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.


Lockdown significantly reduced children’s physical and intellectual capacities

A study conducted in the Allier and Puy-de-Dôme regions of France among 90 children in the second and third grades indicates that confinement [lockdown] has had a strong impact on their weight and breath, laying the groundwork for future chronic diseases. Their cognitive abilities dropped by 40%. …. The effects of the successive confinements linked to the Covid-19 pandemic are worrying, according to a study carried out on 90 second and third graders in schools in Vichy, in the Allier region, and Riom, in the Puy-de-Dôme region, in September 2019 and September 2020. “The figures are catastrophic”, says Martine Duclos, head of the sports medicine department at the Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital, who heads the National Observatory of Physical Activity and Sedentariness (Onaps) and coordinates this work, the preliminary results of which have been submitted for publication. In one year, the body mass index (BMI, weight divided by height squared), a reflection of corpulence, increased by 2 to 3 points on average. “We’ve never seen anything like this,” says the specialist. Sporty children, with no health problems or weight problems, have put on 5 to 10 kg because they stopped playing sports. The physical condition of these 7-8 year olds has deteriorated considerably. During the shuttle test, a classic test which consists of running faster and faster from one block to another (10 metres apart), “some children, already very out of breath, did not manage to reach the first block before the first beep”, describes Professor Duclos. This was also an unprecedented observation, according to her. Some of them were unable to complete the motor skills course (a timed course comprising various obstacles), while their cognitive abilities dropped by around 40%. To measure this, the team from the Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital used a test that consisted of linking letters to the corresponding numbers in alphabetical order within a given time. All the schoolchildren did so within the time limit in September 2019. A year later, many did not finish. “One year of confinement was catastrophic, at an essential moment of neuronal plasticity,” notes Martine Duclos.
These results are all the more worrying because the previous situation was already not very bright. For example, before the pandemic, 87% of French teenagers aged 11 to 17 did not respect the daily hour of physical activity recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO). And during the first containment, only 0.6% of them reached this threshold, the proportion being 4.8% among 5-11 year olds (2.8% of girls and 6.5% of boys), according to the Onaps Report Card, the state of physical activity and sedentariness among children and adolescents published in January. A report by the French National Agency for Food Safety (Anses), published in November 2020, showed that 66% of young people aged 11 to 17 “present a worrying health risk”, characterised by the simultaneous exceeding of two thresholds: more than two hours of screen time and less than sixty minutes of physical activity per day. The health authorities believe that there is an urgent need to reverse the trend, especially as it is during childhood that health capital is built up. Lack of physical activity and excessive sedentary behaviour (time spent sitting or lying down) lead to a loss of cardiorespiratory fitness and are often associated with excess weight, due to unfavourable nutritional habits. A cocktail which, in the long term, favours the onset of chronic diseases such as diabetes, arterial hypertension, etc. To raise families’ awareness of these threats from nursery school onwards, the sports cardiologist François Carré has a very concrete message for them: “If your child goes to bed at 8 p.m. and you take him to school by car at the last moment, he will not start to move until the first break at 10 a.m. In fourteen hours he will not be able to get any exercise. In fourteen hours, he has only taken 50 steps! ” Arguments that hit home. “Parents understand better why teachers complain about their pupils’ nervousness, and the advantage of leaving ten minutes early in the morning, so that their child can move around a bit before going to class,” Professor Carré continues. “For better health, every movement counts”, says the WHO.


UK, London: anti-lockdown demo

Germany, Dusseldorf: report on demo against assembly law designed to use Covid as pretext for repression of demos

“It is clear that the state measures against the Corona virus have boosted the structural state violence. Politicians and police alike became drunken from the posibilities to increase their authoritarian policies under the COVID-19 pretext. Already in spring 2020, interior state minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, Herbert Reul, stated that he wants to get rid of the Brokdorf verdict. [1] In this sense Reul’s current law proposal to further restrict the freedom of assembly is not a surprise. The deafening silence of major parts of the left when it comes to the authoritarian Corona state measures in 2020, are not the reason that Reul is pushing new repressive assembly laws, but he surely knows that the time is ripe when the left accepted the authoritarian Corona rules. Noticeable is also the big distance between major parts of the left and the youths in the cities and parks, who are subjected to police violence on a regular basis.”

[1] During the first German Covid-19 lockdown, a decree titled “Police Measures on the Occasion of Assemblies” by the NRW state Minister of the Interior, Herbert Reul, was made public to the district police authorities, in which they were instructed, among other things, to influence the authorities responsible for the measures in accordance with infection control, not to order the wearing of face masks during assemblies, as this would contradict the ban on masking. Furthermore, the Ministry of Interior implicitly threatens to abolish (have abolished) the exemption for assemblies defined in § 11 (3) in the Corona Protection Ordinance, if any reason is found to do so. In a letter to cabinet colleagues and district governments dated April 9, 2020, Herbert Reul questioned what he considered to be the constitutional privileging of the exercise of the fundamental right to assemble under Article 8 of the constitution as a result of the Brokdorf decision, which in his opinion should be put to the test. After the debate in the Interior Committee about the text passage, Herbert Reul retracted his view and said he had been misunderstood. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versammlungsgesetz_NRW

Re. the censorship of all mention of side effects on Facebook spoken about here (see entry for 21/6 below on conversation removed by Youtube):

T. writes: Regarding Facebook, the censorship there is not just pure deletion, but for every mention of anything corona-related they add a banner with a “recommendation” that you can press and which leads to the official sources. In addition, for more “controversial” posts or links shared – for some only when you’re trying yourself to “share” that controversial post – they add a warning that tells you something like “this information could be misleading or contradict the scientific consensus concerning Covid19, are you sure you want to continue?” and then you’re offered either to press continue or press the other button that leads you to the official sources or “fact-checkers”. Today for example this popped up when I tried to share a guy’s post about the vaccine side-effect in which he discusses and shows data taken directly and only from the CDC website, providing the source…
Something similar happened to me when I shared a Lancet article from about 6 months ago that I saw recently on Sam’s site, that opinion column claiming how this is a syndemic and not a pandemic (that is, how the virus is dangerous mainly to those mostly affected by of our current way of life). So, you’re not supposed to even talk about what they themselves are talking about. Nothing but authority.

Ministry of Truth








The contradictions of herd immunity via vaccination

US: Center for Disease Control stop tracking all cases where experimental COVID vaccines fail to prevent infections


Brief video on Vimeo censorship of film critical of the W.H.O.

For years this film has been on Vimeo, but in the wake of the crisis it has been removed, and removed each time there was an attempt to re-upload it. The whole movie is currently available for free here. But for how long? Fortunately, even if it’s removed/censored, you can still buy or rent the film here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/video/det… https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/tru… https://play.google.com/store/movies/…

The film covers the gross exaggeration of the swine flu “pandemic” of 2009 – it killed 284,000 people worldwide over a couple of years, over 100,000 less than the absolute minimum amount of people killed by flu each year. It also covers the cover-up of the carcinogenic effects of the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima, and includes an account of a doctor who wrote a paper for the W.H.O. about very high cases of thyroid cancer amongst children in the region round Chernobyl and how the WHO insisted he withdraw the paper under threat of an early end to his career. Plus it informs us that the Bill Gates Foundation is the 2nd highest source of finances for the WHO (the first being the USA). At a large conference of the WHO, Bill Gates said “Our priorities are your priorities”, which is confirmation of the statement by Margaret Chan, the Director-General of the WHO from 2006 to 2017, who in 2014 was ranked as the 30th most powerful woman in the world, that “in this the 21st century no government can provide everything for their people. So you do need to work with the industry but work in a way that there is no room for conflict of interest”. Not really a surprise since capitalist priorities – the accumulation of capital – are capitalist priorities, regardless of which section of capital any specific issue concerns.: no conflict of interest. A former worker for the WHO says “It is no longer necessary to bribe officials”. Was it ever for the top levels of the hierarchy?

On “informed consent”

France’s “Minister of Health, in a letter to the President of the CNOM [Conseil National de l’Ordre des Médecins – National Council of the Order of Doctors], relieves doctors of the responsibility to inform patients of the risks of vaccination. I quote: “Doctors cannot be held liable on the grounds that they have provided insufficient information to patients about adverse effects unknown at the time of vaccination”. What are we to think of doctors’ knowledge on the subject, when they are only entitled to one source of information, the official one, any other being vilified or censored. The official information? That of the only laboratories already multiply condemned for having hidden side effects in other cases. Moreover, the information is watered down by the authorities. An example: the messenger RNA remains in the deltoid muscle, according to Inserm and the authorities. What did Pfizer and Moderna write in their studies that the authorities did not mention? “We found elements of the vaccine in all organs, including reproductive ones”. So how “informed” is consent? When a vaccinator tells patients that vaccines are safe, made like others from attenuated viruses, is the person in charge who must enlighten others well informed? Our Minister, the same one, has just threatened to make vaccination compulsory for carers in nursing homes if they do not vaccinate more. In “informed consent”, there is the word “consent”. What is consent under threat, under blackmail? Is it consent? Moreover, what scientific and medical justification is there for this blackmail when 90% of the residents are vaccinated and therefore protected? (Remember that the vaccine is 98% effective…). Are we in the spirit of the Nuremberg Code? It specifies in its first article that: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person concerned must have the legal capacity to consent; that he or she must be placed in a position to exercise free choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, coercion, trickery, deception or other underhand forms of constraint or coercion.” In the above-mentioned letter, the Minister also talks about compensation for victims of the CVI vaccine. Usually, it is the laboratory that is responsible for the consequences of what it markets, so it is careful before launching its product on the market. In this case, the state has entered into a contract with the laboratories, “taking responsibility” for liability and compensation for any consequences. The laboratories therefore have fewer precautions to respect, their portfolio will not suffer in case of shortcomings. They have already been fined billions of euros in recent years for withholding information and defects, but this does not prevent our authorities from not only trusting them with their eyes closed, but also from relieving them of their responsibilities.”


Side Effects of Pfizer vaccine: 45% of participants in trials had to use pain medication after vaccine (from December 2020)

Chart of side effects during Pfizer trials

US: yet another example amongst millions of how Covid is used as pretext for attack on those at the bottom of the hierarchy

“During Biden’s five-month tenure, more than 400,000 migrants detained at or near the border have been expelled, including many Central American families and asylum seekers sent back to Mexico. Publicly, the Biden administration insists the order remains necessary to limit the spread of the coronavirus, although it has not provided scientific data to support that rationale and many public health experts have opposed it.”

France: radical discussion (in French) critiquing the totalitarianism of all aspects of this crisis, including the acquiescence of the ultra-left

Not yet heard the whole of this 3-hour discussion but it was recommended.

And another from the same small group.

Again, not yet really listened to this, but it mentions the following about France:

The official reason for the lockdown in March to May 2020 was the lack of beds in the intensive care units, which , given the massive increase in cases, risked being “saturated” (this, after 70,000 beds had been suppressed over the last 15 years by governments of left, right and centre). However between March and September the capacity of these intensive care units was not increased and those that had been opened at the time of the first lockdown were closed again. When the number of cases increased again in October, the government again indicated that due to the lack of beds it was obliged to impose confinement/lockdown to avoid too many patients arriving at the same time (again, the risk of “saturation”). Except that in six months the government could have opened new departments, hired more staff and opened new beds in anticipation of a possible “second wave”. But the opposite was done. Which means that this risk of “saturation” was really just a pretext. And all this done with the complicity of the “Lockdown Left”.


France: strange statistic of Covid cases and deaths amongst hospital personnel

This shows that amongst the 81,032 cases of Covid only 19 workers died. That is, a 0.02344665% mortality rate. What to make of this? That hospitals take care of their own staff more than they take care of patients? Or that everyone in hospital is tested regularly for Covid and thus a more accurate death/case ratio can be ascertained than amongst the general population? Or maybe it’s due to the relatively young age of hospital personnel? Or that hospitals are more thorough in applying Covid rules? Or maybe something else? But it’s strange that the mortality to case rate seems to be just 2½% of the rate amongst the general population, at least according to official figures.

Added 6th July:

An email from a nurse in Paris says:

There are (were) many more Covid cases in the general population in France than is admitted (millions of paucisymptomatic or asymptomatic people did not get tested and were therefore never counted as “Covid cases”). This mechanically means that the real lethality rate is much lower than the one presented to us. Among carers in France, the Covid case fatality rate is 0.023%… However – by way of comparison only – the lethality rate of seasonal flu in the general population [relative to the case rate] is about 0.1%, i.e. four times higher [at least, officially – many people get flu but don’t report it to their doctor]!

As for testing, in nursing homes: contact case carers are systematically tested with PCR. And carers are also encouraged (but not coerced) to ask for a PCR test at the slightest suspicion of Covid. The less fortunate among them have already undergone about ten tests since March 2020 (but, in the end, that’s only about one test per month, tops).

Finally…even if it’s true that the fact that carers are tested earlier means that they know earlier (i.e. even before any symptoms) that they have Covid, this doesn’t seem to me to explain the ridiculously low lethality rate among healthcare workers. Indeed, the dogma that Covid cannot be cured (basically: once infected, you just have to cross your fingers and wait, because no treatment is likely to limit the risks of developing severe forms) has been applied as much to healthcare workers as to the rest of the population. Moreover, to my knowledge, being a health worker did not give any right to be hospitalised/treated as a priority in case of Covid contamination. On the contrary, at the height of the different “waves”, many healthcare workers who were not only contact cases but even tested positive or even symptomatic continued to work (voluntarily – to compensate for the shortage of personnel, out of a sense of public service, out of guilt at abandoning their colleagues, etc.) or were forced to do so by their managers. – or forced by their managers).

Psittacovirus alert

We are all too familiar with the SARS-COV-2 coronavirus that we have been hearing about for over a year. Less well known is the psittacovirus, which is nevertheless wreaking havoc anonymously. The psittacovirus is a virus transmitted to humans by parrots. It infects many people, but primarily attacks press representatives, who are high-risk patients. The virus has been deliberately disseminated by the WHO, the European Commission, most governments of industrialised countries and the experts who advise them.

It causes a highly contagious disease, psittacosis (1) , whose essential symptom is well known and easy to diagnose: the affected patient mechanically repeats ready-made phrases, presented as obvious, without necessarily understanding them.

The most common ones are the following:

Generalized vaccination is the only solution to put an end to the Covid-19 crisis;
Vaccination will allow us to live together again;
Side effects (including death from thrombosis) are extremely rare and do not call into question the favourable benefit-risk balance of vaccination.
Those who reject 5G, all-digital technology, and screen assignment, and who have doubts about the usefulness, safety, and efficacy of the vaccines currently on offer, are conspiracy theorists or cowards;
Those who question containment and social distancing measures are irresponsible or selfish.

Systematic screening is useless, the symptoms evoked are sufficient to establish a reliable diagnosis.

But one can effectively protect oneself against psittacovirus contamination by adopting simple barrier measures:

Stop watching the news and so-called objective information programmes;
Stop listening to official pundits and radio talk shows;
Avoiding commentary and analysis from leading print media editorialists.

Beyond that, strengthen your immune system by being critical and, to this end, consult serious information sites ….

In this way, it will be possible to protect ourselves and our loved ones by limiting the circulation of a virus more dangerous than SARS-COV-2.

  1. Psittacosis – Mechanical repetition (like a parrot) of words or phrases heard without the subject understanding them (normal phenomenon in children, frequent in the mentally retarded) – Le Nouveau Petit Robert.


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 from 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-vaxxers, vax-sceptic and even many anti-vaxxers) 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, making a connection between an individual’s death by cancer and it being caused by tobacco smoking took decades in the courts before it 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

“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

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


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.”

UK, London: clashes on anti-lockdown rally


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.


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:

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.


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.”

UK, London: anti-Covid restrictions camp torn down by state after 2 weeks

Undoubtedly a lot of these people are confused &/or right-wing, but then revolutionaries don’t feel they shouldn’t go on demos where they’re equally idiotic (but Leftist) ideologies being pushed. In fact, in the past I’ve been on at least one demo in which Piers Corbyn participated when he was a Left-wing shithead; I’d feel no different about participating on one in which he participates now he’s a Right-wing shithead. Generally speaking, the Left (including many so-called “libertarians”) has been the most servile and acquiescent in this suffocating Covid-epoch, so its ability to recuperate discontent has been handed over to the Right. Both, as ever, are part of the enemy we must confront, which is not to make an equivalence of them – they both have very different histories. But neither are – in terms of practical effect – better than the other, and amongst those who find the lies and ideologies of the dominant discourse repulsively manipulative, there are some, despite holding superficial reactive conspiracy theory ideologies, who are open to radical critique, of which there is extremely little.


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.


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


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.


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)


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.”


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.


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.


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.


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”







Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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