june 2021 (Covid1984)

JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMay2020 here

This is a chronology not based on the date the information was published but based on the date  I received it.

It should be clear that I am not  in accord with the ideological aspects of the content of many of the articles I link to.

21/6/21:

Another conversation removed by Youtube

This is a link to a three-person conversation about the vaccines, which includes Robert Malone – the person who invented the mRNA vaccine technology – the full version of which was deleted by Youtube. It has a very silly off-putting title (“How to save the world in three easy steps”) but, despite that, it’s content is interesting. This seems to be mainly about side effects of the vaccines, as well as the beneficial effects of ivermectin. I’ve not yet watched the whole of this (it’s over 3 hours long) but in the first half an hour (you could start at 11 minutes in and not really lose anything useful), amongst other things, I learnt that:

Facebook censors all mention of adverse side effects;

the vaccines were not tested on animals, until very recently, when rats, rather than primates, have been used;

that the spike protein, unlike with other vaccines, does not stay  where the needle is jabbed (say, in the shoulder) but travels throughout the body hence effecting the heart, brain etc.

even reporting of adverse side effects of the vaccine to the official US body for such reporting, get censored, withdrawn without the reporting doctors’ consent;

UK stats on “adverse effects” are at least 100 times worse than the reports of adverse effects from flu vaccines (though there may be other reasons for this: not sure if this is relative to the amount of people being vaccinated or is an absolute  figure; also, adverse effects following flu vaccines may be even more under-reported than those form the Covid vaccines).

This discussion also talks about some of this:

Letter from doctor listing possible “adverse effects” of vaccine in UK

Almost everyone (pro-vax, anti-vax or vax-sceptic) agrees that  there’s no proof of a connection between these deaths and miserable symptoms and the vaccine. Maybe, but, as far as I can see and from what I’ve heard, there has been no attempt to examine if there is a relation between the vast majority of these deaths and other possible “adverse effects” and the vaccine.  As the evolutionary biologist in the discussion above points out, proving an individual’s  death by cancer as being caused by tobacco smoking took decades in the courts before a positive connection could be proved. With the Covid vaccines there’s not  even any attempt to find proof of a connection or the lack of a connection. Moreover, these are only “adverse effects” that have been reported. In the US, an official body claimed that it’s possible that as little as 1% of symptoms of illness and even deaths following vaccines are even reported.  And on top of that some reports are being removed from the list of reports without even the consent of the doctors who reported them.

This, referring to the above, says “Lawrie told TrialSite the system is incredibly “opaque”, that is, not transparent. She shared that the researchers aren’t able to cross-reference safety incidents by age, gender, or other data attributes. “

Sent by email –  translation of a post by Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz, 21/06/2021:

Look, a bird!

Last night, before I fell asleep, I read a bit about this rare and
life-threatening phenomenon – TTP, which Yolan suddenly tweeted about
last night, that none other by a joint research by Assaf Harofeh
hospital, Ichilov hospital and Tel Aviv University indicates that it
“may be related to the vaccine”. After all, how can there be a disease,
and a life-threatening one, that is related to the vaccine? After all,
except for a little inflammation in the heart muscle in young people,
which is really nothing and goes away very quickly with a bit of
antibiotics, none of the catastrophes we’ve seen are related to the
vaccine – that’s what the media told us.

I went and read about TTP – which is a blood disease that manifests
itself in hypercoagulability and a decrease in the number of platelets
in the blood, and as a result leads to a tendency to bleed and at the
same time may also lead to a tendency to clots – because Camilla Canepa,
a beautiful 18-year-old girl from Liguria, Italy died nine days after
being vaccinated – and her death description sounds just like TTP.

The surgeon who operated on Camila said in astonishment that it was
“something we’ve never seen before, it’s not normal!”. The Genoa
prosecutor, who is coordinating the NAS Carabinieri investigations
(which is like our 433 unit), ordered Pavia’s coroner to perform an
autopsy on Camilla’s body.

The Italian media, just like their counterparts in Israel, suddenly
shouted “what are you talking about? it’s not from the vaccine at all.
The girl was suffering from a chronic platelet deficiency – ‘familial
autoimmune thrombocytopenia’, they claimed. But Camila’s family is not
going to keep quiet about this lie. “Camilla had no illness,” their
lawyer, Angelo Fauna, made it clear. And this is also what the
pathological autopsy eventually showed – that the extensive bleeding
that led to Camilla’s death was indeed related to the vaccine.

Dr. Gianluigi Zona, the director of the neurosurgical department who
operated on her, said he had never seen a brain in such a catastrophic
condition, with such extensive and severe thrombosis. Attempts to open
the skull to drain the blood flow caused by the thrombosis and relieve
the intracranial pressure were to no avail because the bleeding was too
extensive.

“All the venous sinuses were blocked by thrombosis, a scenario I had
never seen in many years in my profession,” he said. “I’m not a
virologist nor an epidemiologist or a coroner, but given the image I saw
in the girl’s brain, it’s clear we’re dealing with something abnormal.”

Attempts to open the skull to drain the blood flow caused by the
thrombosis and relieve the intracranial pressure were to no avail
because the bleeding was too diffuse.

And indeed,
I fell asleep with the computer open on the articles about Camilla and
the TTP, and woke up in the morning with the insight – that actually
this sudden admission that there is a connection between the vaccine and
the TTP as Yolan said, is nothing more than “look, a bird!”
“Look, a bird!” of a phenomenon that is probably really related to the
vaccine, but rare enough not to harm Prof. Ash’s [Israel’s Virus Czar –
Tal] announcement yesterday that the Ministry of Health is once again
making a U-turn, and instead of “allowing” 12-15 year olds to get
vaccinated, they are now back to their original plot – “recommending”
them to get vaccinated. Because it was clear from the beginning that
this was what they would do when they will not succeed in the campaign –
they will engineer an event of positive PCR tests in some schools, and
there you go – what dread!

“Look, a bird!” to confuse us and divert our attention from myocarditis
as well, which is much much more common than TTP and occurs mainly in
young people – probably much more common than the authorities are
willing to admit, and from the number of deaths in young people and
children in Israel and around the world in recent days.

“Look, a bird!” to divert our eyes away from their real goal – to push
parents to vaccinate their children and confuse them enough not to
notice that they could be sentencing them to death. And they were not
satisfied with the “recommendation” but have already started the
campaign claiming that voila, already 1000 children have been
“registered” to get vaccinated, so come on, what are you waiting for?
you will also register soon.

Stay focused on the goal dear parents. Do not be tempted by this
campaign of fear. Take good care of your children. No one will do it for
you.

Why Has “Ivermectin” Become a Dirty Word?

On December 8, 2020…the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on the “Medical Response to Covid-19.” One of the witnesses, a pulmonologist named Dr. Pierre Kory, insisted he had great news. “We have a solution to this crisis,” he said unequivocally. …Kory was referring to an FDA-approved medicine called ivermectin. A genuine wonder drug in other realms, ivermectin has all but eliminated parasitic diseases like river blindness and elephantiasis, helping discoverer Satoshi Ōmura win the Nobel Prize in 2015. As far as its uses in the pandemic went, however, research was still scant. Could it really be a magic Covid-19 bullet? Kory had been trying to make such a case, but complained to the Senate that public efforts had been stifled, because “every time we mention ivermectin, we get put in Facebook jail.” A Catch-22 seemed to be ensnaring science. With the world desperate for news about an unprecedented disaster, Silicon Valley had essentially decided to disallow discussion of a potential solution — disallow calls for more research and more study — because not enough research and study had been done. Once, people weren’t allowed to take drugs before they got FDA approval. Now, they can’t talk about them.…”

Report by French senators proposes to remotely deactivate transport subscriptions, geolocate citizens and remove access to bank accounts in the event of a crisis

“…In France, three members of the Senate’s “Delegation for Forward Planning” submitted a report a few days ago with very surprising contents. The elected representatives suggest creating a real surveillance society in the event of a new major crisis, by closely monitoring the actions of citizens and significantly restricting their individual freedoms.

It is not a law, nor even a bill, just a report. This document was presented on 3 June. The rapporteurs, René-Paul Savary, Véronique Guillotin and Christine Lavarde (all from the right) suggest setting up a platform that can be activated in the event of a new crisis, such as a health crisis. The politicians say that “if necessary, more intrusive measures should be taken, but also more targeted and limited in time”.

Selected excerpts from the Crisis Data Hub imagined by the three suit-wearing prospectors:

Here are a few extracts of the kind of rejoicing proposed by these senators in the event of a “new health crisis”, but also – why deprive ourselves? – in the event of a natural or industrial disaster, or a terrorist attack”. This of course represents more the fantasy of managerial efficiency of these three soft heads than the current reality in Europe. But it also says a lot about some short/medium term state possibilities (including partially or in the name of any new “state of emergency” or disaster), since many individuals are already all-acquired to voluntary technological servitude and willing to sacrifice many of their formal freedoms to Daddy-State in the name of illusory security and comfort… and that all these electronic control devices already technically exist.

(page 59)

“Finally, in the most extreme crisis situations, digital tools could make it possible to exercise effective, exhaustive and real-time control of the population’s compliance with restrictions, with dissuasive sanctions if necessary, and based on an even more derogatory use of personal data.

These tools are the most effective, but also the most intrusive on freedoms – but once again, it would be irresponsible not to at least consider them, if only to convince oneself to do everything upstream not to reach this point.

There are many possible uses, including

– Movement control: electronic bracelets to monitor compliance with quarantine, deactivation of passes for public transport, automatic detection of number plates by speed cameras, gantries in shops, thermal cameras in restaurants etc;

– Health monitoring, via connected objects whose use would be compulsory this time, and whose data would be used for monitoring purposes;

– The control of social contacts, for example visiting a vulnerable member of the family when you are contagious;

– Transaction monitoring, e.g. to impose an automatic fine, to detect a medical purchase (which may suggest either contamination or smuggling in times of shortage), or the illegal pursuit of a professional activity (trade etc.) despite restrictions. ”

(page 132-133)

“The problem can be summarised as follows: if we want to save human lives in the future and avoid putting economic and social life under a bell at each new crisis, we will inevitably have to rely on massive and derogatory data crossings. It is impossible to know a priori what data might be useful in the face of a new crisis, since this depends on its nature (an epidemic, a natural or industrial disaster, etc.), its intensity, its geographical extension (local, national, international) and the political acceptability of the measures, on a case-by-case basis. Only the data relating to the identification of individuals and their geolocation seem to constitute a common denominator for all possible cases.

However, nothing would be worse than improvisation, which is both ineffective and potentially much more detrimental to individual freedoms, which are less easy to ‘protect’ in an emergency. In these circumstances, this report therefore proposes not to collect a multitude of sensitive data of hypothetical utility, but simply to put ourselves in a position to do so, so to speak, at the touch of a button, should circumstances require it. In concrete terms, this means setting up a specific secure platform, which would only be activated in times of crisis. ”

For those who would like to read this 148-page Information Report made on behalf of the Senate’s Forward Studies Delegation, published on 3 June 2021, which studies what is being done in China or Estonia, while developing the concrete measures to be taken in France with a view to this future Crisis Data Hub, it is here:

“Health crises and digital tools: responding effectively to regain our freedoms

https://www.senat.fr/fileadmin/Fichiers/Images/delegation/prospective/PRO_Rapport_numerique_pandemies.pdf

Covid-19: a Senate report recommends the collection of personal data to prevent health crises

Public Sénat, 3 June 2021 (extracts)

“One of the lessons to be learned from the health crisis is the complexity of developing tools without generating anxiety”. This was the observation made by Mathieu Darnaud, chairman of the Senate’s forward-looking delegation, when he presented his report on the use of digital tools in the prevention and management of pandemics. The work of the members of the High Assembly aims to anticipate the occurrence of new health crises by making more intensive use of digital tools, “assuming, if necessary, more intrusive measures, but also more targeted and limited in time”, explain the rapporteurs René-Paul Savary, Véronique Guillotin and Christine Lavarde.

This digital platform, named Crisis Data Hub, in reference to the Health Data Hub, would also allow for experimentation at the local level, for a more proportional and territorialised approach to the crisis, which was slow to be put in place at the time of the covid crisis. The rapporteurs imagine several scenarios depending on the scale of the epidemic: information and coordination tools for a “moderate” crisis, tools for calling people to order (such as sending an SMS) in the event of a more serious situation, and stronger measures for extreme cases, with, for example, the deactivation of the transport ticket or bank accounts of a person who violates the quarantine.

“We are not proposing to limit freedoms, we are looking for a way to regain them,” say the senators, who point to a “French taboo” related to the collection of personal data.

“We collect data all the time, just by using our smartphones,” said Christine Lavarde. “The idea, for citizens, is that this temporary abandonment of their personal data should allow them to recover, as soon as possible, their individual freedom. “We think that we need to be one step ahead of the crisis, to look further ahead and to be able to open this necessary debate. We need to talk about it, and once this system is organised in calm seas, we need to see how to press this or that button in order to recover this or that data”, explains Véronique Guillotin.

And René-Paul Savary concludes: “The French contradiction is that the GAFA have a certain amount of our data, we accept it, but we don’t want to entrust our data when the time comes to protect ourselves and others. Mentalities must change and this must be done in times of peace, not in times of crisis. ”

“Crisis Data Hub”: senators’ proposal for better use of digital technology in times of crisis

Le quotidien du médecin, 4 June 2021

The use of digital technologies in the management of a crisis such as the current pandemic is no longer an option for the senators of the Delegation for Forward Studies, who unveiled on 3 June the unique proposal resulting from their work: the creation of a “Crisis Data Hub” to ensure the collection of nominative data and their use.

This digital platform, which could be activated in times of crisis, would enable the centralisation of “useful data” and their redistribution to “actors who need them to fulfil their missions” (health establishments, civil security, forces of law and order, local authorities, public transport, service providers etc.). In order to “stop improvising” in an emergency, it would be necessary to have a “toolbox” that could be activated “when the time comes”, explained René-Paul Savary, member of the Delegation, during a press briefing…

The senators make a harsh assessment of the measures put in place during the health crisis in France. While they hail the “great creativity” that made it possible to create the SI-DEP, Contact-Covid and Vaccin-Covid files, they deplore the “somewhat chaotic” beginnings, but especially the lack of interconnection. “It is impossible to know, for example, whether a person’s “contact cases” have actually been contaminated, or whether they have been vaccinated,” they note, before asking: “Is it normal for a 24-year-old computer scientist, Guillaume Rozier, to do better than Santé publique France with his CovidTracker, and better than the Assurance-maladie with ViteMaDose? ”

Beyond the technical problems, the senators point out that in France there is a “deep mistrust of digital technology as soon as it involves the State or public authorities”. They deplore a paradox where “the slightest cross-referencing of files gives rise to endless controversy”, while citizens hand over their data to private actors on a daily basis. They also criticise the National Commission for Information Technology and Civil Liberties (CNIL) and its interpretation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is “much more conservative than that of our European neighbours”.

The aim of their proposal is therefore to prepare a system capable of carrying out “massive and derogatory data crossings”. According to them, “the countries that have made the most use of these tools are also those that have, by far, had the fewest deaths”. It is therefore necessary to “resort to more intrusive technologies, but very targeted and limited in time, in exchange for a faster return to freedom”….

The creation of a “Crisis Data Hub” should thus make it possible to mobilise data useful for crisis management. In particular, it would be possible to cross-reference medical data with geolocation data, but also to mobilise data produced by private companies (telephone operators, transport companies, financial institutions, etc.).

The activation of the system will have to comply with a principle of “proportionality”, depending on the seriousness of the threat. Several cases of use are envisaged. In the case of a “moderate” crisis, where “braking” measures would be necessary to avoid overloading hospitals, the use of digital technology could be “limited to a few well thought-out information and coordination tools”. In the event of a greater threat, the system could allow “an automatic text message to be sent to any individual who wanders away from home during the curfew”. In extreme cases, “any violation of the quarantine could lead to real-time notification of the police, deactivation of the offender’s transport ticket or means of payment, or even a fine deducted automatically from the offender’s bank account, as is the case with speed cameras”.

Outside the context of an epidemic, activation could be envisaged “in the event of a natural or industrial disaster”, “in the event of a terrorist or bioterrorist attack”, for alerts inviting people to take iodine tablets or in the event of falling space debris.

In order to ensure the trust of citizens, the senators set two conditions as a guarantee of transparency: open source development of the platform and open data publication of aggregated data. They also invite a “cold” debate on this issue, allowing the CNIL “to establish a prior authorisation doctrine for each device” and the ANSSI (National Agency for Information Systems Security) to guarantee the security of the device.”

17/6/21:

France: mask wearing outside now legalised, except for specific circumstancescurfew to end on Sunday 20th June

Already this report in May about masks worn outside said “scientists now agree that the possibility of contamination by SARS-CoV-2 is very limited outdoors, while enclosed spaces are more threatening. Epidemiologist Antoine Flahault even describes this risk as “extremely marginal”. “In the outdoor environment, aerosols [micro-droplets potentially containing the virus, editor’s note] exist but they dilute in the atmosphere very quickly. I don’t think there is any risk, except in the theoretical case of someone spitting on you nearby,” says the director of the Institute of Global Health at the University of Geneva. A staunch “ayatollah of the indoor mask”, he considers that imposing it outdoors is “nonsense”. In Ireland, for example, only 0.1% of positive cases originate from outdoor activities (building sites, sports, etc.), according to the Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC), reports the Irish Times.”” So this legalisation effectively is an admission of the whole pointlessness of masks worn outside (mandatory since August 2020 in France), which various bits of research back in autumn 2020 were also saying.  As for the end of curfew – this may well be because of the tourist season coming up. Of course, curfew was so obviously a means of social control (as if Covid was more dangerous after dark), that now withdrawing it is an implicit admission of its inherent function.  At the same time, both outdoor mask-wearing and curfew have been increasingly flouted and the cops have been less and less interested in trying to enforce them, so these too are factors in this legalisation: a general disrespect for  one law can lead to a general questioning of the function of laws, and that would never do.

16/6/21:

Serious violations and manipulations of trial protocol: How Pfizer obtained FDA emergency authorization for children

Same article also published on the America’s Frontline Doctors website:
https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/frontlinenews/serious-violations-and-manipulations-of-trial-protocol-how-pfizer-obtained-fda-emergency-authorization-for-children/

Analysis and comparison of the review document submitted by Pfizer to the US Food and Drug Administration, on the basis of which the FDA gave the green light to expand the emergency permit for vaccination also for children aged 12-15, as opposed to the study protocol in children, reveal concerning findings,  including violations of the protocol established by Pfizer itself, and no less serious, designing the trial protocol in a way that will allow the company to present as positive findings as possible in terms of vaccine safety in children….According to the review document submitted by Pfizer to the FDA, four of the 1,131 children in the study arm who received Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine suffered from serious adverse events (“SAEs”) – that is, events in which at least one criterion was met: caused death, is life-threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent disability/incapacity, or congenital anomaly/birth defect. Of these four children, three had such severe depression that they were hospitalized shortly after vaccination (in the first 7 days after the first dose, in the second only one day after the second dose, and in the third 15 days after the first dose, respectively)….if Pfizer were so negligent that they included subjects with a psychiatric background in the experiment – contrary to the protocol they themselves established – it means that the subjects’ well-being is not their main concern. As Pfizer itself notes in the protocol: such a background may increase the risk of study participation. And if they do not adhere to ethics in recruiting subjects, who can assure us that they adhere to ethics in other sections of the study – for example, analysis of results?”

Re. Fauci’s emails:

Apparently amongst Fauci’s emails now in the public domain, some US scientists said that HCQ was effective against Covid, but Fauci didn’t respond at all; also of interest is the fact that Delfraissy, France’s equivalent of Fauci, talks of his resistance from various doctors, who found HCQ + azythromycine effective, to allow HCQ to be used against Covid in France. This is not particularly of interest in itself but is of interest when you discover that Delfraissy pushed for the purchase and use of the truly useless and dangerous remdesivir (condemned by the W.H.O back in November 2020), which had already been held suspect during the Ebola epidemic years previously, when it caused severe heart problems, including heart attacks.

The politics of large numbers

Translation of anarchist article about the reduction of individuals to statistics and numbers during this Covid epoch.

15/6/21:

Lancet article from September 2020 says this is not a pandemic buta syndemic

“Two categories of disease are interacting within specific populations—infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and an array of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). These conditions are clustering within social groups according to patterns of inequality deeply embedded in our societies. The aggregation of these diseases on a background of social and economic disparity exacerbates the adverse effects of each separate disease. COVID-19 is not a pandemic. It is a syndemic. The syndemic nature of the threat we face means that a more nuanced approach is needed if we are to protect the health of our communities….A syndemic is not merely a comorbidity. Syndemics are characterised by biological and social interactions between conditions and states, interactions that increase a person’s susceptibility to harm or worsen their health outcomes. In the case of COVID-19, attacking NCDs will be a prerequisite for successful containment. As our recently published NCD Countdown 2030 showed, although premature mortality from NCDs is falling, the pace of change is too slow. The total number of people living with chronic diseases is growing. Addressing COVID-19 means addressing hypertension, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases, and cancer.”

11/6/21:

UK: recent statistics of deaths of those vaccinated

This is from an email from a friend who copied this from a “breaking news” clip which has not been repeated. It seems that weekly figures are given out officially but precise daily figures, which connect to who’s been vaccinated and who hasn’t amongst cases and those who died don’t exist in any precise form on a daily basis. She writes:

“There have been 42 deaths from Covid in England since 7th June. About half the people were unvaccinated BUT nearly a third had had both vaccinations and yet the government is insisting that having both doses protects against the Delta variant. The remaining deaths were people who had had one dose so basically 50% died despite the vaccination. If you then take into account that 43% of the population are vaccinated, it’s not much of a stretch to come to the conclusion that it makes little or no difference.”

France, Toulouse: clashes between cops and those wanting to just enjoy drinking outside after beginning of Covid-imposed 11pm curfew

The curfew has bit by bit been moved back from 6pm to 11pm because the virus only attacks early in the evening outside the tourist season.

Paris: partygoers in post-curfew clashes with cops

“Police used tear gas to disperse hundreds of people – mostly minors – who gathered on Friday night for a giant party on the Esplanade des Invalides, in central Paris. Meanwhile, 10 km to the west, tennis fans were granted a curfew reprieve to watch the end of the French Open semi-final. Images published on social media showed crowds of teenagers singing, dancing and drinking without wearing face masks – as required by French law. The revellers had been responding to call put out on social media to hold an impromptu “Project X” party, named after the American film in which teenagers throw a party that spirals out of control. “We danced, and did pogos (jumping in all directions)… There were hundreds and hundreds of people. We must have been at least 1,000 or 1,500.”Another partygoer, Emma, added: “The lawns were full. It had been a long time since we had a party because of the Covid and we really needed it.” Police intervened when the party went beyond 11pm, in violation of a nationwide curfew to stem the spread of Covid-19. Meanwhile a few kilometres west of Les Invalides, at the French Open tennis tournament, the curfew was waived for fans watching Friday night’s semi-final between Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal. Around 20 minutes before the 11pm deadline, Roland Garros authorities announced that spectators would be allowed to remain throughout the duration of the fiercely contested match, which was eventually won by Novak Djokovic 3-6, 6-3, 7-6 (4), 6-2. Tournament organisers said the decision was made as a result of the “completely exceptional circumstances”.

One law for the proles, another for the costly ticket-paying tennis spectators.

10/6/21:

Indian Minister of Health and Chairman of the WHO Executive Board, has decided on a total blackout on news about vaccines in India from today

It is forbidden to know what is going on with the vaccine: vaccination information “is the property of the central ministry and should not be shared with any other organization, partner agency, press agency, public online forums and offline ”.

This article in French is mainly about ivermectin, and says this about India:

Another miracle is the day after day confirmation of what happened in India, in the states which used Ivermectin, with very rapid resolution of a wave announced by all the media as a disaster that was going to wreak havoc, the media which has since been silent on what is happening. Total blackout. Uttar Pradesh has fallen to less than 1000 cases / day, population 3 times the size of France, which would make 300 cases here, at a time when we are happy to go below 5,000 cases / day! Ditto in states like Delhi and Goa. These 3 states have reduced the cases by 98% compared to the peak at the end of April (37,000 cases for Uttar Pradesh, 28,000 for Delhi).

Since then there has been war in this country between the various national medical authorities under pressure from the WHO and Merck, with press releases authorizing or banning ivermectin. They have gone mad to see these results, but the responsible states do not budge and maintain their position. The Ministry of Health, after authorizing in a protocol, wants to now ban all early treatment. It should be noted in passing that the Minister of Health has been President of the WHO Executive Boardsince May 2020, and that the WHO immediately issued statements to advise against Ivermectin from the start of treatment, a complaint has also been made. filed on this subject, non-assistance to a person in danger is characterized. We then received a statement from the WHO congratulating itself on having intervened in this state to reduce the epidemic, by supervising 2,000 teams and distributing treatment kits, being careful not to say what was in them. Ivermectin, of course, but this product does not exist for the WHO. And more recently, we were treated to another victory press releaseafter the supposed ban (not yet very clear). The WHO, which congratulates itself when we do not give treatment, welcomes the ban on the treatments it has distributed. Incredible !

Finally, a quick comparison between a country that uses ivermectin, and a country that refuses it so as not to interfere with its vaccination campaign.

The figures are from Johns Hopkins University, they are the daily figures averaged over 7 days to avoid weekend breaks. These figures are reported per million inhabitants, to compare 2 countries with unequal populations. We can also see that the Indian wave, as I said since the first day, is much lower in intensity than what France was experiencing. We also see that ivermectin worked well on the Indian variant. Finally, some will tell you that the Indian figures are understated; if this is the case, it is of no importance here to follow an evolution over several months, the collection conditions being the same over the entire period. “

Apparently ivermectin costs the state 10 euros for 15 kilos of the medicine. The daily dose per person depends on their weight – 0.2 milligrams per kilo. Which would, for someone weighing 80 kilos,  cost the state (admittedly before packaging etc.) just 1.6 euros for 10,000 days’ supply (or, more rationally, less than half a cent for 30 days’ supply or, even more logically since the disease can be cured in considerably less than 30 days, 0.16 cents for 10 days) . Ivermectin was discovered and developed by Satoshi Omurai who received a  Nobel prize for it in 2015.

PCR tests useless if you’re asymptomatic

9/6/21:

May 11th video of Raoult reveals various significant cases of bribery and corruption amongst pharmaceutical companies

Gilead, the creator of the toxic and useless drug remdesivir (which the EU paid a billion euros for trying to cure 500,000 Covid-infected patients at 2000 euros per person) was fined $97million in September 2020 for paying kickbacks (though not for remdesivir). Pfizer was fined $60m. by US regulators for bribing doctors and government officials in eastern Europe, Asia and  in the Middle East in the decade up until 2006. AstraZeneca paid out $5.52m in August 2016 in a foreign bribery case involving improper payments by its sales and marketing staff to state employed health officials in China and Russia.  In September 2014 officials of the Chinese branch of GlaxoSmithKline pleaded guilty to paying bribes to doctors and hospitals to promote the company’s products in China; fined 1.14 billion euros. Regardless of what you think of Raoult, he presents papers proving this.

8/6/21:

Article showing how healthy user bias produces confusing results in vaccine safety research (a pre-Covid article from October 2015, which is sometimes difficult to grasp for a layman like me)

7/6/21:

Article by doctor looking at various studies comes to conclusion that questions the validity of cloth facemasks inside

“…let’s get to the twelve studies looking at how effective masks are in a community setting. … Seven of these studies, with a total of 5,535 participants, were looking at families in which one person had a respiratory infection. In some of them the sick person wore a mask, in some of them the other family members wore a mask, and in some of them, everybody wore masks. Unfortunately, it didn’t seem to matter who was wearing the mask, none of these studies found any difference in rate of infection between those households in which people were wearing a face mask and the households in which noone was wearing a mask. One explanation could be the low rate of adherence. Only 30-50% of participants were wearing the masks as directed, which I guess is understandable. People want to be able to relax when they’re in their own homes, and they want to be intimate with sick loved ones. …these seven studies don’t tell us that much, but they suggest that there isn’t any point in anyone wearing a mask at home when a member of the household is sick. ..Of all the studies in the review, there were two that looked at healthy university students in dorm rooms during influenza season. The two studies both lasted for six weeks and included 1,683 people. 765 were directed to wear surgical masks as much as possible, and the other 918 were a control group that didn’t wear masks at all. In practice, “as much as possible” meant four hours per day in one study, and five hours per day in the other study. This isn’t great, but I guess it’s hard to get people to wear masks more than that. The reason I think these studies are “best” is because they are the ones most relevant to the covid pandemic, where healthy people in a non-hospital setting are being told to wear masks as much as possible. … so what conclusions can we draw from all these studies? First of all, when it comes to preventing the spread of respiratory infections, N-95 masks might be better than surgical face masks, and surgical face masks are probably better than cloth masks. In fact, cloth masks may not provide any protection at all! So if you’re going to wear a mask, wear a surgical mask or an N-95. Secondly, if you or someone in your household is sick, you probably don’t need to bother wearing a mask at home. The infection will spread at the same rate within the household regardless. If there is a member of a high risk group living in the household, i.e. someone over the age of 70 with serious co-morbidities (and that individual isn’t the one who is sick), then it might make sense for either that person to spend the next week somewhere else, or for the sick individual to do so. Thirdly, face masks do seem to slightly decrease the risk of spreading respiratory infections outside the household setting. However, it is questionable whether an intervention that only impacts one in 24 people, and that only decreases the relative risk of infection by 17%, is having a big enough effect to noticeably slow the speed at which a highly infectious disease like covid-19 spreads through a population. Rather than require that everyone wear a mask at all times when out in public, it might make more sense to restrict mask use to specific situations, for example when interacting with high risk groups in nursing homes (and in those situations to combine the masks with face shields to create a maximally impervious barrier), especially considering that for people below the age of 70 who are otherwise healthy, the risks connected with covid are tiny.”

The comments section of this article has this interesting post: “About 2 months ago there was a publication from an Italian M.D who worked at one of the emergency rooms in the Milano area, where he stated that the ”lesson learned” was that unfortunately there had died a lot of elderly and weak patients, due to the mask policy. The reason was that wearing a mask increases the CO2 level substantially inside the mask, thereby decreasing the O2 level, you also increase the breathing resistance by having a mask in front of your mouth, which if you’re old, weak and have preexisting conditions will be very hard on your body, potentially creating a cytokine storm, besides the Coronavirus is much smaller than the fibermask in the mask, making it like trying to keep a mosquito outside with a fence.”

Article on Vitamin D

“Vitamin D isn’t going to magically make you immune to respiratory infections, but it will likely decrease the frequency with which you get them by a bit if you are not deficient, and by a lot if you are deficient. “

Review of a book called ”Vaccines: truth, lies, and controversy” written by Peter Gotsche which is neither pro- nor anti-vaccine

Sample quote from one of the comments boxes:

“I am a nurse in the US. I am part of the medical establishment. I can’t begin to describe the profound sense of betrayal I feel. Medical professionals engaging in peer pressure. Suddenly if you express the slightest doubt on an issue, you are ostracized. At my hospital, people aren’t really talking about the vaccine much. It has gone silent. This of us who have concerns about the Covid vaccines text each other or only whisper in vacant rooms or supply closets. Seriously. It sounds ludicrous – it wasn’t like this two years ago. People could have different opinions. Not now”

South Africa: Abahlali baseMjondolo press statement

During the lockdown more than a third of people went hungry. Yet in that national crisis R14 billion was stolen from funds allocated to the Covid-19 emergency. At the same time the poor and the working class were severely abused by the police and the army, and sometimes killed. Our movement suffered relentless violent and illegal attacks state attacks. We got plenty of rubber bullets and some live ammunition fired at us by the state but, like freedom, the tiny R350 Covid grant didn’t reach the shacks.”

6/6/21:

Israel: vaccine may cause myocarditis in some young men

Interesting  discussion between American evolutionary biologist and American doctor about current situation, ivermectin (and its history) and the vaccines

This video stayed up for a few days until Youtube decided it violated their Big Brother “community guidelines”.  But there’s a podcast downloadable podcast version here 

Sample quote:

Doctor: “There were four patients. We knew they were clotting to degrees that we hadn’t seen and there was so much controversy around putting someone on a blood thinner…people are put on blood thinners in hospitals for far less resons than we were promoting with this and so it was just evidence-based maniacism…bizarre…You can’t observe, you can’t make clinical reasoning, you can’t deduce, you need a trial before you do anything”

Biologist: “This is exactly the same in my field. People who are really good at evolutionary biology or ecologists…have intuition, they know how to follow a hunch, they know how to figure out when their hunches are wrong…The point is it’s an art more than a science actually and in the case of a brand-new pandemic that is spreading like wildfire this is of course exactly the mindset that you want. You want people who are capable of figuring out if there is some pattern and then deduce whether they were fooled by some sort of noise-pattern or whether it was actually something, testing  a hypothesis but there is a point at which you know and you know better than a study because you’ve acted on that hunch and you’ve seen patients get better and it happens enough times that it can’t be random…Anyway, there’s something about the mindset of the moment – it’s all about peer review…and it’s all about the official guidance from the W.H.O. and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]  and it’s basically a kind of intellectual authoritarianism that is so bizarre in the context of a complex system like medicine especially in the context of a brand-new disease that we’re all not experts in. There are no experts that we can simply default to. Everybody’s anomalous.”

Doctor: “I like that term ‘intellectual authoritarianism’. I don’t know if it was occurring to that degree or remotely to that degree pre-Covid…I started to see all the institutions coming out with their treatment protocols – you weren’t allowed to stray from the protocol…suddenly I felt like I was being handcuffed…it was bizarre – I’ve never seen that in  my life before.”

Biologist: “I have the sense that doctors have been demoted – forcibly demoted – from the position of scientific clinician to technician and the point is you’re really delivering a pre-packaged good more than you are coming to understand your patient and what they therefore need – and it’s a travesty.”

Doctor:  “I’ve never been asked to do that before. I’ve always been asked to use to the best extent my experience, my judgement and insight to best help the patient. That’s the oath I took. The oath wasn’t “Do what the Gods of Science and Knowledge say.”. We’ just little mortals and we have to listen to the Gods. I’ve never been asked that before…Many of them are just desk jockeys – I mean they’re not on the frontlines. They’re reading some papers, they think they know what the disease is, they don’t know what the disease is, they’re not sweating it out, seeing day-to-day the manifestations, the responses to therapy, the lack of responses, they don’t understand this disease and yet they’re telling everyone how to treat it. We want a seat the table, expert clinicians – where’s the expert clinician committee?”

This is illustrative of  the developing proletarianisation of the medical middle class , with all the contradictions of its middle class complaints and angst,  which are very valid whilst at the same time also failing to recognise how this proletarianisation is, and has long been, replicated amongst those who are lower in the hierarchy, even if often very different ways. Of course, one must add that this is not proletarianisation in any financial sense, at least as yet, nor probably in the forseeable future.

3/6/21:

Professor of immunology interview reveals scary aspects of messenger RNA

He says that a large majority of mRNA spike proteins, which have now been shown to be toxic,  get into the bloodstream and can infect various parts of the body (brain, heart, etc) but also can be passed onto others through blood transfusions, and even through breastfeeding, potentially causing bleeding in babies, and, through infection in the ovaries, possibly causing infertility.

2/6/21:

Holland: anarchist reflection on anti-curfew riots of January

Belgian article on PCR tests 

Written by a former President of the Ethics Committee and of the Commission for Medical Ethics within the Belgian Department of Defence, in charge of the relations with the Order of Physicians between 1997 and 2004, former Scientific Director and Head of the Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, researcher in Molecular Biology and Biophysics; he was an advisor/expert for the Belgian authorities, the EU and the UN.

A selection of quotes from this long and sometimes complex article:

“…a positive PCR does not automatically equate to an infection…To be sick with a virus, measuring a dozen or millions of viruses per measurement – and PCR does this – means nothing if you don’t understand the notion of the infection threshold. Indeed, each virus has a different threshold for making us ill; for hepatitis B this threshold is very low, but for HIV it is higher. For SARS2 we need about one million particles per millilitre in our bronchial tubes to become infected and ill…If these tests are repeated with too many cycles, the results become random and non-specific and are no longer reliable: i.e. the SAME sample could be positive once, negative once… so the test gives no valid information…A positive PCR does not equate to a contagious person…If we test NON-symptomatic people, we are therefore six times more likely to find a positive but non-contagious PCR test than a positive and contagious one. Even if we take a safety margin of a factor of two (the possible contagion period is eight days), we are still four times more likely to have a positive but non-contagious PCR test. In this case, we can say that only 25% of the tests correctly indicate a risk of contagion. The SARS-CoV 2 virus remains in our body for weeks after the disease is over – so we are no longer contagious at that time…  this non-contagious period is 4-6 times longer than the contagious period! If the “window” for concluding that someone is “dangerous to others” is a few days, then the chance of getting it wrong – i.e. having a positive test while being non-contagious – is obviously much greater…With the necessary hindsight, it is difficult to estimate the proportion of correct tests compared to incorrect ones, as this would have required a systematic correlation between PCR, symptoms and serological tests [which are tests that measure antibodies in the blood of people who are actually infected] – something that was apparently not done…if the residence period of the virus in the body is 4 to 6 times shorter than the period of contagion, we could deduce that a significant proportion of these tests do not reflect a risk of contagion at all. It is therefore high time to stop the war of figures on this subject – especially when people with no symptoms are being tested en masse – and admit that we don’t know…why present these tests as the only possibility of measurement? This raises questions. … a third problem with these PCR tests: the huge financial stakes…At a rate of 600-2000 tests per day at peak for a small lab [data independently checked by telephone], and at a price of 47 Euros, this is a lot of money. How much is it? And for a large university lab or private companies? How much? We would have to analyse of course, but it would not be surprising to reach figures of several hundred million euros just for small Belgium and for PCRs. All this money for tests that help us so little and allow us to justify this medical, social and economic suicide in an ad hoc manner?… PCR is a powerful tool for diagnostic confirmation if you are ill with symptoms. But – as the WHO points out – we have to be very careful in our conclusions if we test people who are not sick or without symptoms….tracing does not give a correct picture of the spread of this virus (and outdoor contact will be safe compared to contact in a closed environment) …the vast majority of contaminations take place within family bubbles and closed environments and not outside….asymptomatic people – even if they are PCR positive – emit very little virus (which is logical because they are not ill and therefore do not cough!) and that their rate of contagiousness is almost zero. … In British Columbia, there was a pseudo-epidemic of SARS1 in 2003 measured by supposedly perfect PCR tests. In the end, this “outbreak” – which killed eight people, six of whom died of bacterial pneumonia – was due to another perfectly banal and benign corona. For the record, there are seven human coronaviruses (four that cause the common cold as well as SARS1, MERS, and SARS2). At the time, officials had the presence of mind to test for antibodies, thus avoiding panic and fear. In 2006 in New Hampshire (USA), an outbreak of pertussis (B. Pertussis) turned out to be a creation of PCRs. This false alarm problem is well known and was discussed in the Lancet in 2006…”

It should be pointed out that in the UK 2 tests – obligatory for those traveling there – cost £180, and if you’re returning to France, you need yet another one before you return, probably at a cost of £95.

1/6/21:

Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is likely responsible for deaths of at least 10% of  elderly patients  of those who died following vaccination

“The expert group was established at the end of February 2021 to look into the cause of the first 100 reported deaths of nursing home residents who had received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. …Although the mortality rate in nursing homes is generally very high and the deaths of some nursing home residents after vaccination was anticipated, the Norwegian Medicines Agency wanted to determine whether the vaccine had possibly hastened any deaths and to gain a clearer understanding of the risks and benefits of its use in frail elderly people. The review reported on 19 May and concluded that a causal link between the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and death was considered “likely” in 10 of the 100 cases, “possible” in 26 cases, and “unlikely” in 59 cases. The remaining five were deemed “unclassifiable.””

In other words, probably at least 10%  and possibly as many as 36% of elderly people who died after having been vaccinated were killed (or had their deaths “hastened”) by the Pfizer vaccine. This report is already almost 2 weeks old and yet has been given virtually NO publicity in the media. Imagine how this might be replicated on a global scale. And yet any critique of this by the holocaust deniers is  put down as being “anti-vaxxer”.

More on ivermectin

“Michael Capuzzo, a New York Times best-selling author , has just published an article titled “The Drug That Cracked Covid”. The 15-page article chronicles the gargantuan struggle being waged by frontline doctors on all continents to get ivermectin approved as a Covid-19 treatment, as well as the tireless efforts by reporters, media outlets and social media companies to thwart them. Because of ivermectin, Capuzzo says, there are “hundreds of thousands, actually millions, of people around the world, from Uttar Pradesh in India to Peru to Brazil, who are living and not dying.” Yet media outlets have done all they can to “debunk” the notion that ivermectin may serve as an effective, easily accessible and affordable treatment for Covid-19. They have parroted the arguments laid out by health regulators around the world that there just isn’t enough evidence to justify its use. For his part, Capuzzo, as a reporter, “saw with [his] own eyes the other side [of the story]” that has gone unreported, of the many patients in the US whose lives have been saved by ivermectin and of five of the doctors that have led the battle to save lives around the world, Paul Marik, Umberto Meduri, José Iglesias, Pierre Kory and Joe Varon. These are all highly decorated doctors. Through their leadership of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, they have already enhanced our treatment of Covid-19 by discovering and promoting the use of Corticoid steroids against the virus. But their calls for ivermectin to also be used have met with a wall of resistance from healthcare regulators and a wall of silence from media outlets…On December 8 2020, FLCCC member Dr Pierre Kory gave nine minutes of impassioned testimony to the US Homeland Security Committee Meeting on the potent anti-viral, anti-inflammatory benefits of ivermectin. A total of 9 million people (myself included) saw the video on YouTube before it was taken down by YouTube’s owner, Google. As Capuzzo exhaustively lays out, both traditional and social media have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep people in the dark about ivermectin. So effective has this been that even in some of the countries that have benefited most from its use (such as Mexico and Argentina) many people are completely unaware of its existence.”

***

Other “Coronacrisis”-related pages on this site:

Conspirouettes (may 2021)

Ivermictin (april 2021)

Better to be sorry than safe (February 2021) (on the  vaccination programme)

Coronavirus in France (March 2020)

  Czaravirus May 2020 (about the situation in Russia)

Cameravirus, April 2020 (facial recognition cameras, masks and the global development of totalitarianism from China to the rest of the world)

Leftist bollocks from the usual suspects (December 2020)

and also, on aspects of  the search for vaccinations, see this (September 2020)

Also “The ‘C’ word”

18 Responses to june 2021 (Covid1984)
  1. S. Artesian says:

    re: “Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is likely responsible for deaths of at least 10% of elderly patients of those who died following vaccination”

    “This report is already almost 2 weeks old and yet has been given virtually NO publicity in the media. Imagine how this might be replicated on a global scale. And yet any critique of this by the holocaust deniers is put down as being “anti-vaxxer”.

    No publicity? Must be a cover-up. Or maybe, not; since the study draws conclusions that you prefer not to publish:

    “The group noted that more thorough assessment of the benefits and risks of vaccination could have been made for some very frail elderly people, particularly during the first few weeks of the vaccine’s use.  People with a very short life expectancy have little to gain from being vaccinated, it said, noting a genuine risk that the time of death will be brought forward and that they will experience adverse reactions to the vaccine in the last days of their life.

    The benefits of vaccination for very frail people with very short life expectancy should therefore be carefully assessed against the associated risks, and it may often be better not to vaccinate, the group recommended. However, the guidelines on risk assessment—issued by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health shortly after the first reported deaths of frail elderly patients after vaccination—were adequate, it said. These advise that doctors should assess such patients individually to determine whether the benefits of vaccination outweigh the side effects. The guidelines recommend that, ahead of vaccination, doctors should consider the benefits and disadvantages of giving the vaccine to extremely frail patients (such as those whose frailty is ranked 8 or 9 on the Clinical Frailty Scale or equivalent) or terminally ill patients.

    Preventive measures such as good hydration, medicine reviews, and optimised treatment of comorbid conditions may also reduce the risk of fatal consequences from adverse reactions to vaccines, the expert group added.”

    Less dramatic and certainly less damning then you would prefer, but entirely reasonable and…known– that the risks of the vaccine in particularly frail patients over age 70 may increase the rate of mortality when compared to uninfected members of the same cohort.

    Now my rough calculation is that the mortality infection rate for those above 70 contracting the virus in Norway is above 30 percent.

    So before you warn your friends, your mothers, your friends’ mothers away from the vaccine, maybe you might want to do what the study says to do: carefully assess the benefits vs. the risks, and insist on proper hydration, and pre and post vaccination monitoring and follow-up. Won’t make any headlines, but it might save a life. Or two.

    • You say “the study draws conclusions that you prefer not to publish”. Why do you say I “prefer not to publish”? There are thousands of links to articles on this site that I quote bits from, but do not quote the whole article. As there are on almost any site.

      As for your “rough calculation is that the mortality infection rate for those above 70 contracting the virus in Norway is above 30 percent” how do you get that calculation? Last time I checked (I’m not going to bother checking again now, so apologies if it’s changed) about 20% of those over 80 who contracted the virus died – globally at least. Is Norway somehow different?

      And remember 10% likely died because of the vaccine, and 26% more possibly died.

  2. Just checked out this site about Covid cases and Covid-related deaths in Norway:
    https://www.fhi.no/en/id/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/daily-reports/daily-reports-COVID19/
    Officially, there’ve been 5392 cases of people over 70 and 636 deaths, which I make at 11.8% of those in that age category who had Covid and died. Far from your “above 30%”.
    Or have I misunderstood?

  3. S. Artesiain says:

    It’s 10 deaths out of the FIRST 100 of a nursing home population. This study makes no mention of the 70+ vaccinated not residing in nursing homes. The authors state at the time, 30,000 of that age group were in nursing homes, but along with not studying those not in nursing homes, it doesn’t study the 30,000 in nursing homes.

    The data base is then 100 of which 10 share a common factor. A rational personal would ask, what about the next 100? And the remaining 30,000? How many of those contracted Covid and died?

    So what is the common factor? The vaccine? That’s one. OK, but were these first 100 fully vaccinated, or had they received only one does? Another one: Nursing homes. Is there a reason to think that nursing home environments have something to do with this?

    In sum the study is so narrow in time and sample as to be basically useless– except for those with a specific agenda, which might just be why it receives so little “play” in the broader spectrum. No conspiracy, no coverup, no use to anyone except those who want to imply that the vaccine is deadlier than the disease, or, at the least, unnecessary but can find any data to support that.

    The authors themselves are very cautious in drawing any conclusions, to their credit, recommending only that a full discussion be held on risks and benefits and proper follow up care be provided. No kidding, really? Who would have thunk.

    If you really wanted more information on adverse reactions you could have gone, (and still go) to Norway’s adverse reaction report (https://legemiddelverket.no/Documents/English/Covid-19/20210604%20Reported%20suspected%20adverse%20reactions%20coronavirus%20vaccines_.pdf)

    There you could find a report of 172 reported deaths reported after vaccinations of all type (not just Pfizer), with a majority coming from those in nursing home environments. The Pfizer vaccine seems to have a fatality rate of about .01 percent. This is not news.

    If we take the total number of fatalities for Pfizer and assign entirely to those over 70+ you get a fatality rate 160/636 of the deaths attributed to Covid 19 for the same age group, or about 25% . Might be an argument to take the shot, you think.

    As for my estimate, it was based on data from November 2020 statistica website (which was easiest to access). Data from Norway’s public health center (https://www.fhi.no/en/id/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/daily-reports/daily-reports-COVID19/#covid19associated-deaths-by-age-and-sex) shows a death rate for those 70+ of about 12 percent of those infected. My error for using outdated and incomplete data.

    But what’s at stake here is you reporting as fact a narrow study that draws no conclusions and using that report to allege there’s some sort of conspiracy of suppression.

    PS It would be kind of funny if so many lives hadn’t been lost to the propagation of misinformation that you are so willing to use this sort of narrow study to claim whatever is you want to claim, while at the same time ignoring the data on Sweden with fatality rates far above those in the order Nordic countries, and particularly among the elderly in nursing homes, because after all Sweden “knew” that lockdowns don’t work, and Sweden to impose that “Islamic” program on its population

  4. First time I’ve heard that the bmj has a “specific agenda”. What specific agenda is this?

  5. S. Artesiain says:

    It’s your agenda, not the BMJ’s. BMJ is very conservative and refrains from drawing any conclusions except standard one about being aware of risks etc. You have had an agenda from the getgo. The virus isn’t really that contagious; it’s that dangerous; it’s not that deadly; the state is using it as an excuse to maintain and enhance social repression; the vaccine isn’t needed; the vaccine is dangerous; other remedies are effective without risk; anyone who acknowledges this as a public health issue and not, in origin, a deliberate attempt to create an emergency is ignorant of the real issues………..blah blah blah.

    And of course you’re latest posts prove what I argue– in that you don’t even bother to engage with any of the real problems with the misinformation you propagate. And that, spreading misinformation, is what your role is.

    You won’t engage with the limitations of the study; the data that shows that there is no earthshaking revelation and/or suppression of information; that your exaggerations and claims amount to…the big nothing.

  6. You’re lying. The virus is probably less dangerous than the Asian flu epidemic of 1957, which killed 1 – 4 million people in a global population of 2.9 billion but 3 to 4 times more dangerous than the equivalent of 2 flu seasons (which it has so far covered). Don’t try to parody my position – it’s more dangerous than Covid deniers say it is but less dangerous than the official “terrorise everybody” line swallowed by much of the Left .
    I’ll deal with the rest of your falsifications later (tomorrow probably) – got other things to do at the moment.

  7. S. Artesian says:

    Explain to me out 10 cases out of a sample of 100 when the cohort is at least 30,000 amounts to an indictment of a vaccine and is evidence of a deliberate attempt to suppress the “truth.”

    Yeah deal with my “falsification. ” The only parody around here is your conflation of an “official terrorize everybody” position, that doesn’t even exist, with the position that Covid19 represents a serious threat to public health. That is the issue. You have consistently denied that Covid represents such a threat.

  8. S. Artesian says:

    As for the 57-58 flu pandemic, US CDC estimates that 1.1 million died worldwide with 116, 000 in the US. So far, 18 or 19 months into the Covid19 eruption, 3.75 million have died, with almost 600,000 in the US.

    WHO estimates number of excess deaths due to the Asian flu virus at between 1 and 4 million.

    But what is your point.

    Is it that lockdowns were unnecessary because the virus is less deadly than the 57 virus? Huh? Since when does a greater mortality/infection rate indicate that public health measures are not necessary to attempt to stop the spread of a virus with a lower mortality/infection rate? Particularly when the “lower rate” recorded for the Covid virus might just be the result of the public health measures put in place to prevent its spread?

    The establishments in the UK, and the US, initially responded with a laissez-faire attitude, and maintained it for a significant period. I believe the initial plan of Boris & co. was to let the virus produce “herd immunity” as it ran through the population.

    The prospect of Covid19 cases overwhelming the healthcare system forced a change there, while the overwhelming of the healthcare system in the US was attenuated by time and distance which facilitated the malign neglect practiced by the bourgeoisie on working populations in the US. The public health measures shown to produce significant declines in infection rates, mass and frequent testing, mandatory quarantining, separation of those with mild symptoms from those with severe symptoms, not reintroducing those with infections into co-mingled but closed areas (nursing homes) were never put into practice.

    The resulting sequences, waves, of infections overwhelming local resources is what “terrorized” the population, not some baloney about CDC advising against shaking hands or hugging.

    And herd immunity? Isn’t likely to occur without a vaccine. Didn’t happen with smallpox, polio, measles, rubella, etc etc. etc

    So the only issue here is is Covid19 a real public health threat requiring measures to a) mitigate its impact where and if it can’t be suppressed b) the adoption of preventive therapies, including mandatory vaccinations to reduce rates of infection and mortality?

    When you answer those questions ( I count three in paragraph), we have something to talk about. Until then, nothing you say matters.

  9. This so-called “anti-capitalist” (he has a site called “Anti-Capital”) suggests “ mandatory vaccinations to reduce rates of infection and mortality”. Mandatory? With “anti-capitalists” like this the pharmaceutical industry has no need of friends. There are few dominant ideologists who suggest such a crude form of totalitarianism. S.Artesian – apparently an ex-Trotskyist – has returned to his repugnant authoritarian roots.

    As for his “arguments” – e.g. “ ignoring the data on Sweden with fatality rates far above those in the order Nordic countries, and particularly among the elderly in nursing homes, because after all Sweden “knew” that lockdowns don’t work”. Sure, in Sweden where no lockdown was imposed, there was a high fatality rate. But in the Czech republic , the lockdown rules were very heavy ( https://www.vlada.cz/en/media-centrum/aktualne/measures-adopted-by-the-czech-government-against-coronavirus-180545/ ) but it has the 2nd highest rate of deaths per capita in Europe. Likewise with Slovakia ( https://spectator.sme.sk/c/22646282/slovakia-is-gradually-opening-up-what-covid-measures-are-in-place.html ), which had the 3rd highest rate of deaths per capita in Europe. Considerably above those of Sweden (see this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1110187/coronavirus-incidence-europe-by-country/ ). High rates of infection have other causes and potential remedies than lockdown, though obviously I’m in favour of NOT forcing people to go to work or school in dangerously unhealthy conditions (and that’s just as a simple human response separate from the need to abolish wage labour or a critique of dominant education) and have consistently reported and supported examples of resistance to such atrocious policies. BUT it’s fortunate that fear of Covid and respect for possible lockdown was not a factor in the decisions of millions in the USA at the end of May 2020 to riot and loot and do other interesting things en masse without respect for social distancing, etc. But that’s a fact in S.Artesian’s argument that is conveniently ignored.

    As for saying “ herd immunity? Isn’t likely to occur without a vaccine. Didn’t happen with smallpox, polio, measles, rubella, etc” I have never advocated herd immunity so it’s not clear why SA is saying this. But in the case of measles it was very common, when I was a child, to have measles’ parties amongst kids so that everyone would have it at a young age so as not to have it as an adult when it becomes a far worse illness. Which is presumably why if you type in measles vaccinations into Google you get this coming up “People who aren’t vaccinated are at a higher risk of catching the disease. It’s generally accepted that adults born during or before 1957 are naturally immune to measles.” – though it’s not exactly natural. I have always been in favour of the tried and tested smallpox vaccine, and am ambivalent about polio vaccines as there’s a lot of research that says polio’s disappearance was due to vastly improved sanitary conditions, clean water etc; But I’m not dogmatic about this – I’m open to influence (which S.Artesian certainly isn’t).

    There are some who say “herd immunity” (a rather vague term that I think hides more complexities in it than people are willing to investigate) can only happen with the vaccine, though it’s not clear if S.Artesian is one of them. I’m not even sure if this is true. Not only that, but there are enough people who understand one thing or another on the subject that are of the opinion that trying to eradicate completely this type of virus as a way of protecting us from it is not something that can actually work with these kind of viruses. And that this virus, even with the vaccine, is not likely to be defeated for a few years anyway because of the constant variants (check out this: https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-current-coronavirus-vaccines-unlikely-to-protect-against-new-variants-in-future-sage-warns-12312976 ). And some refute the claim that this is indeed a new and unknown virus.

    Now vaccines for the moment have slowed down infection rates, but this is short-term, and as the controlled trials of mRNA vaccines haven’t even gone to the normal 3rd level (in Pfizer, at least, this will be in 2022), treating the whole world as some guinea pig is sick. As for medium-term effects, all we can do is hope that the predictions of a potential disaster have got it wrong. Meanwhile, with the constant variants and mutations, it’s not even clear that vaccines are significantly helpful even in the short term – for instance, there have been 42 deaths from Covid in England since 7th June. About half the people were unvaccinated BUT nearly a third had had both vaccinations and yet the government insisted that having both doses protects against the Delta variant (“Indian” or Nepalese variant). The remaining deaths were people who had had one dose so basically 50% died despite the vaccination. If you then take into account that 43% of the population are vaccinated, it’s not much of a stretch to come to the conclusion that it makes little or no difference.

    Ivermectin has been shown to be very effective with no significant side effects as compared with vaccines – and that’s the main thing I have been giving information about recently. But ivermectin has no patent, has been tested on the population for other viruses and parasites for the last 40 years, and is cheap and so has no interest for the massive accumulators of capital in the pharmaceutical industry, nor for those who defend them. I guess one of the reasons for SA’s uncritical attitude is a classic marxist critique which only criticises the commodity form but ignores the capitalist content of production, as if the content is neutral . For example, in the USA the medical profession has long attacked and sidelined folk remedies and homeopathy as being “unscientific” because such developments threatened their elitist project of dependency on external authority and on commodities. Boosting the body’s immune system clearly gives a far greater autonomy to individual choice. The discussion about Ivermectin, vaccines and the whole Covid thing in general cannot be held without reviewing how the medical and political establishment are sabotaging autonomous medicine, free of interests, on a scale and at a speed almost certainly never seen before. Preventing clinical doctors – those who actually treat people – from trying to treat and from actually treating and helping people, ignoring their suggested protocols, censuring and punishing etc., claiming there are no “proofs” while preventing the research for proof (or ignoring the proofs), contradicting the whole spectacle of “saving lives” and caring about people’s health. Or in some cases they later adopt the same protocols they denigrated before (e.g. firstly saying there should be 3 weeks between 1st and 2nd doses, then allowing a 3 month gap; saying you should only have one type of vaccine and then saying you can mix them – both political-economic decisions caused by supply problems) . Instead of treating people and improving their health and lives, all of this is the result of managing health by the managers of health, according to the perquisites of the Medical Industry, whether this industry helps people or not (sometimes, though far less so than ideology claims for it, it does, and in some aspects like emergency procedures even often).

    There’s a glaring denial amongst those like S. Artesian of how this industry is a capitalist industry like any other, one of the strongest and bigger ones, that plays according to the same rules of the other industries that they do dare to critique. I think this is because, regardless of their attempts at a revolutionary and radical questioning of this society, they have left aspects of it totally untouched, some of its most fundamental values and ideologies left taken for granted – especially those aspects with less “revolutionary chic” such as health and our own part in it, our knowledge of our own health and body including the mental aspects (which cannot be separate from the bodily aspects, both of which are separable from a critique of the fundamental sickness of social relations in this society). The result is that when “a crisis” emerges, here, but not elsewhere like war or other obviously political crises, they leave their critical spirit aside, forget about the existence of nuances, become rigid, defensive and knee-jerking, and trust the managers and the technicians, this time the managers and technicians of Health. When they (both the managers and those like Artesian) repeat in their one-eared discourse the phrase “public health”, they are using a doublespeak that has nothing to do with a health worth having, but with the kind of health that can be managed, and thus cannot be questioned.

    Another glaring aspect of this, which is responsible for their deafness and rigidity, is a result of a defense mechanism gone mad, in which any idea that might be perceived (from a limited and capitalist/industrial point of view of course) as “not protecting people from a virus” immediately stirs their radical-savior stance, their desire to play the representative of the working class, and tends to push them into something like “you cannot go there! This is where the right-wingers are! You cannot have anything in common with the enemies of the working class! Never! Think of the consequences!” – which makes it impossible for them to entertain ANY idea that jeopardizes their own view of themselves, that puts them “in the dark side” – even if this idea may lead to or be a part of a wider critique of the totality of lived experience and the role of capitalist relations in it which they claim to be against. They want easily fixed and rigid “sides” (some people reacted to the contradictions of the “yellow vest” movement in similar ways). And what’s better than a war – this time a holy health war – to bring to the fore one’s self-perceived heroic support for the “just” side, for the side of “the working class”?

    SA may or may not have got it right about the Norway figures – the reports aren’t very clear to me, but that’s irrelevant to his definitively authoritarian position. The guy is too much of a waste of time, and too symptomatic of the horrible discourse and ideological divisions that the Covid spectacle has so far successfully divided the working class with, that any future post from this consistently beligerent guy (see, for instance, this from him: https://dialectical-delinquents.com/articles-chronologically-2/class-struggle-histories-2/homage-to-catatonia-2/#comment-271583 ) will be “unapproved” as soon as I find him posting here. He has nothing to offer the libertarian anti-hierarchical position of this site.

    My thanks to T. for some of the points made here.

  10. Received a thoroughly delerious and confused comment from S.Artesian in response to the above, which I’ve taken off. In the unlikely event that someone is interested in what he wrote, I’ll send it to them. You only have to ask: samfanto@riseup.net

  11. Should be pointed out that S.Artesian ignores the fact that there’s a vast difference between traditional vaccines, which have existed since the anti-smallpox vaccine was developed at the beginning of the 19th century, and these mRNA vaccines which work in very different ways from, say, polio vaccines – and they’ve not been seriously tried and tested on the population until now. Check out texts 1 and 3 here: https://dialectical-delinquents.com/covid1984-latest/deus-ex-vaccina/
    And he totally falsifies my position as against vaccinations as such in order to assert a belief in the current Pfizer, etc. vaccines as valid, repressing all critical vigilance.

    He also ignores the fact that ivermectin is a vastly cheaper method of treating Covid than the vaccines. Apparently ivermectin costs the state 10 euros for 15 kilos of the medicine. The daily dose per person depends on their weight – 0.2 milligrams per kilo. Which would, for someone weighing 80 kilos,  cost the state (admittedly before packaging, delivery costs, etc.) just 1.6 euros for 10,000 days’ supply (or, more rationally, less than half a cent for 30 days’ supply, or even more rationally – since you’re likely to recover after less than 10 days, 0.16 of a centime for 10 days).

  12. Comment about S.Artesian from a friend via email:

    The petulant question about what constitutes “a real public health threat requiring measures” is posed purely on the terrain of the spectacle — a rigged playing field that presupposes that anything which constitutes a “real” public health threat must always be determined entirely by the criteria of the spectacle — just as what constitutes a “real” public security threat is always determined by the same criteria and in the same interests. As if every repressive measure ever perpetrated on the working class by the bourgeoisie was not justified by “the public interest”. As if required measures for the maintenance of the health and safety of the (re)public were not the threat used by capitalists and their minions to beat proletarians into submission since the ascendancy of their class. The massacre of the Kronstadt commune, whose centenary we commemorate this year, was one such required measure for which devoted anticapitalists once invented apologetics no less convoluted than their worthy descendants do today to justify the advocacy of mandatory medical experimentation upon the population of the entire planet. The spectacle is nothing if not the means by which modern slavery celebrates itself in terms of the complacent and vacuous publicity of the public good. Such honourable republicans dressed up in red show their true colours in their ludicrous acquiescence to this publicity, as if “the public” were not a mealy-mouthed mirage invented precisely to mask the fact of class struggle. Those who talk of anything concerning the public without asking what public; who talk of any “required measures” without asking whose requirements, and whose measures — such people speak with corpses in their mouths.

    For those entire existence constitutes disposable raw material for the glorification of the great republic for which anticapitalists volunteer to draft repressive legislation, it goes without saying that everything about this world is a threat to us. We answer the emotional assertion Black Lives Matter with the more accurate observation No Lives Matter within a world dominated by dead objects and their lackeys — even the existence of the most privileged elites matter not as unique lives to be lived but merely as replaceable roles to be fulfilled within the maintenance and expansion of the spectacle-commodity economy. We recognise that none of the measures required for combating the profit-driven exploitation, disease, poison, starvation, homelessness, addiction, madness, and violent predation that constitute the real threats to our health and happiness can be expected by the bureaucrats in control of public health and their radical republican allies, but can only be implemented through the autonomous struggle of the working class to free itself from its fetters — first and foremost from “the golden chains by which the bourgeoisie drags it in its train” (Marx, Wage Labor and Capital). May the republic of health and its required measures of state be eradicated by the naturally acquired immunity of those who finally refuse to be herded.

  13. S. Artesian says:

    OK, so here’s a more extensive reply, detailing my initial objections to the “situationist” ideology coming from DD. I’m sure you’ll print all of this because of its historical significance (that’s sarcasm, in case you couldn’t tell) and importance to all ensuing disputes. And once you do print this, I’ll be more than happy to answer your friend, and his waving of the bloody shirt of Kronstadt.

    So anyway……
    …SamFanto (Fantomas, get it?) of Dialectical Delinquent, a person I don’t know but whose website I enjoy and like, “attempted a dialogue” (he calls it) with me, back when I pulled out of Libcom for its decision to maintain access on its site to the works of that brave black flag anarchist and incidental white supremacist, race-war mongering, fascist Michael Schmidt. At the same time, Libcom was busy deleting the work of the late Chris Harman for being, horror of horrors, a “Leninist.” Leninism was not, of course, the real issue. The “real” issue was that Harman was a member of the UK SWP, a leading member of the UK SWP, and thus according to Libcom-ers, responsible for the sexual abuse and cover-up of sexual abuse by another leading member of the SWP. The fact that Harman had died a couple of years before the abuse came to light; that no accusations either of abuse or cover-up were directed at Harman was as immaterial as the fact that the book removed contained nothing advocating or protecting sexual abuse.

    Schmidt, on the other hand, denied and for a substantial period of time, assertions that he was doing a bit more than role-playing on various white supremacist websites; that he was advocating race war. In that he was aided by some comrades who, despite knowing of his activities for years, maintained that the recent accusations were unfounded; that Herr Schmidt was innocent until proven guilty; that Herr Schmidt deserved a full hearing, the benefit of the doubt and a commission of inquiry given his meritorious service to the cause of the blag flack, I mean black flag. Besides, how could Schmidt be considered a racist? He had had girlfriends who were women of color! And photos to prove it!

    Then even after Schmidt admitted his “dual identity”– blaming it on mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, previous head injuries, some of those same individuals and groups set out excusing, apologizing, recuperating Schmidt on the basis of his earlier service, earlier writings in the service of blag flack.

    Libcom in maintaining access to those writings on its site plays directly into that attempt at recuperation.

    That’s why I “broke,” not because I give a rat’s ass about Chris Harman, or Chris Harman’s writings; nor if it’s legitimate for an anarcho-communist website to archive, and offer, the writings of Leninists, or Bordigaists, or Marxists, or Bakuninists– but because Libcom was playing and being played for the recuperation of a white supremacist.

    So anyway…DD thought breaking with Libcom over censoring a dead Leninist was ridiculous; that there were a million better reasons to break with Libcom, like his own reason– that Libcom defended, and continues to defend a leading member of the Pretentious Twit Aufheben group who just happens to advise the UK police.

    That’s a good reason to break, too. I have no problem with that. But there’s something else going on for DD. I think DD wants to make some sort of “critique” of Marxism as authoritarian, anti-revolutionary, “unwoke” and/or just plan inadequate/obsolete because of Marxism’s “recognition” of the “state,” or rather the necessity for the proletariat to organize itself in a struggle for state power; to execute the abolition of capitalism, which means to execute the abolition of the capitalists through its own state power.

    So anyway……you can read DD’s version of the “attempt at dialogue” here. You can read my version below, parsed between paragraphs of the DD version. I don’t think this is very important, but I do hope it’s a bit interesting, and clarifies, if nothing else, how little the “ultras”– “anarcho-communists,” “libertarian communists,” situationists, pre or post-modern whatevers– really get about Marx’s critique of capital and the immanent condition for its abolition:

    DD: In this epoch the will to separation takes many forms, but often the security of a separate identity and the desire to maintain it (in his case, “Marxist”) is classically conventional characterological armour, the un-self-questioning self-justification for sneeringly rejecting anything that tries to question a petrified ideology. Whilst maintaining his Marxist role, and close-to Leninist role, he pretends he can contribute to fighting alienation with alienated means, in an alienated form.

    SA: Priceless. You got any fries to go with that shake? Any indication that I’ve used Marxism as “un-self-questioning self-justication for sneeringly rejecting anything that tries to question a petrified ideolgy.” Any evidence of that in say my analysis of Greece, or Brazil, or the US, or…….even the discussions on Libcom? Any indication that I ever dismissed any argument out of hand for not being “Marxist” or “Marxist enough.” Or is simply the fact that I don’t accept the terms of the discussion as you want to define them evidence enough? Come on. a paragraph before this one, you’re complaining that I’m reading into a perfectly innocent comment and using that misreading to tell you, ambiguously, to go fuck yourself. Now here you are “reading in” nonsense and explicitly using that nonsense to deal with the substance of what “my” Marxism actually demonstrates. It’s this sort of junk that makes me tell some people, “go fuck yourself.”

    DD: However, of all the reasons to break with libcom, this has to be merely indicative of as ideological an attitude as libcom’s – i.e the classic and roughly 150-year old split between Marx and Bakunin, Marxism and anarchism. In other words, no prospect of some critical supercession: rivalry turned into the essence of the revolutionary perspective. A typical expression of the retreat from the revolutionary question relevant to this utterly counter-revolutionary epoch, based on positions related to events way way back in the past, which only become obstacles in the present if one chooses to make them so.

    SA: My reading of Hegel is probably a bit different than yours. I don’t think “critical supercession” is a category that applies to the “conflict” between Marx and Bakunin, between Marxist analysis and anarchism. FWIW, I mean if you’re going to get all “dialectic” about this stuff, I don’t think there’s any “critical supercession” to be had i.e. Bakunin and Marx. For that to occur there would have to be some necessary, self-reproducing relation between the two, where each, so to speak requires, produces, the other, in the material conditions of the reproduction of society. Doesn’t play that way with anarchism and Marxism. I did not, and do not now, engage in “theoretical” “ideological” posing of the opposition of Marxism to anarchism. I never did anything like that anywhere. Never on Libcom. What you cite is what I wrote to you in an email about the charges of Leninism certain “anarchists” made against me based on my acceptance of Marx’s…….labor theory of value. I am not kidding. What differences I have, and they are profound and legion, are practical differences—practically involved with the analysis of capitalism and the practical development of the struggle against capitalism. Do certain anarchists at certain times make practical contributions to the development of social revolution against capitalism? Most definitely. Is there an anarchist critique of capitalism that “compares” to Marx; that explores the self-generating limits to accumulation that resides in the very condition of social labor that defines capitalism? No.

    DD: Whilst most self-styled anarchists are prepared to criticise Bakunin in some ways, it appears that far more self-styled Marxists (Marx was, famously, “not a Marxist”) consider their guru untouchable. I don’t think anyone calls themselves a Bakuninist or Kropotkinist or Durrutist, but for those who call themselves Marxists Marx, despite all the horrendous state-capitalists and others who have called themselves some version of a Marxist, is somehow treated as the provider of “revolutionary theory” whose application to today we must all carefully study.

    SA: Fuck no, I don’t consider Marx “untouchable.” I just don’t consider remarks made in correspondence, their (Marx and Engels) flaws, mistakes, racial expressions as fundamental, necessary, essential, to their critique of capital and the prospects for capital’s overthrow. Engels supported the US in the slaveholder precipitated Mexican-American War; Engels flat out endorsed Prussian victory in the war against Louis Napoleon’s France. What counts however, IMO, and what accounts for my “fidelity” to Marxist analysis, is the critique of capital as a social relation of production; is the exposition and development of historical materialism as an instrument for comprehending and advancing revolutionary struggle.

    DD: Thus he unthinkingly dismisses (and caricatures) those who criticise the connection between Marx and Lenin:“Marx’s analysis, leading as it does to class struggle for power, requiring a dictatorship of the proletariat, was “statist;” and led inexorably to Lenin to Stalin blahblahblahblah… the usual nonsense and bullshit.” Whilst saying Marx’s analysis led inexorably to Lenin to Stalin is bullshit, it’s the inclusion of “inexorably” which is bullshit.

    SA: You assume what you need to prove. Where exactly is my caricature of the typical Libcom-anarchist critique of Marx and Marxism? Of course there’s a “connection” between Marx and Lenin—it’s called capitalism. And of course there’s a connection between Lenin and Stalin. The problem comes when you, or the Libcomers, or the “anarcho-libertarian-communists” take “connection” to mean “identity” and thus inevitability—to the point where Marx’s work can be dismissed, discounted because it inevitably leads to………Stalin; to the point where the Russian Revolution itself is dismissed, with the benefit of highly developed hindsight, as “capitalist” or “state capitalist” or a “fraud” or the result of “German gold.” As you yourself demonstrate in subsequent comments you adhere to the very inexorability you decry as caricature.

    DD: Certainly Marx was contradictory – but his belief in the State certainly was a contributory factor leading to Lenin etc. And this is confirmed by S.Artesian’s defence of a conventional hierarchical army, which clearly did lead to Kronstadt, etc. Armed struggle is certainly necessary, but there have been lots of instances of armed groups doing damage to class power without having a formal hierarchy (for instance, Spain in the 30s, or those parts of the French resistance not subservient to either the Gaullists or the Stalinists, of which little is known). And even during the Russian revolution, Makhno’s army, though obviously criticisable, was not the same kind of rigid hierarchy as the Red Army or the Whites. He says he rejects “the two critical elements of so-called Leninism– the vanguard party, and Lenin’s explanation of imperialism” but fails to mention the seizure of state power as being intrinsic to Leninism, and thus defends the creation of the Red Army, the epitome of fighting alienation in an alienated way, fighting against the forces of hierarchy in a hierarchical manner, an authoritarian way of trying to destroy authority.

    SA: Really? Can you show us where and how “Marx’s belief in the state was a contributory factor leading to Lenin etc. with the “etc” being what? Define the “etc.” What exactly does that mean? That because Marx believed the proletariat had to organize itself as an armed force to break up the bourgeoisie’s state machinery and replace it with its own state machinery to suppress counterrevolution, and impose, by force, its rule, its organization of social labor, that led to…Kronstadt? Clearly, that’s precisely what you mean by the etc…. and you’d rather use the “etc” to avoid using “inexorably.”

    By “Lenin etc” you mean Stalin, don’t you? So get to the nits and grits, and show us, how, regardless of the material conditions which propelled, determined, and constrained the Russian Revolution, “Marx’s belief in the state” contributed to Stalin, and the defeat of the revolution in China, Spain, Britain, France, Vietnam, Germany I don’t think you can, just as I don’t think others who make this argument can. Doesn’t stop them, of course, from making the argument, but why should it?
    Was the creation of the Red Army the result of Marx’s “belief in the state”? Or was the creation of a Red Army a necessity imposed on the revolution by the material conditions, advanced and backward as they were and were simultaneously—that’s what the meaning and legacy of uneven and combined development are—in which the revolution was enmeshed from the getgo? FWIW, the “emotional” determinants, for lack of a better term, that drove Lenin and Trotsky and the Bolsheviks toward the establishment of the Red Army were, IMO only, a commitment that the revolution NOT go the way of the Paris Commune, but hold on to power no matter the cost until the revolution conquered power in the “advanced” countries of Europe. Maybe you disagree with me. Maybe you disagree with them but that makes a bit more sense, given the background of each in Marx’s work and the real concrete circumstances they faced, than this nonsense about “the State.”
    Was there a civil war in Russia after the October Revolution? I think there was. Does that require a centralized, commanded labor force to successfully pursue. I think it does. The simple logistics of supplying and resupplying revolutionary armies in the field impose that upon any class pursuing power. You offer, in a near hilarious confirmation of exactly what you want to dispute—“there have been lots of instances of armed groups doing damage to class power without having a formal hierarchy.” No shit. Except we’re not talking about “doing damage” while leaving the class structure essentially intact, which is precisely what did occur in popular front Spain, or in France during WW2, we’re talking about a revolution seizing power and liquidating a counterrevolution That quite simply requires centralization, concentration, and will produce, as dangerous as it is—and it is extremely dangerous—hierarchy. Organization is, in the last analysis, determined by surplus and scarcity, and the Russian Revolution was operating within conditions of extreme scarcity, not just material (which itself was extreme) but historical, as the historical determines the material; in the case of the Russian Revolution that historical scarcity was the scarcity of the extension of the revolutionary wave. That, not the so-called connection of Marx with Lenin or Lenin with Stalin, was the issue.
    Of course I “fail to mention the seizure of state power as being intrinsic to Leninism”—because I don’t disagree with the seizure of state power and because while intrinsic to Lenin, it’s not unique to Lenin. Lenin’s theory of the vanguard party, and the practice of that theory; Lenin’s “theory” of imperialism (which hardly warrants the term “theory”) are intrinsic and unique to Lenin. You can after all recognize the necessity of seizing state power without being a Leninist, although your point, I guess, is that you can’t: that once you accept the necessity of seizing state power, of breaking up the state machinery of the bourgeoisie and “critically superseding” that state power with the state power of the proletariat, you’re already down at the bottom of the slippery slope and a……..Leninist? Nope, not good enough, Stalinist? Much better, no? Except if that’s the case you’ve proven what I said at the getgo about “inexorably” being the key component to those who “connect” Marx to Lenin to Stalin, and the bullshit, such that it is, is all yours.

    DD: But then he treats Marx as an authority. In S.Artesian’s dogmatic defence of him, every true revolutionary must bow down before Marx’s past interpretations, rather than develop their own theory and practice, in part based on critiques of previous theories and practices, and the reasoning behind them.

    SA: Bow down? This where I usually say to someone raising that accusation, unambiguously—go fuck yourself. I don’t think I’ve ever written anything, anywhere, anytime, demanding that anyone anywhere ever genuflect before the “one, true, revolutionary Marx.” Claiming I have is either deliberate distortion or complete ignorance. Yeah, I accept Marx as an authority—on the history, development, and mechanisms of capital accumulation. And to abuse an analogy, I accept lots of authorities—I accept Einstein as an authority on the general theory of relativity (I even accept the speed of light as an absolute authority in this universe). I accept Trotsky as an authority on uneven and combined development, as well as the critique of the popular front. I accept Darwin as “an authority” on the evolution of the species. Newsflash, comrade, accepting an authority is not identical to uncritical, slavish, adulation. So ever so gently, and with all earned respect…..go fuck yourself.

    DD: Thus S.Artesian can rhetorically ask“Do you call Marx a capitalist because he endorsed Lincoln and the US north in the civil war?” The vital question of the moment, on absolutely everybody’s lips. However – given I feel forced to answer an essentially irrelevant question – the question would be a little bit more relevant to ask whether this endorsement was typical of Marx’s politically mediated view of revolution. He himself is unlikely to have seriously believed that Lincoln was anything other than an opportunist aiming to develop the “more progressive” forms of class power represented by the North by manipulating those who hated slavery (the blacks, especially) into supporting his war. After all, Lincoln in his election speeches, sometimes supported slavery, sometimes opposed it, depending on where he was giving his speech – typical 2-faced politician. And even after the war had started he did not come out with a clear statement that the war was against slavery until he very obviously needed to recruit blacks (“In the spring of 1862 [ie a year after the war had started] he signed bills abolishing slavery in the territories, and proclaiming emancipation with compensation for the slaveholders, in the District of Colombia. But he continued to grope for a policy which would not alienate the Border slave states, whose loyalties were crucial to Union success, and not aggravate northern fears that emancipation would result in a flood of freedmen coming to the North…Lincoln decided that emancipation was the only measure which could bolster the sagging spirit of the Union army, provide a fresh pool of manpower for the armed forces and convince world opinion that the Union cause was something more than an attempt to suppress the South’s desire for independence.” – Eric Foner’s introduction to W.E.B. Du Bois’ really interesting text on the struggle and development of blacks’ power within the Union army – “The General Strike” –which can be found here). It’s possible Marx had no knowledge of this. But it’s also possible that it was another example of Marx putting “forward openly reformist ideas because they would draw the masses to his party where they would eventually learn the whole truth. Modern day Bolshevism is the logical outcome of this mediated view of revolution. Political consciousness is no longer a means to an end, it becomes an end in itself” (Cronin & Seltzer, Call It Sleep). And we now know full well, what with Jim Crow and all the other shit, that whilst US capitalism continues in whatever form, blacks there will be treated like dirt. Whether this was clear in the 1860s is another question. However, such a discussion seems just typical student politico point-scoring unless it relates to the present. And if the same attitudes as Marx’s then were applied to now they would end up with the same kind of idiotic Leftism that S.Artesian constantly, and obviously rightly, denounces – support for Syriza in Greece, Chavism in Venezuela, etc.

    SA: Yes, indeed, Marx had a politically mediated view of revolution. Question: what’s a soviet if not a “political mediation”?

    So… if we can indulge a bit in historical materialism—what does your “unmediated” revolutionary theory tell us about the US Civil War? That it was a battle not worth engaging? That the Union, the capitalist union, would hesitate, back track, retreat, cower, when confronting the slave power, because of the allegiance the capitalists held to property? Not to put too fine a point on it: 1) all struggles are politically mediated 2) the recalcitrance of the bourgeoisie does not detract from the importance of the struggle to abolish slavery. Do Marxists acknowledge, grasp that the bourgeoisie would not follow through on the struggle? Would abandon Reconstruction? Would restore the former Confederates through Redemptionist governments? Of course, we do. We grasp those things on the basis of understanding the limits, the class limits, to the political mediations, the property, that determined the war from jump street. You turn to a Foner, who certainly employs Marx’s historical materialism and produces a very concrete and critical analysis precisely based on a grasp of the political mediations to prove…what? That Marxism because of its linkage to political mediations is ignorant, incapable of grasping the limitations that political mediations impose on historical conflicts. That’s almost hilarious.

    As for this: “And if the same attitudes as Marx’s then were applied to now they would end up with the same kind of idiotic Leftism that S.Artesian constantly, and obviously rightly, denounces – support for Syriza in Greece, Chavism in Venezuela, etc” that’s just nonsense. Now it’s nonsense social democrats, democratic socialists, Lenin tombstoners, Gindinites, etc. etc. would like you to believe—“Oh, in supporting Syriza we’re just doing what Marx did in 1861” but it’s still nonsense. There’s this “thing” called history, like 155 years of capitalist development, like the conflict between relations and forces of production that, determined by the social conditions of labor, in turn determines the class struggle. The problem isn’t some abstract notion, or supra-historical allegiance to “political mediation” as a thing in itself—indeed there is no “political mediation” as a thing in itself. The problem isn’t that Syriza or Maduro have a “politically mediated” view of revolution, but that they are capitalist formations, designed and determined to maintain capitalist political mediation.

    DD: S.Artesian clearly does not in any way respond to any critique of Marx except to say it was Engels who said this, that or the other (it was certainly NOT just Engels). This idealisation of Marx as not being intrinsically racist conforms to the pure image of his hero (as I said, Marx was not alone in this racism – he was similar to the vast majority of thinkers of his epoch, revolutionary or otherwise, and the basis of some of his, and others’, racism was an ideology of progress; Marx’s approval of many of Tremaux’s theories of superior and inferior races is an additional aspect of this). Taking Marx as an influence amongst other influences is too wish-washy and undevoted an attitude to take amongst those who pride themselves on an anti-anarchist rivalry utterly unconscious of its useless consequences.

    SA: The issue is not now, nor was it ever, if Marx personally expressed racist sentiments. The issues are: 1) does any theoretical, practical, ideological support for the hierarchical segregation of human beings by race form any part of Mar’x critique of capitalism; Marx’s explanation of the conditions immanent in capital that lead to its overthrow; Marx’s analysis and concept of class struggle; and Marx’s socialism? 2) does Marx’s critique of capital, Marx’s analysis of the necessity for the overthrow of capital, involve maintaining and perpetuating notions of “race” “racial superiority” “racial dominance”? 3) does Marx’s critique of capital provide the tools to explain the basis for the institutions developed by capital that maintain and expand notions of racial superiority, dominance, and hierarchy? 4)does the necessity for the abolition of capital as Marx presents it actually require a struggle against and the overthrow of the institutions, and the ideology, of racial superiority, dominance, and hierarchy?

    I think the answers are 1) no 2) no 3) yes 4) yes. Hence I conclude Marx was not a racist, and Marxism is not racist. On the contrary, Marx’s analysis for the overthrow of capitalism requires a relentless struggle against the institutions and ideology of racial superiority.

    DD: S.Artesian also doesn’t respond seriously to the idea that libcom including Michael Schidt in its insanely eclectic library is no worse than including that of a Stalinist’s account of his participation in the Spanish (counter-) revolution or Bordiga, the guy who continued to defend the Kronstadt massacre. Or loads of other dangerous nasty nonsense using “revolutionary” language. Fascists are not worse than Stalinists or other defenders of state capitalist mass murder. Even though historically individuals who aligned themselves with Stalin or Lenin might have been more human, “better intentioned’ than fascists, from the point of view of the struggle for the self-emancipation of the working class, Stalinism and Leninism have been more devastating and more demoralising since they expropriated radical language and turned it into its opposite. And still do.

    SA: One mo’ time: I objected to the removal of Chris Harman’s work. That work was removed after a person demanded the removal on the basis that Chris Harman was member of the hierarchy of an organization that tolerated, enabled, the sexual abuse of female members. Since Harman had died a year or two before the information was made public; since the information did not identify Harman as having been a participant, a facilitator or an apologist for the abuse; and because Harman’s work in no way advocated sexual abuse, I found it ridiculous to remove the ebook from Libcom’s library. Others on Libcom argued that since Harman was a Leninist the work shouldn’t have been in the library in the first place. I thought that too was ridiculous, given the wide range and dubious political and personal lives of authors so represented. As the argument evolved, I pointed out that Libcom still maintained the writings of Michael Schmidt who while “covered” as a bona-fide black flag anarcho communist (presumably one who doesn’t believe in political mediations), actually functioned as a white supremacist militant in various right-wing locations. In addition, Schmidt supporters had known about this, covered it up, and actually utilized Libcom to defend Schmidt. Furthermore Schmidt’s current supporters were attempting to use his previous written “contributions” to anarcho-communism as “grounds” to maintain ties and connections with Schmidt, rather than break all connection with him. I pointed out then, and do again, that on the whole, I could care or less who is or who is not in the Libcom “library” but the issue has become the fact that those works by Schmidt are being used as an apologetic, almost as “character references” in order to prevent the exclusion of this person due to his white supremacy activity. Under those circumstances, every communist, anarchist, situationist, mediated or unmediated, has the obligation to demand the removal of the works. This isn’t a case of “well Leninists and Stalinists did evil things.” What the fuck does that have to do with anything? This has everything to do with the practical reality of Libcom being willing to remove a book based on “guilt by association” while preserving a different book and thus contribute to an effort designed by others to preserve a known white supremacist in the “communist movement.” The fact that you still refuse to engage with that critical issue means that, quite frankly, the distance between you and Libcom is less than you imagined, and the distance between you and me is more than you will ever know.

    So anyway… that’s today’s entertainment.

    S.Artesian
    October 8, 2017

    • That’s entertainment!….?

      What the fuck this has to do with the pretense at discussing the “public health crisis” can only be something in S.Artesian’s increasingly solipsitic head. Or is he just testing out whether I’ll publish this or not so as to then feel he’ll be able to have a reply to other stuff here allowed to be published, none of which he has seriously replied to.

      I’ve only scanned this – haven’t bothered to read the whole of this version of our discussion – but it’s a typical S.Artesian distortion-cum-simplification to reduce my attitude to saying marxism is “authoritarian, anti-revolutionary, “unwoke” and/or just plan inadequate/obsolete because of Marxism’s “recognition” of the “state,” or rather the necessity for the proletariat to organize itself in a struggle for state power; to execute the abolition of capitalism, which means to execute the abolition of the capitalists through its own state power”. (although the fact that he seems uncritical of these tendencies seems to indicate his failure to break with Leninism). It’s an aspect of marxism but there have also been counter-tendencies. But , in the unlikely event of there being people here who want to check out what was said in this exchange, they can read the original here:
      https://dialectical-delinquents.com/articles-chronologically-2/uncategorised/an-attempt-at-dialogue-with-a-marxist/

      And, by the way, I haven’t described myself as a “situationist” for over 40 years.

      In the event of any future post by him I’ll remove what he writes or decide not to on the basis of this on the homepage: “This is not an open access site: it has no pretensions to being “democratic” in the sense of being welcoming to absolutely anybody. Anyone who persists over time in dogmatic ideological arguments which go nowhere will be censored and/or banned. Undoubtedly there will be many who have ideologically petrified notions whilst also having some lucid ideas and interesting facts to contribute. But if they persist in pursuing their dogmas impervious to argument, then their useless & facile comments will be suppressed. The aim of this site is not to get into head-bashing ego-battles, to repeatedly refute the same stale ideas, but to develop perspectives that clarify and help advance social contestation, to bring a breath of fresh air.”

  14. And by the way, regardless of speculations for the reasons for this, this “public health crisis” has been greatly exacerbated by the fact that, as compared with those who suffer from flu (who are often given various forms of anti-viral treatment), Covid deaths have been significantly high because in probably most “First world” “advanced” countries (or, at least in France, which I’m familiar with) no treatment was provided in the first 6 months or so: not ivermectin nor HCQ nor even azythromycine. In France and probably elsewhere, people (unless their symptoms were severe) were told to go home and take paracetamol, dangerous advice as it only reduces discomfort whilst reducing the body’s ability to fight fever. And paracetamol is not an anti-viral drug. Those with severe symptoms were hospitalised where they were put on ventilators, but not administered any treatment drugs. [edited]

  15. S.Artesian responded to the above with:
    “What was it Hooper said in Jaws? “I refuse to waste time arguing with a man lining up to be a hot lunch”?

    Right, those who died from Covid in “first world” countries were told to go home. What nonsense. As opposed to those with the flu are treated with anti-virals. Those statements are so fundamentally ignorant they would be laughable.

    So… that’s why hospitals filled, ICU beds were filled, why portable morgues were established outside hospitals in “first world” countries?

    What planet do you pretend to live on.

    And what about……non-first world countries? Mexico? Brazil? India? Peru? Ecuador? And what about those advanced countries where the transmission of infection was interrupted, and controlled? Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, Norway? Were those countries using HCQ, ivermectin?

    Your ignorance is mind boggling and near criminal.

    Here’s what I said, and what I say about the flocking of the denier birds. Read it and weep: https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/unherdof-immunity/

    Nothing more to add.”

    He responds to things I haven’t said. I have never been in favour of herd immunity ( a limited critique of which is on the page of his blog which he links to at the end) nor have I denied the massive amounts of people in hospital (but – at least in France, and lots of other places – only for those who had severe symptoms; certainly it would have been stupid to have said “those who died from Covid in “first world” countries were told to go home”, something I most definitely didn’t say). Ideology blocks people from reading what is written, hearing what has been said, and makes people see something they can easily contest. The sleep of reason of this Covid epoch has spawned monsters of incomprehension. The struggle to make sense of various perspectives that try to be nuanced and don’t fit into easy categories has been severely set back.

    There’s no point in trying to counter what I didn’t even say to begin with . He’s a brick wall of ideology.

    But it’s worth saying this:

    At times I doubt myself and my usually hesitant critical approach to all the things that have been happening over the last almost 18 months. Back in November I wrote something about AstraZeneca called “waiting for the thalidomide effect”, referring to the scary results of their trials (2 people – voluntary guinea pigs in their trials – had got a very rare debilitating disease called transverse myelitis in September) and the fact that they were now proclaiming 90% success for their drug. S.Artesian went berserk – calling me an anti-vaxxer (and a nurse in Leeds also accused me of this). Because medicine is not something I feel comfortable about stating a clear opinion about and feel uncertain about it all (no training in medicine nor any systematic reading about it before Covid, though influenced by my ex, who’s had serious problems with conventional doctors), I took the page off, though later included bits of it elsewhere. These 2 were so categorically sure of themselves that my sense of self-doubt made me withdraw what I wrote . I guess this may be happening to a lot of people who don’t want to be associated with a dogmatic anti-vaxx position that, when confronted with an absolutely self-assured dogmatic pro-vaxx position they feel they’re on shaky grounds and shut up. And yet the AstraZeneca vaccine has now been proved to be defective, though not because of transverse myelitis (but because of the blood clotting). So in a sense I was right to speak of “waiting for the thalidomide effect” re. AZ. And those who shouted “anti-vaxxer!” were just being thoroughly ideological. And, insofar as they had any influence, dangerously so.

    In 1963 the SI said about the French journal Planète:
    “Playing on the truism that science and technology
    [or, for Artesian: science and the medical industry] are advancing faster and faster without anyone knowing where they are going, Planète harangues ordinary people with the message that henceforth everything must be changed — while at the same time taking for granted 99% of the life really lived in our era.” . Same goes for dogmatic marxists like S.Artesian, who are literally being driven mad and driving themselves mad in going berserk over things not said and things in their head.

    As Debord almost said, “In a society where no one can any longer be recognized by others, each individual becomes incapable of recognizing his own reality. Covid is at home; separation has built its own world. Imprisoned in a flattened universe inundated by the contradictions of Covid “facts”, behind which his own life has been exiled, the supposedly “critical” spectator’s consciousness no longer knows anyone but the fictitious experts who subject him to a one-way monologue about their vaccines and the politics of their vaccines. Manichean false choices are his mirror maze, presenting illusory escapes from a universal autism.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.