by Iain Davis
[41] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210611134439/https://biontech.de/covid-19-portal/mrna-vaccines
[42] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210326203816/https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/what-gene-therapy
[43] - https://archive.is/mgtXr
[44] - https://archive.is/Z10Po
[45] - https://archive.is/tGbQU
[46] - https://archive.is/2nWxh
[47] - https://archive.is/D4cpN
[48] - https://archive.is/ChceR
[49] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210304072132/https://www.gov.uk/government/news/modified-covid-19-vaccines-for-variants-to-be-fast-tracked-says-mhra-and-other-regulators
Chapter 22 - Making An Extremist
The "infodemic" preoccupying the GPPP predominantly took the form of the news media and citizen journalist's reporting scientific literature, qualified expert medical opinion and official statistics. Their readers, listeners and viewers then shared this evidence online. The news media reporting became sceptical of the official narrative as questions remained unanswered and content was censored.
Ordinary people formed groups online that focused upon the scientific, statistical and medical evidence which appeared to contradict the official pseudopandemic narrative. In turn this led to an organic protest movement and huge, unreported protest marches. Research conducted by MIT [1] stated that these online communities tended towards the following:
"Their approach to the pandemic is grounded in more scientific rigour, not less... the groups we studied believe that science is a process, and not an institution... anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries.. Data literacy is quintessential criterion for membership within the community."
These online groups, questioning the pseudopandemic using science and statistics, were diligently appraised by the approved fact checkers. Referring to what had become a resistance movement, the founder of Full Fact, Will Moy, said [2]:
"A year of conspiracy theories and false health advice has shown the threat bad information poses to all our lives."
The kind of conspiracy theories and bad information that the wider public were not allowed to know about included the contents of the open letter written by the physicians at the Health Advisory and Recovery Team which urged the MHRA not to allow the vaccination of children [3]. They highlighted that there was no reason to vaccinate them as COVID 19 didn't harm them and they presented no infection risk. The potential for vaccine adverse reactions appeared to outweigh any possible health benefits.
The Trusted News cartel were silent on the issue and the conspiracy theorists were unable to share this information with others on social media. Facebook whistleblowers leaked internal documents [4] from the social media giant which showed they had a system in place to monitor, block and demote any criticism of vaccines, even if it accurately reported "true events, or facts."
The medical profession in particular had to be careful what they said. Any criticism of the pseudopandemic could end their careers. In Canada for example the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), who regulate the practice of medicine, issued a warning to physicians [4] working in the province:
"The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media.. physicians.. are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians.. have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders.. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action"
Around the world dissenting physicians were threatened. In Ireland, Dr Marcus de Brun, a former member of the Irish Medical Council, was among a number of doctors who faced censure [6] for questioning the pseudopandemic. In the UK Dr Iqbal Adil (MB BS, FRCSEd. FRCSI), a consultant general surgeon in the NHS, was suspended [7] by the UK General Medical Council, and labelled a "conspiracy theorist," for publicly raising his doubts about the official truth.
Doctors were not free to use their clinical judgment, they could not prescribe the treatments they thought best for their patients. There was a medical dictatorship in place throughout the pseudopandemic, centrally controlled by the WHO, and any professional challenge to their authority was met with retribution.
Scientists who questioned the approved science were viciously attacked by the Trusted News cartel, their names besmirched and reputations trashed. They were deplatformed by the main social media channels and their published peer reviewed papers buried, ignored or retracted. They and anyone who tried to report their work were found guilty of anti-science by the GPPP and its Trusted News cartel.
On the paradoxically named 2021 World Press Freedom [8] Day the U.N set the ball rolling on the global censorship endgame. The theme of the day was the malevolent misappropriation of "information as a public good." It moved information into the realms of the global commons, preparing the grounds for the GPPP to bring it under their authority.
Far from questioning power, the U.N's version of press freedom meant the totalitarian exercise of power through a tightly controlled propaganda operation. They stated:
"The theme is of urgent relevance to all countries across the world. It recognizes the changing communications system that is impacting on our health, our human rights, democracies and sustainable development."
Anything can be a public health risk, that is the why the core conspirators and their informed influencers deployed the pseudopandemic psy-op. The biosecurity state it has enabled means the complete behavioural control over humanity. Communication systems and information itself are a health risk now. Therefore, just as all fascists, tyrants and kings have claimed, information must be controlled by them for the public good.
The new de facto head of the Trusted News cartel, the current director general of the BBC Tim Davie, abused the public by perverting the notion of press freedom to make his argument for a neofeudal technocracy [9]. Using a mixture of deception, misdirection, omission and arrogance, he oozed slick propaganda. Mr Davie said:
"In the midst of the Covid pandemic, it is clearer than ever why people need access to trusted, impartial news. Trusted information is an essential public good... This growing assault on truth represents a profound threat to the health of societies and democracies worldwide. We stand in solidarity with journalists and other media organisations who continue to fight for truth and media freedom."
You may have noticed that Mr. Davie was using the same words that were in the U.N press release. This is because the head of the BBC and the global Trusted News cartel thinks that trusted, impartial news is the parroted repetition of official policy announcements. There is no analysis, no questioning of power, no context, no objectivity and no honesty. It is simply the delivery of policy directly into the minds of the public.
As Davie stood in solidarity with the global security apparatus, committing to fight the infodemic, he pronounced that questioning anything declared by the Trusted News cartel was an assault on the truth. Hitting us hard with the idea that that information is a public good (global commons) it was his assertion that we must trust him and his cartel that was most striking. "Trust" is the last thing we should invest in the GPPP's mainstream media propaganda machine.
The Oxford English Dictionary [10] definition of "trust" is:
"Firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something... Acceptance of the truth of a statement without evidence or investigation."
The trust that the Trusted News cartel demand from us is a belief (faith) in their claim to tell the truth. We are being coerced, by OmniGOV (Omnicom) and others, to accept whatever they say without evidence or investigation. The global MSM a
re actively encouraging us not to think. We must simply trust them and obey.
We have already discussed some examples, but with their article You Must Not Do Your Own Research When It Comes To Science [11] Forbes epitomised the hybrid information war we are in. They wrote:
"Research both sides and make up your own mind. It’s simple, straightforward, common sense advice. And when it comes to issues like vaccinations, climate change, and the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, it can be dangerous, destructive, and even deadly.... It’s part of why scientific consensus is so remarkably valuable... It truly is one of the most important and valuable types of expertise that humanity has ever developed."
Consensus is not a form of expertise and consensus itself is often disastrous. The Chinese Communist Party were in consensus when they agreed to implement Mao's "great leap forward," 44% of the German population shared a consensus when they elected Hitler in 1933, the "scientific community" maintained the consensus that eugenics was scientifically credible and the medical science consensus for decades was that smoking was harmless.
Questioning the consensus does not suggest that we should ignore the weight of evidence, quite the opposite. However, as previously mentioned, consensus is not evidence. Consensus leads us to settled science which, if ever true, would mean a lot of redundant scientists as new scientific discoveries would be impossible. Settled science is claimed omniscience. It is truly anti-science.
Consensus is even more dangerous when it is asserted but doesn't exist. Science, especially medical science, has been ruthlessly suppressed and censored throughout the pseudopandemic. Some of the world's leading epidemiologist, virologists, immunologists, biochemists, statisticians and physicians were labelled cranks and often "conspiracy theorists" or "anti-vaxxers" because they did not agree with the policy response to COVID 19. Science had very little to do with it. This was political oppression.
Doctors for Covid Ethics (DFCE) wrote an article expressing their deep concerns about the COVID 19 vaccines [12]. They are a group of some of the most eminent scientists and physicians in the world.
This could not be shared by anyone on social media without the GPPP's fact-checking partners either removing it immediately or applying warnings claiming that they and the social media companies were now the authority on medical science. This included Facebook's fact checker, Fact Check, who are funded by the Robert Woods Johnson foundation [13] which is a major shareholders of Johnson & Johnson stock. J&J manufacture the COVID 19 Janssen vaccine.
No Trusted News Cartel outlet reported the DFCE's concerns, only the news media did so. While Davie, and the other gathered dignitaries attending the World Press Freedom Day events were pretending they valued impartial news, their GPPP partners were busy deplatforming and censoring any independent news media outlet that dared to question the pseudopandemic. It wasn't long before the original DFCE article was scrubbed from the Internet and memory-holed for violation of the rules [14].
It is against this background of the outright censorship of science that we are witnessing the deification of the scientific consensus. The kind of extremely well funded scientific consensus which wholeheartedly supports and never questions GPPP State franchise policy.
Only officially approved science had merit during the pseudopandemic. Scientific objections to the official science, no matter how well evidenced or how eminent the scientists raising them, were anti-science. You had to obey official science and if you didn't then you were a threat to national security. You were anti-science and an extremist to be dealt with under anti-terrorism legislation.
At the end of March 2021, the "respected scientific journal" Scientific American published The Antiscience Movement Is Escalating, Going Global and Killing Thousands [15]. The article was written by Peter Hotez. He opened with this paragraph:
"Antiscience has emerged as a dominant and highly lethal force, and one that threatens global security, as much as do terrorism and nuclear proliferation. We must mount a counteroffensive and build new infrastructure to combat antiscience, just as we have for these other more widely recognized and established threats."
Hotez continued:
"The destructive potential of antiscience was fully realized in the U.S.S.R. under Joseph Stalin. Millions of Russian peasants died from starvation and famine during the 1930s and 1940s because Stalin embraced the pseudoscientific views of Trofim Lysenko... Soviet scientists who did not share Lysenko’s 'vernalization'... starved to death in a gulag."
The irony of his analogy would be comical were it not for the implicit threat he makes. Hotez is demanding that Lysonkoism, under the control of the GPPP stakeholders including the WHO, The U.N, GAVI, CEPI and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, be established on a global scale. While decrying anything which challenges the official scientific truth as "antiscience" Hotez is absolutely arguing for, not against, Lysenkoism. The implied threat is obvious. He added:
"We are approaching three million deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is increasingly apparent that the SARS CoV2 alone is not responsible... Thousands of deaths have so far resulted from antiscience... Containing antiscience will require work and an interdisciplinary approach... we might look at interagency task forces.. among the agencies of the United Nations... We must be prepared to implement a sophisticated infrastructure to counteract this, similar to what we have already done for more established global threats. Antiscience is now a large and formidable security issue."
The scientific foundation of the pseudopandemic was Lysenkoism. It was GPPP approved antiscience designed to provide fake scientific legitimacy for destructive policies.
Unlike the DFCE, Hotez didn't offer any evidence to back up any of his claims. Nor did he have to. His baseless diatribe was published in Scientific American. This is a trusted source and that is all you need to know. Whatever is said by a trusted source is true and anything which questions it is dangerous extremism which presents a global security threat on the same scale as terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
The claimed threat of non-violent extremism, promoted in the UN by Cameron in 2014 and placed at the core of the UK's Online Harms censorship, has turned into hard global security policy. Under the guise of protecting public health, the surveillance systems, search powers, detention without trial and other components of the police state, allegedly designed to to fight the global war on terror, are now being turned inwards, towards anyone who has the temerity to question official GPPP Lysenkoism.
The German domestic intelligence agency (BfV) have placed members of the German anti-lockdown protests under state surveillance [16]. They say that the coronavirus denier movement has become aggressive, alleging attacks on the police. They reportedly announced their decision to keep tabs on "conspiracy theorists" whose crimes included defying civil authorities, political protests and mistrust of democracy and its institutions.
In February 2021 the UK Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE - part if the UK State franchise Home Office) issued its suggested legal framework [17] for countering what it called hateful extremism. Using card stacking propaganda techniques, the report initially defined hateful extremists as those who exercise extreme bigotry and advocate violence.
Few of us would object to extreme racists, terrorist fund raisers and people advocating violence being questioned. It is illegal to encourage any crime and so the police already have the legal authority to arrest anyone who actively incites criminal activity, either online or off. However, by stacking these moral cards as the initial justification for their definition, our emotional response was set by the CCE and we were enticed to react with automatic approval before we realised what we were approving.
The CCE also considered a hateful extremist to be anyone who is:
"Likely to cause, harm to individuals, communities or wider society."
The 2000 Terrorism Act the UK State franchise defined as terrorist as anyone who:
"Creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public"
In the UK, if you are deemed likely to cause a risk to public health you will be treated as a potential terrorist. There is no limit to the activities the GPPP can consider a likely risk to public health.
Hateful extremists include people who haven't harmed anyone. These are people who could possibly harm someone at some point in the future perhaps, or not. Rhetorically we might ask who knows? Regrettably, there would be little point as the GPPP's UK State franchise has already figured this out.
As there is no definition of harm, defining the future crime of the hateful extremism is entirely at the State franchise's discretion. The purpose of the proposed online regulation, advocated by the CCE, is not necessarily to apprehend all hateful extremists for the crimes they haven't committed yet, that would be silly, but rather to create a statutory framework to stop them committing the crimes they haven't committed yet.
Tackling future infodemic crimes is the priority. It has been convenient until now for the GPPP to exploit our belief in free and open democracy, they haven't felt the need make up the laws that end free speech and freedom of expression. They have instead relied upon their corporate stakeholder partners to do the heavy lifting. It is the concept of the hateful extremist guilty of a future thought crime that will provide the statutory powers enabling official censorship. The CCE suggest:
"If a legal framework for hateful extremism is developed, as we recommend, this could be incorporated into the Online Harms Bill and provide clarity for both social media companies and the future regulator, Ofcom."
As the UK State franchise Home Office is effectively recommending this to itself, it seems likely that hateful extremism will be part of the Online Harms censorship grid. So who, according to the CCE, are hateful extremists? They claim:
"Extremist narratives underpin some of the best-known and most recent conspiracies.. The FBI reportedly considers prominent conspiracy theories.. as potential motivators which could trigger domestic extremists to enact violence.. Many conspiracy theories or narratives based on disinformation.. can spread rapidly over social media. This has intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic.. Extremist groups and individuals are exploiting the pandemic by spreading disinformation.. The effectiveness of the Online Harms Bill in tackling conspiracy theories and disinformation is critical."