Undercover reporting reveals vaccine propaganda

This is a piece of undercover reporting which claims to show Pfizer scientists privately admitting that natural immunity is as good as or better than vaccine acquired immunity.

I find this interesting because I have been reading recently in the mainstream press that the vaccine offers better protection than natural immunity. This has been presented as scientific truth. [1]

In (scientific) fact for many, natural immunity is a perfectly reasonable way to go. For young people (the exact age would depend on the vaccine, the study and the metrics) it is certainly safer to go with the possibility of acquiring the disease and getting natural immunity this way than taking some of the vaccines on offer. [2]

I would guess there is a collusion between the mainstream media and profit seeking pharma and “science” and government to promote vaccination over natural immunity. They coordinate to deliver a solution. That is, in Illich’s sense, a packaged and addiction creating (a vaccine needs to be repeated every 6-12 months) product which can be sold and ‘delivered’ to passive consumers. All of this a) is terribly profitable especially since the funding comes from compulsory taxation and b) creates more dependent ‘citizens’ who are then prepped for some other top-down solution to be ‘delivered’ to them. Such is our modern and dystopian world. We have already arrived.

I don’t think there is a conspiracy here. I think these people do this automatically.

Notes

  1. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/17/previous-covid-infection-may-not-offer-long-term-protection-study-finds the vaccine offers a “really robust response”.
  2. https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study

Sky News report on Wuhan lab leak theory

It is just a theory. But certainly not a far-out “conspiracy theory” as per the liberal media.

The ex-head of the CIA (Mike Pompeo) and the ex-head of MI6 (Richard Dearlove) and an ex-director of US National Intelligence (John Ratcliffe) seem to think that Covid came from the WIV. That alone should give pause for thought.

Richard Dearlove hints that MI6 current tried to silence him. This supports the idea that the power-base is actively and consciously trying to suppress the lab-leak theory. Certainly, as this site has shown, the liberal media is actively trying to suppress the theory, relentlessly calling it a “conspiracy theory”. In reality both lab leak and natural emergence are theories. The weight of the circumstantial evidence lies heavily on the lab side; there are numerous strange happenings which need to be explained. Just the removal of the WIV database on 12-9-19 is highly suspicious. There is no specific evidence for the natural emergence theory.

I still haven’t completely understood why the political (and intelligence if Dearlove is to be believed) and media foci of power in the West are so desperately trying to suppress rational and evidence-based discussion of this theory. Why would they be covering up this possibility?

Weekly roundup 28-8-21

Taxpayers subsidising the arms industry

The French have just announced a Euro 5 billion deal with Greece to supply them with frigates. What does Greece need frigates for – other than to prance about the Aegean and try to impress Turkey.

A few years ago Greece went bankrupt and the country was bailed out by European taxpayers. One of the reasons the Greek state went bankrupt was that they had been spending more than they could afford on a) social security and supporting an uneconomic civil service and b) on arms.

This deal which the President of France is boasting about is in fact therefore a) an act of extreme folly – this kind of military spending was what caused problems before and b) a clear case of the EU taxpayers underwriting/subsidising the French arms industry.

Vaccine propaganda

This is a piece of vaccine propaganda in the Guardian. It is part of the attempt to persuade/pressurise teenagers to get vaccinated. Boys in this age group are at more risk from Pfizer (the vaccine they are apparently being given) than they are from Covid; in terms of hospitalisation. (Nb. the study while seemingly credible has not yet been peer reviewed). The risk to teenagers from Covid is incredibly low.

The article leads on the story of one 15 year old girl who died of complications following a Covid illness. This is no more scientific than anti-vaxxers highlighting a death linked to a vaccine to discredit all vaccination.

The article states: “While some cases of heart inflammation have been recorded as an extremely rare side-effect of the vaccine, none have led to deaths in young people. The risk of myocarditis appears to be substantially higher from Covid than the vaccine”. This is the carefully curated line or ‘spin’ to attempt to get round the statistics that for young people vaccination may pose more of a risk than Covid. (The claim that no cases of have led to deaths from myocarditis of young people is questionable; maybe not yet young – but there are cases which have been linked to deaths from myocarditis in adults). The meaningful comparison to assess vaccine risk is between vaccination and no vaccination.

A statistical study by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control showed that for young people AstraZeneca was twice as likely to lead to death than Covid. Oxford hit back to the data showing a link between vaccination with AstraZeneca and blood-clotting with a study showing that for AstraZeneca blood-clotting was more likely to happen in those who contract Covid than in those who receive AstraZeneca. This is a tactic; the meaningful comparison to assess vaccine risk is between those who take it and don’t. This is how medical adverse affects are usually calculated. Of course one then weighs up the risks from the disease; but this is what the study which shows that AstraZeneca is more dangerous than Covid for young people has already done. The Oxford Study was designed by colleagues of AstraZeneca researchers to improve their PR. (No doubt they want to feel like heroes and the blood-clotting issue is a bit of a thorn in the side). This line comparing the risk of acquiring a specific condition from a vaccine and from Covid seems to have been more widely adopted and is the one the Guardian uses above to try to push Pfizer.

The other spin line is of course tales about “long Covid in children”. Such claims appear to be based on self-reporting of symptoms and doctors are often sceptical.

The Guardian article is propaganda – no more scientific than the kind of argument produced by anti-vaxxers. It is part of a campaign to scare teenagers into making a health choice whose real purpose is to protect the adults around them and to reduce disruption in schools based on a delusion that missing 2 weeks schooling is a health-risk.

Routine lying and third-rate journalism – the new norm in lost in the mire Britain

This is an article in the Guardian about a Conservative MP who gave a speech at a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference. Apparently the MP said that schools should report people who use the term ‘white privilege’ to Prevent, the government’s deradicalization programme. (Obviously this isn’t practical – but as a polemical point one can see what he is saying; the doctrine of ‘white privilege’ which seems to suggest that all white people have some kind of inherent ‘advantage’ (over black people) in (presumably Western) society is pretty unbalanced and one-sided*. Though against the idea of reporting people to Prevent one can say that this doctrine is unlikely to lead to violence). However; the MP did actually say that. The Guardian also reports that he said that “that teachers who criticise the Conservative party should be sacked”. Immediately of course I thought “this can’t be true; he can’t really have said that”. And of course; based on the actual text of his remarks reported in the article he didn’t. He criticised the way that it is acceptable in schools for teachers to criticise the Conservatives. (This is a long-standing meme in the Conservative party about ‘lefty teachers’). And he went on to say that pushing political ideology in the classroom should be a sackable offence. But if you unpack this he didn’t say that teachers criticizing the Conservatives should be sacked for criticizing the Conservatives. Based on the reported comments that is a straight misrepresentation. This kind of lying about what the other side says is becoming the norm for liberal journalists. It is part of the move to a totalitarian mono-culture where only one point of view (the liberal one) can be accepted as true; opposing views are not just that – a different point view. Rather they have to be discredited. Misrepresenting them is one of the easiest techniques to discredit them. For the record – I doubt I would be particularly sympathetic to this MP’s views – but I do believe that speech and reporting of speech should be free of this kind of distortion.

Update: the Independent also has this story. They also report it as “In leaked recording Jonathan Gullis also called for teachers who criticise Tories to be sacked”. It is presented as an ‘exclusive’. One can listen to the audio. Anyone (other than a deluded ‘journalist’ firmly set on generating propaganda) can see that the MP did not do what he is accused of. On the contrary the MP, who appears to have previously been a school-teacher, speaks out quite cogently (even if his delivery is a little fast) about political ideology in the classroom. He even says that had he pushed his Conservative beliefs when he was working as a teacher he should have been “hauled up in front of the headteacher”. That is pretty clear; he doesn’t think that political ideologies should be pushed in the classroom. Labour or Conservative. Both the Guardian and Independent feed their readers a completely false narrative. One expects print media to have an editorial line. But there is a difference between allowing your editorial line to govern your choice of stories and the kind of comment and opinion pieces you offer and what we have here: false reporting. This is pretty sad. I just see it as part of the total collapse in values in the UK. No one even thinks that truth (generating a basic representation of reality using the symbol system of language to the best of your ability) matters any more. Politicians lie openly. Official government statements use a specialist spin language utterly bereft of moral content in which they manage to deceive and control the narrative without specifically lying. The press reports these scripts without comment. Journalists just write fiction as it suits the editorial line of the corporation who owns them. (Of course; maybe the motive here is simply to generate sensation and get more clicks).

* I haven’t really studied ‘white privilege’ but I’m going by a BBC definition. Based on this it appears to be a theory which says that the dominant racial group in a mixed race society has an inherent advantage in society because they do not face the discrimination which members of minority groups automatically face. (At least I assume that proponents of ‘white privilege’ would talk about ‘black privilege’ in say Nigeria; if not then it really would racial theory rather than a sociological one; though of course here too I expect some would argue that because of the history of colonisation white people enjoy ‘white privilege’ all over the world). – My view on all this is that of MLK: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character”. The interesting point about ‘white privilege’ it seems to me is that it takes racial discrimination – which is of course a reality in, say, the UK – though only up to a point – and it turns that around and invents a concept of ‘white privilege’; if some black people sometimes experience discrimination and all white people never do they (the white people) enjoy ‘white privilege’. Racial discrimination (while much less prevalent than formerly) is a real existent thing. ‘White privilege’ is some kind of academic concept which is stuck onto white people. I think it is a tactic in a war designed (in the thinking of its strategists) to give black people an advantage. Rather than fight to end all discrimination the idea seems to be to use discrimination for political advantage. It is divisive at the theoretical level; rather than try to end discrimination it presupposes the existence of discrimination and requires it in order to operate. It is reactionary (in Nietzsche’s sense). It seems to me to be patronising because it seems to assume that black people need extra help just by virtue of being black. It seems divisive in effect – stoking a race conflict just at that moment in society when racial discrimination was on the way out anyway. Anyway, as I say personally, I find all this banging on about race odious. Even talking about ‘white privilege’ seems to me to unnecessarily focussed on the colour of peoples’ skin. I would need to go into this deeper but it looks to me like another white liberal scam to grab power and hold onto it forever.

The Guardian: why the US lost in Afghanistan

This is an extraordinary article in the Guardian. In reality – it is not ‘extraordinary’; it is simply offering the obvious explanation for why the Taliban was able to defeat the Afghan National army with such ease. The explanation is that the Taliban are a faith-based movement and the US funded army was simply a set of people drawing pay checks, with no motivation beyond that. (Some Afghans may have liked the freedom to wear what they liked, listen to pop music etc. but I doubt many really cared about ‘democracy’ as a value worth dying for). Of course this valueless and artificially created army collapsed when put to the test. The extraordinary thing is that this article has appeared in the Guardian. It is, basically, a correct analysis. It stands out in a sea of narrative journalism – the kind where the preferred narrative of the journalist/editor is superimposed on reality. The clue to this rare level of truth may be that the writer is a science writer and she has consulted serious academics for the article.

The academics mentioned in the article are clearly on the right tracks. You cannot export and impose democracy on tribal societies. Western governments continue with their folly because electoral pressures mean they (any one government) may be reluctant to admit that a mistake has been made. Not everyone around the world wants democracy. It is doubtful as to whether democracy is even clearly understood in the West.

The frightening phrase in this article is the one offered by an Oxford academic whose research forms part of the basis for the article: “It’s strange, we keep being invited [to meetings at high levels of government] yet it all seems to go in one ear and out the other”. In one ear and out the other. One explanation may be that they are paralysed by the pressures of the financial and military forces which surround them. They hear – but they can’t stand up and make independent decisions. The paralysis may be accentuated by the problem that politicians are simply self-interested careerists. I can’t speak about the US but I do observe the UK and it seems to me there isn’t a statesman among them. Not one of them is actually interested in policy or affairs of state. They are just not bothered. They receive the reports, (worst case scenarios from the military), and the lobbying from various sources including arms manufacturers and the military. In a ‘democracy’ politicians always have a compulsive need to be seen to be doing something. With this in mind they look at how their decision will play out in tomorrow morning’s papers. What headlines will this course of action generate? And that is as far as their thinking goes. This is why any serious analysis goes in one ear and out the other.