that, no matter what one thinks about the evidence for or against, is clearly in the public interest.

Anyone running a basic internet search on the topic will get a jumble of confusing results. YouTube’s policies are beyond uneven. It’s been aggressive in taking down videos containing interviews with people like Kory and doling out strikes to independent media figures like Bret Weinstein, but an interview with Lorigo on TrialSite News containing basically all of the same information is still up, as are clips from a just-taped episode of the Joe Rogan Experience that feature both Weinstein and Kory. Moreover, all sorts of statements at least as provocative as Kory’s “miraculous” formulation in the Senate still litter the Internet, many in reputable research journals. Take, for instance, this passage from the March issue of the Japanese Journal of Antibiotics:

When the effectiveness of ivermectin for the COVID-19 pandemic is confirmed with the cooperation of researchers around the world and its clinical use is achieved on a global scale, it could prove to be of great benefit to humanity. It may even turn out to be comparable to the benefits achieved from the discovery of penicillin…

There clearly is not evidence that ivermectin is the next penicillin, at least as far as its effects on Covid-19. As is noted in nearly every mainstream story about the subject, the WHO has advised against its use pending further study, there have been randomized studies showing it to be ineffective in speeding recovery, and the drug’s original manufacturer, Merck, has said there’s no “meaningful evidence” of efficacy for Covid-19 patients. However, it’s also patently untrue, as is frequently asserted, that there’s no evidence that the drug might be effective.

This past week, for instance, Oxford University announced it was launching a large-scale clinical trial. The study has already recruited more than 5,000 volunteers, and its announcement says what little is known to be true: that “small pilot studies show that early administration with ivermectin can reduce viral load and the duration of symptoms in some patients with mild COVID-19,” that it’s “a well-known medicine with a good safety profile,” and “because of the early promising results in some studies, it is already being widely used to treat COVID-19 in several countries.”

The Oxford text also says “there is little evidence from large-scale randomized controlled trials to demonstrate that it can speed up recovery from the illness or reduce hospital admission.” But to a person who might have a family member suffering from the disease, just the information about “early promising results” would probably be enough to inspire demands for a prescription, which might be the problem, of course. Unless someone was looking for that information, they likely wouldn’t find it, as mainstream news even of the Oxford study has been effectively limited to a pair of Bloomberg and Forbes stories.

Ivermectin has suffered the same fate as thousands of other news topics since Donald Trump first announced his run for the presidency nearly six years ago, cleaved in two to inhabit separate factual universes for left and right audiences. Repurposed drugs generally have had a hard time being taken seriously since Trump announced he was on hydroxychloroquine last year, and ivermectin clearly also suffers from its association with Republican Senators like Ron Johnson. Still, the drug’s publicity issues go beyond the taint of “conservative” news.

The drug has become a test case for a controversy that’s long been building in health care, about how much input patients should have in their own treatment. Well before Covid-19, the medical profession was thrust into a revolution in patient information, inspired by a combination of Google and new patients’ rights laws.

Reuters Says That Pfizer Says That Its mRNA Jab Is Effective Against The Delta Variant

reuters  |   The Pfizer-BioNTech >PFE.N< vaccine is highly effective against the Delta variant of COVID-19, a Pfizer official in Israel said on Thursday.

First identified in India, Delta is becoming the globally dominant variant of the coronavirus, according to the World Health Organization.

"The data we have today, accumulating from research we are conducting at the lab and including data from those places where the Indian variant, Delta, has replaced the British variant as the common variant, point to our vaccine being very effective, around 90%, in preventing the coronavirus disease, COVID-19," Alon Rappaport, Pfizer's medical director in Israel, told local broadcaster Army Radio.

A study by researchers from the University of Texas together with Pfizer and BioNtech and published this month by Nature journal found that antibodies elicited by the vaccine were still able to neutralize all tested variants, including Delta, albeit at reduced strength.

"We continue to synthesize viruses in our labs and with collaborators as we see new variants emerge so we can conduct testing to obtain the most information we can about our vaccine’s impact on neutralisation of emerging strains," a Pfizer spokesperson said in an email to Reuters.

Other recent studies have also shown the vaccine is likely to provide high protection against the variant. read more

Israel has one of the world's most advanced vaccination campaigns largely based on the Pfizer-BioNTech shot. Sharon Alroy-Preis, head of public health at Israel's Health Ministry, said that Israel still lacks enough data to provide insight into vaccine effectiveness against the Delta variant.

"We are collecting the data now. We are only now seeing the first cases of the Delta variant in Israel - about 200 of those - so we will know more soon," she told reporters on Wednesday.

Why Do Pfizer mRNA Jabbed Israelis Have To Quarantine If Exposed To Delta Variant?

reuters  |  Israel empowered health officials on Wednesday to quarantine anyone deemed to have been exposed to an especially infectious variant of COVID-19, even if they were previously vaccinated or recovered from the disease with presumed immunity.

The decision followed a warning by Prime Minister Naftali Bennett on Tuesday over new outbreaks caused by the Delta variant, with daily infections rising after weeks of low plateau credited to Israel's record mass-vaccination drive.

Under the updated Health Ministry directives, vaccinated or formerly infected people can be ordered to self-isolate for up to 14 days if authorities believe they may have been in "close contact with a carrier of a dangerous virus variant".

Such proximity could include having been passengers on the same plane, the ministry said - a possible dampener on Israel's gradual opening of its borders to vaccinated summer tourists.

Addressing parliament, Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz said fines of "thousands of shekels" would also be levied against Israeli citizens or residents who travel to countries blacklisted as high COVID-19 risks.

On June 16, the Health Ministry listed Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, India, Mexico and Russia as off-limits to Israeli citizens or residents unless they receive special permission.

Some 55% of Israel's 9.3 million population have received both doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech (PFE.N), (22UAy.DE) vaccine, and a steep drop in cases had prompted most economic restrictions to be lifted.

 

Fugg You Mean mRNA Therapeutics "Likely Safe" For Pregnant Women?!?!?!

NIH  |  A new observational study has begun to evaluate the immune responses generated by COVID-19 vaccines administered to pregnant or postpartum people. Researchers will measure the development and durability of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in people vaccinated during pregnancy or the first two postpartum months. Researchers also will assess vaccine safety and evaluate the transfer of vaccine-induced antibodies to infants across the placenta and through breast milk.

The study, called MOMI-VAX, is sponsored and funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health. MOMI-VAX is conducted by the NIAID-funded Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Consortium (IDCRC). 

“Tens of thousands of pregnant and breastfeeding people in the United States have chosen to receive the COVID-19 vaccines available under emergency use authorization. However, we lack robust, prospective clinical data on vaccination in these populations,” said NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., “The results of this study will fill gaps in our knowledge and help inform policy recommendations and personal decision-making on COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.”

Pregnant people with COVID-19 are more likely to be hospitalized, be admitted to the intensive care unit, require mechanical ventilation, and die from the illness than their non-pregnant peers. Severe COVID-19 during pregnancy also may put the infant at risk for complications such as preterm birth. Individuals who are pregnant or breastfeeding can choose to receive(link is external) authorized COVID-19 vaccines, and studies to gather safety data in these populations are ongoing. So far, COVID-19 vaccines appear to be safe in these populations. The NIAID study will build on these studies by improving the understanding of antibody responses to COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant and postpartum people and the transfer of antibodies to their infants during pregnancy or through breast milk. Experience with other diseases suggests that the transfer of vaccine-induced antibodies from mother to baby could help protect newborns and infants from COVID-19 during early life.

Investigators will enroll up to 750 pregnant individuals and 250 postpartum individuals within two months of delivery who have received or will receive any COVID-19 vaccine authorized or licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Their infants also will be enrolled in the study. Vaccines are not provided to participants as part of the study protocol. Currently, three COVID-19 vaccines are available in the United States under emergency use authorization: the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccines and the Johnson & Johnson adenoviral vector vaccine. The study is designed to assess up to five types of FDA-licensed or authorized COVID-19 vaccines, should additional options become available.

In February, Lil'Fauci Proclaimed mRNA Jabs "Safe For Pregnant Women"

cnbc |  There have been “no red flags” seen in the more than 10,000 pregnant women who have received Covid-19 vaccine shots so far, White House health advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said Wednesday.

Pregnant women and young children were excluded from the original U.S. clinical trials of the vaccines, as is typical in experimental vaccine research. That’s led to some concerns that there’s not enough data to be sure that the vaccines are safe among pregnant women, but Fauci said the Food and Drug Administration has not seen reason to worry yet.

“The FDA, as part of the typical follow up you have following the initial issuing of any [emergency use authorization] have found, thus far, and we’ve got to be careful, but thus far, no red flags about that, about pregnant women,” Fauci said Wednesday in an interview with The Journal of the American Medical Association’s Dr. Howard Bauchner.

Since the authorization of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in December, over 10,000 pregnant women, many of whom were health-care workers, have gotten the shots, Fauci said. He noted that there is evidence that a coronavirus infection can lead to heightened risk of an adverse outcome in pregnancy, which might be why many pregnant health-care workers decided to get the vaccine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has advised that pregnant women should consult their health-care provider on whether or not to get vaccinated against Covid-19. But the World Health Organization has struck a more cautious tone, saying last week that only pregnant women who are at high risk of being exposed to Covid-19 should get vaccinated.

As for young children, the FDA has only authorized Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine for use in people 16 and older in the U.S. Moderna’s vaccine is only authorized for use in people 18 and older in the country.

Fauci said “de-escalation studies” for younger children are underway. Such studies will look at the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines in progressively younger and younger children. Data from those studies should be available in “the next few months,” Fauci said.

Post mRNA Therapeutic Heart Issues Explained By A Physician...,

The data they went over today showed that the overwhelming majority of myocarditis cases in young males occur shortly after the second dose.

 

For example, in a group of 18-24 year olds they tracked for 7 days after dose 1 of an mRNA vaccine, they expected* to see 1-11 myocarditis cases; they observed 41 cases.

 

Tracking the same group for 7 days after the second dose of mRNA vaccine, they expected to see 1-8 cases; instead they observed 219 cases. What is that, a 27 times higher rate of myocarditis than you would expect to see?

 

See slides 26 and 28 of this presentation by Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA,

Vaccine Safety Team, CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force for more details.

 

* Based on Gubernot et al. U.S. Population-Based background incidence rates of medical conditions for use in safety assessment of COVID-19 vaccines.

 

Myocardial cells are one of the types of cells in our bodies that are not readily reproducible. Other examples of this are brain and nerve cells. They just simply do not turn over.

There are organs that are made up of cells that are able to turn over but just do it when they absolutely need to – examples here would be the liver and all the endocrine glands.

 

Then there are parts of the body that turn over for a living daily and do so intensely – examples would be the skin and the lining of the GI system.

 

Because the myocardium does not reproduce itself, the amount of the initial damage from myocarditis is critical. FYI, the same thing happens in an acute MI – the dead part is just dead – and will forever be dead. The remaining undamaged tissue has the ability to “remodel” and take up some of the slack but the person will never have the same heart.

 

To sum it up – with these cases of myocarditis – it is unlike an MI in that the damage is not confined to one area. 

 

The damage tends to be global throughout the heart all at once. Recovery is absolutely dependent on how bad that damage is. If recognized and treated early – it is possible to mitigate the damage somewhat depending on what all is involved. Some patients recover reasonably well because the damage was just not that severe. However, many times in my life, I have seen these patients struggle with heart failure symptoms from the moment it happens. We can help this with meds to some degree – and the rhythm problems can be helped with meds and defibrillators – but the patients will never be the same.

 

I have been staggered by the reports I am reading from all over about these COVID vaccine young people – and the startling number of them that are having to be transplanted.

 

The very concerning thing – there are now hospitals all over America where there are more admissions to the hospital from this COVID vaccine related myocarditis than ever were with the whole 18 months of COVID. I am referring only to the 12-17 age group. NOT THE WHOLE POPULATION. Unfortunately, this now includes my hospital – with zero 12-17 aged COVID admissions this whole time – and we have now had our very first teen admitted critically ill with myocarditis 3 days after the 2nd shot.

 

I was on a Zoom conference yesterday about this issue – a very “elder statesman” ethics professor ended the discussion of this myocarditis issue and I almost started tearing up – our standards have fallen so far – he simply stated – the medical ethical principles of beneficience and non-harm are overwhelming in this case. If the CDC/FDA fails to act to protect these young people – let the word go forth – this profession has lost its way, it is corrupt to the core – and is now being run only in the interests of the corporations and not the patients.

 

I am not “in the know” – I do not have any access to any deliberations or information that the public itself does not know.

 

But I have to say – I could not agree with this gentleman more. We are hearing a lot today that this age group is going to be the new reservoir of the variants and unless vaccinated will be the downfall of us all – all I can say is EVIDENCE PLEASE –

 

When I read reports in the media the past few days about this issue – and on comments on social media – there is quite a bit of conflating of data. We compare the vaccine side effects in this age group vs the incidence of COVID and COVID deaths NOT JUST in that age group but the entire population. That is just one example.

 

The further confounding issue is in this age group – basically teenagers – the case numbers are likely very very high – indeed – I would not be surprised if upwards of 2/3 of them are “case numbers” and not deaths or hospitalizations – because they so vanishingly rarely ever get sick with COVID and certainly not ending up dying. But yet have been positive and therefore a case number. Making vaccination even more questionable. I would say your 141 thousand case number is too small by orders of magnitude.

 

I know this because all year – I have had family clusters and school clusters pre and post vaccine – and almost invariably the teenagers and kids were postiive and completely asymptomatic. It is very likely that the vast majority of them were positive and never came to attention. They just simply do not get sick or just minimally so.

 

With regard to the death counts. My state has less than 10 teens dying of COVID for the entire past year. When the state medical examiner actually did a deep dive on these cases – only 2 were ever determined to actually have died FROM COVID – all the others were suicides, traumas, etc that died WITH COVID. The 2 who actually did die were both kids with severe issues – across the country cystic fibrosis, sickle cell, and other immunocompetence disorders have been the mainstay of this group. In general, under age 20 just do not die or get hospitalized with this problem – it is very very very unusual – and they almost universally have some kind of severe co-morbidity.

 

The incidence of admission and morbidity with these vaccines with relation to this myocarditis is actually higher than the COVID issues. Anyone who tries to “statistics” their way out of that fact is LYING to you. The CDC readily admits that their myocarditis numbers are very likely way undercounted. And still their numbers are indicating a rise in myocarditis from baseline between 25-200 times higher in this age group. In many people with any kind of myocarditis – they may never know about it because their cardiac reserve is so excellent at their younger age. As these people age and lose that reserve, we may be looking at this problem to be with us for some time.

 

In general – the rules and tenets of medical ethics are universal and not dependent on the times. There are very specific tenets that do take into account community and population issues vs individual issues like we deal with in pandemics. I could not even begin to go into it here – but the numbers are simply not there for these kids to be taking the risk for the benefit of society – they just simply are not. The risk/benefit to them and the benefit to society just do not match up. If this was a much more deadly disease – or other issues that were different – that may change the calculus.

 

One thing that would change the calculus that is being trumpeted to the heavens today as I have pointed out – is if there was evidence that leaving them unvaccinated would cause them to be a reservoir. The fact that these vaccines appear to be NON STERILIZING ( not stopping transmission) in the real world makes that point completely mute. But it is getting real mileage out there today.

 

That is why I asked for EVIDENCE PLEASE of that assertion.

 

I hate to say this – but say it I must. I have sat and watched the Pharma industry lie, manipulate, pretty up and just make up statistical numbers for 30 years of my life. In every conceivable way. I have sat through hours of journal clubs and gatherings to discuss this with colleagues. Medical statistics and epidemiology – are very very difficult to learn and apply (lots of confounding) – but because of the presence of certain statistical methods are very easy for marketing firms to really manipulate. THEY ARE DOING THIS NOW IN SPADES. This time, it is not just for an audience of doctors – it is for the whole country. Certainly, people in the media know this – and know exactly what Pharma is doing – but the marketing and manipulation just keeps flowing out to the public.

 

I have just about given up.