Ian Fantom – Oct 22, 2020

The number of medically qualified people who are speaking out against the current COVID restrictions in various countries of Western Europe is now to be counted in thousands. Whilst the UK government is again talking about an ‘exponential’ rise in the number of ‘people tested positive for COVID-19’ there seems in reality to be something like an ‘exponential rise’ in the number of people speaking out against the growing authoritarianism of the state. The day after I started this newsletter and wrote those words (1 October) we were told by the BBC that the numbers were now trailing off. This sounds to me like a typical logistic curve. Both the exponential curve and the logistic curve start off with nothing much happening for a long time. Then there’s a rapid growth, but the logistic curve reaches saturation, whilst the exponential curve rises at an accelerating rate, to an alarming infinity. The logistic curve is perfectly normal for virus infections. Talk of an ‘exponential rise’ has just been government rhetoric, designed to scare people, whilst they grab more and more draconian powers, at an ‘exponential’ rate.

1. Rebellion

There is a growing rebellion in the Conservative Party against the authoritarianism of Prime Minister Boris Johnson. By and large they are saying that the current restrictions are an overreaction to the virus, but they don’t seem to be getting their heads around the question of whether COVID-19 is actually caused by a virus. We have a whole generation of school leavers in England who have been extremely frustrated at the use of algorithms to deterimine their exam results, based on statistics. Many of them are now at university and can be subjected to university lock-down restrictions at a moment’s notice.

At the end of September the BBC reported that about forty universities in the UK had so far reported cases of Coronavirus, and that thousands of students had had to self-isolate, leaving them unable to attend lectures or socialise. What are they supposed to be doing with themselves when cooped up in their rooms? Surely some of them will be researching why their liberties are being taken away from them. It can’t be long before medical students begin to realise that they are being lied to over key medical issues. What confidence will that bring in their own university lecturers? This will inevitably lead to disputes over university fees, and probably to mass protests. The BBC is already asking whether students can get a refund from their universities, but reporting that the government has stated that they shouldn’t expect a refund if they are receiving “adequate online learning”. Some MPs, they say, have called for students to receive discounts, and the National Union of Students wants refunds if ”quality of learning is severely impacted”. I think that all students studying in a university department which has been found to be taking part in academic deception should have the right to claim a complete refund. How can they know how much of what they have been taught is actually true?

The levels of frustration and anger are already reaching dangerous proportions. These are dangerous both for individuals and for public order. I had to wear a mask, to get out of one section of Chester Zoo recently – not to get in, but to get out! I wouldn’t have done so if I hadn’t been with young grandchildren, but what message would I have been sending to a four-year-old about to start school, if I were to openly defy the authorities and tell them they were talking nonsense? I was annoyed with myself that I hadn’t brought along my own mask, marked with the word ‘GAGGED’. I can and do insist on telling the adults that I think the whole thing is stuff and nonsense, without having to put myself into social isolation. We all have to either comply with corrupt systems that we detest; otherwise we disable our own activisms by becoming hermits. When I wore that mask I realised how laboured my own breathing was. I felt I was gasping for air. I walked straight out, took off my mask and awaited the family there. I think everyone is getting stressed over the COVID clampdown, whether they know it or not, especially those who still adhere to the old-fashioned art of logical thinking.

The whole country, and probably not just this country, seems to be run by algorithms rather than by logic or common sense. My brother in his last years would say “Logic has gone out of fashion” every time I visited him. Nothing seemed to work by logic or common sense any longer. He reached such a state of anxiety that he was no longer believing anything he was told by any of the medics, not even his own diagnosis. I spent many hours with him trying to figure that one out, and I’ve spent many more trying to diffuse the frustrations amongst others. Nowadays the whole country seems to be suffering from such ‘political gaslighting’. I think that our group Keep Talking plays an important role in enabling people to stay sane in an insane world.

2. A military clampdown

This isn’t a medical lockdown; it’s a military clampdown. In 2007 I was in a small 9/11 demonstration in Trafalgar Square, and as we walked towards Parliament Square former MI5 officer  Annie Machon said to me words to the effect, “You do realise this isn’t just about 9/11?”. I said I did indeed. The fact that the mainstream media were silent on the obvious incongruities in the official story made it clear that we had a major problem with our democracies. If such a big issue could be covered up in the mass media, and be ignored in Parliament, then much bigger things could, and would, be on their way. We were clearly heading for a tyrannical takeover by the Powers That Be, because they would then have known that they could get away with it. “Don’t leave it five years”, said MI5 dissident David Shayler, in December 2006, when I was attending my first 9/11 truth meeting. He told us that in five years time we may not have the opportunity. He also told us that if we were to form a membership association it would – not could – be taken over by Very Persuasive People.

A committee was formed, with representatives from the various 9/11 truth groups in the country. Some time later it underwent a mysterious crisis, resulting in a takeover in 2008 by a group of Very Persuasive People. Some of their supporters describe them as “the official UK Reinvestigate 9/11 Campaign which grew out of the UK 9/11 Truth campaign”. I find that strange, since they are supposed to be contesting the ‘official’ story on 9/11. They also state on their mailings that they will  support any new investigation of the 9/11 attacks so long as it is “run by uncompromised people with a range of opinion including those inclined to disbelieve the official 9/11 story”. They limited themselves to 9/11 and quickly resolved that a leading investigator into 9/11, who had just had a book published on 7/7, should not be allowed into their meetings, saying that he was compromised because of his veiws on the Holocaust. I maintained that their arguments were inconsistent, and that they were not giving the real reason. That was all about centralisation, whereas I was working for decentralised activity as far as that could be brought about.

3.  ‘World-beating’ rhetoric

In 2016 I was speculating on just how a tyrannical take-over of the whole country would happen. I thought it would most likely be brought about by some charismatic politician being elected as Prime Minister, who would then abolish Parliament. There were only three charismatic politicians in UK politics, and two of them weren’t in Parliament, preferring to speak truth to power rather than be stooges of the deep state. One of them, George Galloway, was thrown out of the Labour Party for speaking out against the invasion of Iraq. He now runs a chat show, Sputnik, on RT, though he is nowadays often muted on what he says, particularly on the WHO, presumably because he doesn’t want RT to be closed down by Ofcom. Another, Nigel Farage, was worried about a drift towards tyrrany in the EU, and so  led the campaign for Brexit. He thought he’d won, but is now threatening to launch an anti-lockdown party to counter the authoritarian measures under Boris Johnson. The third charismatic politician is Boris Johnson, who became Prime Minister, and has all but abolished Parliament, and is running the country by decree.

All this is happening because the public has been cajoled over the decades into accepting that we have the best democracy in the world, and that our public institutions are generally the best in the world. We are constantly told that our National Health Service is the best in the world, that our military is the best in the world, that our parliamentary democracy is the best in the world. Our national broadcasting service, the BBC, is supposed to be the best in the world for objective journalism. Their motto is ‘Nation shall speak peace unto nation’. It is thought that that motto may be a rewrite of the biblical ‘Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more’. If so, they would have needed to change the wording, because they speak peace whilst waging war.

I’ve just dipped into the Internet to see if anyone else has written about this ‘best in the world’ rhetoric, and indeed I quickly found a commentary on the ‘UK in a Changing Europe’ website headed ‘ “World beating”: the phrase of 2020?’. “We would be protected from Covid-19 because we had a world beating NHS, the Prime Minister assured the country when he began to get interested in the pandemic in early March. By the end of the month that had morphed into a message that we had to stay home to protect the NHS, rather than the NHS playing its more traditional role of protecting us”, wrote author Jill Rutter. The government also promised to deliver “a world beating test and trace system”, which was supposed to be live from 1 June. “It’s live”, wrote Jill Rutter on 16 June, “but clearly in a development stage”.

That ‘test and trace’ system is now being launched on the public. I received a spam email from the government urging me to download it. I’m annoyed with my service provider for colluding with the government propaganda machine in that. I could receive a knock on the door, literally or figuratively, from the police, ordering me to self-isolate for a fortnight, or face a massive £10 000 fine. The law could even change overnight, by decree. I am hearing reports of people receiving results of COVID tests when they haven’t even taken a COVID test. It’s forseeable that people who don’t even have a smartphone will receive police instructions to self-isolate. What happens when the police want to charge you for some other serious crime, such as criticising the government, but can’t make the charge stick? Do you trust the police. I used to. I don’t now.

4. Just words

“The big question is whether a government led by someone who made his living out of words not deeds can close the gap between its rhetoric and actions”, Jill Rutter concluded. Now that is an interesting observation. Boris Johnson, it is said, modelled himself on Winston Churchill. Despite appearances at the time, all Churchill had to offer in his wartime contributions was words. He made no great contributions to war strategy or, as far as I can see, to anything else. He was an inspirational leader through rhetoric. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister I wondered how he could find time to run the country when he seemed to be spending all his efforts on ‘spin’ – a word for ‘propaganda’ that was coming into vogue at the time. When Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Further and Higher Education in Scotland took early retirement in 2000 and became the Director of Development at Esperanto Association of Britain everyone in the association seemed to be reinspired, including myself. In 2005, as I trawled through years of minutes of committee meetings and AGMs I found myself wondering what this guy had actually contributed to the association other than words. I found nothing. Those words were mainly directed at the members themselves. When eventually the guy went missing, the President was quickly putting it about that he must be presumed dead, without giving any reasons or sources of information. Their legal advisor thought it odd that I hadn’t been contacted by the police, especially since by that time Kelso and I were in open dispute. Eventually he was formally declared dead.

I found myself seeing some of the others in the same light. The President once reeled out a list of all his interests, making the point that his interests weren’t just about Esperanto. All of those interests, other than his running club, were, however, to do with languages. His entire contribution over a lifetime was to do with words. I had to conclude that these people weren’t activists, but were merely front guys. Who was running the Esperanto Association? Who is now running the British government? All Boris has to offer seems to be just words.

5. Who are Boris’s masters?

Perhaps one clue is Boris Johnson’s inaction as Foreign Secretary, when Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev was found to have been involved in a plot to bring down a Cabinet minister. Any other ambassador would have been immediately expelled from the country. Following the 2019 General Election I wrote an article ‘UK General Election: The winner is the Herzlian party – Zionist terror networks and Israel flag wavers’ – though the bit about ‘Zionist terror’ was added by the editor. Of course, the whole issue of Zionism has been misrepresented; Zionism was not a Jewish philosophy, but a military campaign to take over Palestine by exploiting the fears of Jews world-wide. It has been widely supported by the Christian churches. Theodor Herzl was a Catholic, born and bred, who launched the philosophy publicly, probably as a front guy for the Rothschild banking dynasty. Why are people so slow to recognise this, when it’s made very clear in Herzl’s diaries?

Even those in the truth movement fail to see the significance of this finding. If this were generally known, then the vicious campaign of falsely accusing people of ‘antisemitism’ in order to shut them up in legitimate discussion on Zionism and apparently related issues, would shrivel up like a slug under a spoonful of salt. But it’s not happening. The banking elite won the last UK General Election, and we are now seeing the consequences.

The public has been dumbed down by rhetoric and political gaslighting. There are too many elephants in the room – big issues that everyone knows about, but everyone avoids talking about. Theodor Herzl claimed he was Jewish because he was born into an assimilated Jewish family. In other words, one of his female ancestors was Jewish. For that to be valid, then he’d have to trace his ancestry right back to Judea. That would be difficult, because there’s a thousand year gap in Jewish history in Europe. He claimed he felt Jewish because of his crooked nose, when surviving photos show him with a straight nose. How many of the leaders of the big international banks are really Jewish, as they claim? I think they’re probably in a similar category to Theodor Herzl. It shouldn’t even matter, but it does, because their promotion of Zionism amongst Jews depends on that claim.

6. Logic has gone out of fashion

The idea that logic has gone out of fashion strikes me in everyday life. I am finding that very simple concepts of science, which I’d taken for granted that everyone would understand, have to be explained in excruciating detail, very, very carefully, and even then most people who don’t want to understand it won’t understand it. If a scientist is asked for his views on a scientific theory, the first thing he will do is ask for the seminal paper in which the theory is laid out. That seminal paper may not actually be a peer reviewed journal article; it may be a book or other publication, or just a manuscript for publication. The point is that the scientist will not evaluate the theory on the basis of hearsay, or what respectable people are saying about it, or on the basis of what ‘everyone knows’. He will put all that aside and read what that seminal paper actually says, and review it according the scientific principles, irrespective of whether the conclusions are politically correct. If in my schooldays I’d thought that it would be necessary to explain that in 2020 I’d have been flabbergasted. Yet it is necessary.

Take, for instance, climate change. I’ve been shouted at, sworn at, denigrated, told I’m ‘in denial’, even by intelligent people who have made their careers around words, but who seem not to have a clue about what science is. They think in terms of words rather than concepts. They seem unable to separate the study of the science from what ‘everybody knows’. They seem unable to isolate the key concepts being studied. The key question is not whether the ice in the Antartic is melting, or even whether the average temperature at the surface of the Earth is rising or falling. The key question is what effect, if any, does the absorption by man-made carbon dioxide of infra-red radiation eminating from the surface have on the average atmospheric surface temperature. That’s a question of physics.

Yet some people even refuse to recognise that that’s a matter of physics. They talk as if they think that anyone who questions that is being a bad citizen, or a bad Socialist, or a bad Conservative. It’s all about showing ‘solidarity’, or being a loyal Conservative etc. It really is like challenging what the teachers were telling us about God in the 1950s. We were all just expected to believe it, when my problem was that I mistakenly thought that people had first to understand things before they could believe them. They’ve turned man-made climate change into a religion. If you don’t believe what you are required to believe to be a good citizen (or subject in the UK) then there’s a name for you. It might be ‘atheist’, or it might be ‘climate denier’. Whatever it is, it will have a stigma attached.

So is there a seminal paper showing how global temperatures are being raised by this effect? According to Piers Corbyn there is no such paper. He has challenged the scientific community to refer him to such a paper, and no-one has. I’ve seen one based on the flat-earth model, and I’ve seen a physics paper showing why that paper cannot apply to a global earth. That paper was rejected on the grounds that it didn’t present an alternative model. That is not science. As far as I am aware, there is still no seminal paper, despite the constant talking around climate change and the greenhouse effect in the mass media. It is now generally recognised that greenhouses, after all, work primarily by restricting convection of the air, as I had originally thought, and not by the ‘greenhouse effect’.

I’ve tried to explain this to a Communist and a former Conservative MEP. They both reacted in similar ways. This is politics, not physics. Neither could accept that you look for a seminal paper and analyse the physics. Perhaps the Earth is heating up, perhaps we are all going to die, but that isn’t an argument that atmospheric absorption of infrared radiation by man-made carbon dioxide is raising the surface temperature of the Earth.

People just do not seem to understand that if there is no seminal paper, then there is no scientific theory; it’s just speculation. I was once lambasted for asking about the seminal report following World War II on the statistics for Jews killed in Nazi gas chambers. I was lambasted for not knowing there was no such report. Well if there is no report of a study then there is no case, whatever the figures quoted are. End of story.

The same logic applies to 9/11. There are seminal publications on the collapse of the towers of the World Trade Centre, though some of them have been contested. There is a seminal paper on the existence of nano-thermite in samples of dust from Ground Zero. However, there appears to be no seminal publication on how the towers could have been brought down and largely turned into a dust cloud by nano-thermite alone. That means there is no scientific theory for that; it’s just speculation. Judy Wood invokes the Hutchison Effect in her book ‘Where did the Towers Go?’. However, there is no seminal paper on the Hutchison Effect, and so there is no such theory. There is, however, a seminal publication on the nuclear meltdown theory, and that has been put out for scrutiny. That is science.

7. Science or vested interests?

The Prime Minister keeps invoking ‘Science’ in his statements on COVID-19. But where is that science? It’s all confidential advice from his advisors. If it’s confidential it’s not science, because science has to be made available for scrutiny. That’s the case even if no vested interests are involved. However, it emerged in the mainstream media that the government’s chief scientist, Sir Patrick Vallance, who had been appearing regularly at press conferences in Downing Street “holds a deferred bonus of 43,111 shares in GlaxoSmithKline, worth £600,000 from his time as president of the multinational drug company”, according to the Mail Online.

“The firm is one of many trying to develop a vaccine to treat deadly coronavirus as a further 6,874 people tested positive today”, the article explained. The Government said there was no conflict of interest and he had done nothing wrong, The Mail Online reported. Given that they are promoting the idea of producing a vaccine to inject into the whole population, and even issuing ‘Covid passports’  to make it difficult to take part in normal society without being injected with some newly developed vaccine by one of the pharmaceutical giants, this sounds very much like a vested interest to me. Vanessa Beeley in April 2020 wrote a detailed review of the network of commercial interests in a two part report published on UK Column under the heading ‘Who controls the British Government response to Covid–19?’. In Part 2, titled ‘COVID–19: The Big Pharma players behind UK Government lockdown’, she deals with the vaccination programmes. Under the subheading ‘Ferguson H1N1 case study — Patrick Vallance — GlaxoSmithKline’ she wrote of the swine flu scare of 2009. “In response to the threat of swine flu, Big Pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) developed the Pandemrix vaccine, with disastrous consequences. An alleged sixty patients who suffered brain damage as a result of the vaccine were allocated £60 million in compensation by the UK Government”, she wrote. She reported that the UK government had invested £50M to support “the rapid vaccine and immunoprophylactic development against ‘unknown pathogens’ (also referred to as Disease X)”.

CEPI is a group set up by the Davos World Economic Forum in 2017. I followed up the link to CEPI, where they state that they invest in ‘platform technologies that can be used for rapid vaccine and immunoprophylactic development against unknown pathogens (ie, Disease X)”. ‘Vaccine platform technologies’, are explained in an article in the Cambridge Network as follows: “Vaccines expose the body to a small amount of antigen from a particular pathogen, so that the body can produce antibodies which will fight the pathogen should future exposure occur. … Once designed and licensed for one vaccine, the development of future vaccines using the same platform should simply require substitution of the desired antigenic component, enabling faster and cheaper development, regulatory approval and mass production”. An ‘antigen’ is explained in Medline Plus: “An antigen is any substance that causes your immune system to produce antibodies against it. This means your immune system does not recognize the substance, and is trying to fight it off. An antigen may be a substance from the environment, such as chemicals, bacteria, viruses, or pollen. An antigen may also form inside the body”. So the antigen attracts the antibodies, to kill off the virus that it is attached to, and the same ‘virus platform technology’ can be used for a variety of viruses just by substituting the antigenic component in the vaccine.

8. Removing vaccine safeguards

In a section on ‘Regulatory approval’ the article explains that approval can be accelerated if regulators have previously authorised similar products before. However, the UK government recently launched a ‘consultation exercise’ on a proposed Statutory Instrument, ‘The Human Medicines (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020’, made available as a ‘Consultation draft: August 2020’. Statutory Instruments are meant for minor practical changes in legislation at the government’s discretion, without the need to be presented to the houses of parliament. This Statutory Instrument is about the ‘Temporary authorisation of the supply of unlicensed products’. We all know what ‘temporary’ means in politics, and this is about vaccines. This is major legislation designed to be passed by diktat, to be justified by a ‘consultation exercise’. Christian Voice wrote this consultation exercise up on their website, advising to speak out against the changes.

I don’t remember how many milliseconds that ‘consultation exercise’ ran for, but it wasn’t many. I didn’t answer their questions on their questionnaire, but fired off an email: “I am appalled that you should try to waive the fundamental medical safeguards for the public in a ‘consultation’ exercise being pushed through at short notice, and not generally publicised. I protest at the bypassing of Parliament on related issues, whether or not this particular issue gets the rubber stamp from a dead parrot parliament. We all know what government consultation exercises are for: to bypass the normal democratic procedures and make them look democratic. Those who do respond are likely to do so on the basis of the lies and disinformation that YOU the government have been putting out through the controlled media. We all know what ‘temporary’ means in politics. Supply of unlicensed products smacks of deregulation. It will of course be selective, giving preference to the powerful corporations rather than to remedies that work. Covid is not a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID) according to YOU, the government. (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid#status-of-covid-19). You are speaking with two voices, one of which is lying. This is exactly how the British government starts wars: Lies, panic, enabling act rushed through, military intervention. This is a military psychological exercise, run through a corrupted World Health Organisation. Masks don’t work, and in all probability neither will the vaccines. Your Science is fake science and you know it. I do recognise the difficulty that ministers are under, in that nothing is more important than their parliamentary careers, and so they have to succumb constantly to the Powers That Be, who have taken over supposedly democratic organisations, such as the World Health Organisation and the United Nations. You have called wolf too many times, and are increasingly disbelieved”.

One thing that still puzzles me is that if the tests are for antibodies, as described by a government web page, then they are testing for immunity against the virus. So as herd immunity grows, so will the percentage of positive COVID tests. I don’t know whether this is supposed to make sense, or whether it’s just another political thing that’s not supposed to make sense. If they are avoiding even consulting with the houses of parliament, then I think the public should treat that with extreme caution. Testing for antigens might be more sensible, since they are said to disappear when the virus has been killed off. But then the antigens might just have been introduced by a vaccine. The onus is on the government to explain these things.

But the big question should be: What virus are you talking about?. The idea that the disease was caused by a virus was put out right at the beginning of the outbreak in China by calling it ‘Coronavirus’. That was later made more specific by calling it ‘COVID-19’, short for ‘Coronavirus Disease, 2019’. Only later did they assert that the virus was SARS-CoV-2. The confusion must surely have been intentional. So has SARS-CoV-2 been scientifically identified as the cause of COVID-19 (the disease)? According to the medical statements that I’ve been digging out in my reports, it has not. So the tests and the vaccines are all about antibodies and antigens that may or may not be linked to a virus that causes the disease. No wonder they had to close the houses of parliament down to get that through.

9. Medics challenge the authorities

Where are the seminal papers that support what the Prime Minister has been telling us? If they don’t exist, then there is no case. I have been reporting on scientific studies, and they have failed to show any link between COVID-19 and any virus. Therefore talk of COVID-19 being a viral infection is not a scientific theory, but mere speculation.

A typical response from people is words to the effect, “I’m not a medic, so I can’t comment”, but then typically they will repeat the government’s propaganda. When I told a French colleague about that he told me of a quip from Professor Didier Raoult of the Institut d’Infectiologie de Marseille: When asked, “When in your opinion will the compusory wearing of masks no longer be necessary?”, he replied, “I don’t know: I don’t know anything about politics”.

Yet medics and other health professionals are increasingly speaking out against the current measures. In Belgium an ‘open letter from medical doctors and health professionals to all Belgian authorities and all Belgian media’ has been signed by 1864 medically trained health professionals, including 567 medical doctors and supported by 13650 citizens. Since the letter was launched signatures were invited internationally, though a quick look through the list suggests that they are still overwhelmingly Belgian. The letter is presented in English, Dutch and French.

The letter begins: “We, doctors and health professionals, wish to express our serious concern about the evolution of the situation in the recent months surrounding the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. We call on politicians to be independently and critically informed in the decision-making process and in the compulsory implementation of corona-measures. We ask for an open debate, where all experts are represented without any form of censorship. After the initial panic surrounding covid-19, the objective facts now show a completely different picture – there is no medical justification for any emergency policy anymore. The current crisis management has become totally disproportionate and causes more damage than it does any good. We call for an end to all measures and ask for an immediate restoration of our normal democratic governance and legal structures and of all our civil liberties”.

The entire text is over 4 000 words long, with 51 references. They draw attention to the Belgian government of various medical facts that many qualified people have been writing about, and I have been bringing together in my reports. They write of a so called “global alarm situation, never seen in the history of mankind”. “Gradually, the alarm bell was sounded from many sources: the objective facts showed a completely different reality … There is nothing different from what we normally see”, they write. The PCR test does not measure the virus load, and a positive result “does not mean that that person is actually clinically infected, is ill or is going to become ill”. On lockdown they point out that the lockdowns were set after the peak of the virus replication rate was already over and decreasing, and so the drop was therefore not the result of the measures taken. On the immune system they point out that a strong immune system relies on normal daily exposure to these microbial influences, and that most people therefore already have a congenital or cross-immunity because they had already been in contact with variants of the same virus. They say that social isolation and economic damage had led to an increase in depression, anxiety, suicides, intra-family violence and child abuse. “Fear, persistent stress and loneliness induced by social distancing have a proven negative influence on psychological and general health”, they say.

They point out that there is a difference between ‘death by corona’ and ‘death with corona’. “Taking into account the fact that most people who developed serious symptoms suffered from additional pathology, one cannot simply conclude that the corona-infection was the cause of death. This was mostly not taken into account in the statistics”. That is undoubtedly true in the UK, too. Many of us had noticed how on the broadcast media such as the BBC the phrase ‘death with corona’ had gradually morphed into ‘death by corona’.

They also say that there is an affordable, safe and efficient therapy available for those who do show severe symptoms of disease in the form of HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), zinc and azithromycin. “Hardly anyone has to die now”, they say. I had been cautious on that one before hearing it from authoritative sources, but this letter states it quite clearly, and goes into some detail.

They also state that spreading occurs by drip infection by patients who cough and sneeze, and by aerosols in closed unventilated rooms, and that this is not possible in the open air, that healthy people are virtually unable to transmit the virus, and that transfer via objects has not been scientifically proved. “All this seriously calls into question the whole policy of social distancing and compulsory mouth masks for healthy people – there is no scientific basis for this”, they say.

They also say that oral masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections, and that there are side effects. “Every day we now see patients complaining of headaches, sinus problems, respiratory problems and hyperventilation due to wearing masks. In addition, the accumulated CO2 leads to a toxic acidification of the organism which affects our immunity. Some experts even warn of an increased transmission of the virus in case of inappropriate use of the mask”, they state. This is different from medical masks. “Hospitals have a sterile environment in their operating rooms where staff wear masks and there is precise regulation of humidity / temperature with appropriately monitored oxygen flow to compensate for this, thus meeting strict safety standards”. I’ve just come across a statement by Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist, Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson, who explains the danger of permanent brain damage in wearing a mask.

They also state that there was no ‘second wave’ of Coronavirus, as was being claimed, but only a so-called ‘case chemistry’ due to an increased number of tests.

On vaccines they state:

Survey studies on influenza vaccinations show that in 10 years we have only succeeded three times in developing a vaccine with an efficiency rate of more than 50%. Vaccinating our elderly appears to be inefficient. Over 75 years of age, the efficacy is almost non-existent.

Due to the continuous natural mutation of viruses, as we also see every year in the case of the influenza virus, a vaccine is at most a temporary solution, which requires new vaccines each time afterwards. An untested vaccine, which is implemented by emergency procedure and for which the manufacturers have already obtained legal immunity from possible harm, raises serious questions. We do not wish to use our patients as guinea pigs.

On a global scale, 700 000 cases of damage or death are expected as a result of the vaccine.

If 95% of people experience Covid-19 virtually symptom-free, the risk of exposure to an untested vaccine is irresponsible.

They speak out strongly against the role of the media, which, they suggest, is not supported by the journalistic codes of ethics. “Alternative opinions were ignored or ridiculed. We have not seen open debates in the media, where different views could be expressed. We were also surprised by the many videos and articles by many scientific experts and authorities, which were and are still being removed from social media. We feel that this does not fit in with a free, democratic constitutional state, all the more so as it leads to tunnel vision”, they state. They also remind readers of the  Hippocratic Oath that all doctors had taken.

They conclude by referring to the “immense damage caused by the current policies”, and demand an end to all measures, and they question the legitimacy of the “current advisory experts, who meet behind closed doors”.

10. Boris is in it together with the EU

Referring to the media campaign, the Belgian letter stated, “We deplore the role of the WHO in this, which has called for the infodemic (i.e. all divergent opinions from the official discourse, including by experts with different views) to be silenced by an unprecedented media censorship”. They referred to an article in The Lancet of 29 February 2020 under the title ‘How to fight an infodemic’, which reported that WHO’s risk communication team “launched a new information platform called WHO Information Network for Epidemics (EPI-WIN), with the aim of using a series of amplifiers to share tailored information with specific target groups”. They report that about twenty staff and some consultants are involved in WHO’s communications teams globally, at any given time. They are in contact with social media companies which search for ‘coronavirus’ or ‘COVID-19’ or [a] related term, and “have a box that…directs them to a reliable source: either to [the] WHO website to their ministry of health or public health institute or centre for disease control”.

This propaganda campaign is supported by the European Union. The Belgian doctors’ letter stated that they “reject the intention of censorship of dissidents in the European Union!”, and refer to a ‘JOINT COMMUNICATION TO THE EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS’ by the European Commission dated 10 June 2020, and headed ‘Tackling COVID-19 disinformation – Getting the facts right’. That sounds like a good idea to me, but the report begins, “The  COVID-19  (‘Coronavirus’)  pandemic  has  been  accompanied  by  an  unprecedented ‘infodemic’”. They give a link to a WHO ‘Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report –45’ of 5 March, which contains a section ‘Subject in Focus: Infodemics’. “Information exchange takes place through regular engagement calls with these ‘trust chains’”, they say, and they describe briefly those ‘trust chains’. They link to the WHO’s Risk Communications website where I see a ‘Call for applicants for 1st WHO training in infodemic management’, and a ‘Joint call for papers – Special issues on Infodemiology’ for a range of journals, mainly in English.

I see also, that they held their ‘1st WHO infodemiology conference’ on ‘How infodemics affect the world & how they can be managed’. The whole operation seems to be geared to demonising information researchers who are questioning the scientific basis of the pandemic claims. Their own Scientific Conference was announced as a ‘closed session’, but I should have thought that the way to deal with misinformation would be to publish everything, especially in science. That’s how science works. Web pages giving source material and other scientific references would, I should have thought, have been much more effective if indeed there was science behind the claims. The more effort they put into vacuous propaganda the more sceptical people will become. The new ‘science’ of ‘Infodemiology’ should have been named ‘Infodemonology’.

The EU document appears to be following up the WHO programme of infodemonology, with sets of action plans for the member states to follow. Amongst their actions to date they say that in March 2019 a Rapid Alert  System  was  established  to  connect  ‘disinformation  experts’  from  EU  Institutions  and Member  States  and  to  facilitate  the  sharing  of  analysis  and  best  practice,  such  as  on proactive  communication  and  effective  response,  between  governments. I like the expression ‘disinformation experts’. I wonder why they were setting up this network before the Coronavirus pandemic had begun.

It seems then that Boris Johnson’s efforts are in line with those of the European Commission. Nigel Farage’s drive for the UK to leave the EU was motivated primarily by the corruption that he was seeing at the heart of the EU. In one of his most famous speeches in the European Parliament he spoke on 14 November 2017 of ‘the biggest international political collusion in history’. He stated that George Soros’s Open Society had recently given the EU 81 billion dollars. He continued:

And his influence here and in Brussels is truly extraordinary. Open Society boast that they had 42 meetings last year with the European Commission, they have even published a book of reliable friends in the European Parliament and there are 226 names on that list including yours sir, I thought you’d find this interesting. We even had last week Mr Verhofstadt lobbying on behalf of Mr Soros at the Conference of Presidents in a battle that is going on with Viktor Orban the Prime Minister of Hungary. If we are going to have a debate and we are going to talk about full political and financial transparency well let’s do it, so I shall be writing today to all 226 of you asking some pretty fair questions. Have you ever received funds, directly or indirectly, from Open Society? How many of their events have they attended? Could you please give us a list of the meetings of all their representatives including George Soros yourself?

Now I read on the Open Society’s website  that the Open Society will give more than $130 million to combat “the ravages of COVID-19 around the globe”. This includes nearly $42 million for their “global partners to support low-income workers”, including the provision of “access to new vaccines and treatments”.  Another $3 million is allocated for Europe, including both London and Berlin, for “local groups countering disinformation and serving the cities’ most vulnerable people, such as senior citizens”. They say that Budapest and Milan have each received over $1 million already. I have to wonder whether those groups in London will use similar tactics to those used by another group in London which received money from George Soros: ‘Hope not Hate’, which has boasted that it had closed down some of the Keep Talking meetings.

It seems then that Bill Gates isn’t the only ‘philanthropist’ who is funding this COVID propaganda plan, in which the meanings of ‘information’ and ‘disinformation’ are reversed. If Boris’s lot are going along with this, then it seems that the UK has leaped from the frying pan into the fire. So was Boris Johnson genuine in campaigning for Brexit? I thought at the time that whatever his motivation was, he had nailed his flag to the mast, and would need to be seen to be successful as Prime Minister in taking the UK out of the EU. But now that we have a virtual dictatorship he may not have to continue the pretence. Former diplomat Craig Murray on 14 September wrote a blog headed ‘Johnson Intended to Break the Withdrawal Agreement Even Before He Signed It’. Perhaps we were all conned.

Nigel Farage seems to thinks so, too. On the home page for his Brexit Party he has a short video talk under the slogan ‘Say no to another lockdown’. He describes the current system of government in the UK as an ‘elective dictatorship’. I have some doubts about the word ‘elective’. By the time the British wake up to this, it may be too late.

11. London militia closes down Free Speech

The Belgian letter ends with: “Following on from [conference] ACU 2020 … we call for an in-depth examination of the role of the WHO and the possible influence of conflicts of interest in this organisation. It was also at the heart of the fight against the ‘infodemic’, i.e. the systematic censorship of all dissenting opinions in the media. This is unacceptable for a democratic state governed by the rule of law”. ACU is a German group called ‘Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss’ [Extra-parliamentary corona investigation committee] set up by ‘ÄRZTE FÜR AUFKLÄRUNG’ [Doctors for Enlightenment]. Videos from the ACU 2020 conference are made available on the ACU website in ten languages, though not all the videos are in all languages. The Belgian report linked to the Dutch version. The full set of videos is in German and English. The technical sessions give more detail of the medical issues reported in the Belgian letter, but the website also presents related material about the campaign.

On 28 August their founder Heiko Schöning gave a speech to a mass rally in Berlin, half in English and half in German. The video of that talk is presented on that web page, together with a transcript of the whole speech (Also on YouTube). On 26 September he attempted to give a similar speech to a mass rally in Trafalgar Square, London. The London police, however, sabotaged his speech by pulling the plug on the public address system. Following that rally some of the participants went to Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park, a place symbolic in British culture of free speech. When Heiko Schöning attempted to speak to the crowd there, the police swept in, arrested him, and took him off to the police station, and then to Wandsworth Prison, where he was held for twenty two hours, mainly in solitory confinement. The ACU web page carries two interviews, in which he relates the sequence of events; one is in German (YouTube)  and one is in English (YouTube). The two interviews are similar.

He told the interviewer that he had just given some medical facts regarding numbers of cases in Germany, and then started talking about a song of 2017 by the English group Depeche Mode called ‘Where’s the Revolution’. He cited the words: ‘Where’s the revolution? Come on people, You’re letting me down. You’ve been pissed on for too long. Your rights abused, your views refused. You manipulate and threaten, With terror as a weapon. So, come on people, you’re letting me down. Where’s the revolution?’. “These were the last words before the police came, and you see, in a sprint, to me”, he said.

“You can check this out on YouTube with Depeche Mode, yeah?”, he said. He explained that he was the founder of the  Extraparliamentary Enquiry Committee on COVID-19, and that they are criticising the measures taken by the government as “totally inappropriate”. “I stood on the bench and talked to the people”, he recollected, “That’s everything. And this is not a crime. This is not an offence that you are able to arrest somebody, even under British laws. Yeah? You know, if you are there telling me that this is not right under their COVID-19 new laws to speak to more than 30 people you will get a fine, like you get a parking ticket, for wrong parking, but no reason to arrest somebody, and certainly not to be arrested in handcuffs”.

He said that the police had no legal right to keep him under arrest. “They put me, and just me, into this car, and then they went with lights on through London, half an hour, then they drove on the wrong side with speeds – they speed up for half an hour through  the whole London like this was an emergency. So but what happened was just a medical doctor and he spoke to people so this was totally unappropriate”, he explained. He was put into solitary confinement, unable even to speak to his wife. His possessions were confiscated, including his phone, a laptop and a book written by two medical professors, Karina Reiss and Sucharit Bhakdi, ‘COVID-19: False Alarm’. The English-language publishers wrote: “In June 2020, Corona, ‘False Alarm?’ exploded into the German market, selling 200,000 copies and 75,000 e-books in six weeks”. The website contains an article about the book with a video of Heiko Schöning talking about his experiences the following day in a London street. He asked what this country is coming to. “Now is the time to be brave”, he said, “Think of mankind … Just inform.

12. The authoritarian state is here

Heiko Schöning mentioned Piers Corbyn, the organiser of the Trafalgar Square rally, and his lawyer. This is a statement put out by Piers Corbyn from his office on 6 October: “Hello. I’m Piers Corbyn from StopNewNormal.net I’m on here today to give you and important update on developments in our movement against the Covid con. Our movement now is stronger than ever, so there will be more attempts to divide us, and I would say,  we have to unite or we loose, and if you hear anything divisive please just think: 1. Is it true? And [2.] ask yourself, why am I hearing this? OK. Now the news. After careful consideration and detailed preparation, I and my lawyers are now suing the police for what happened through my arrest in Trafalgar Square,  on the 29th of August and Sheffield on the 5th of September. We’re suing them for damages, for wrongful arrest, unlawful imprisonment and assault. And what happens with these cases will have implications for a lot of other people who’ve also been roughed up by the police in the process of arresting, or just roughed up anyway. So, this is an important issue. Watch this space. We’ll keep everyone informed. And now, there will be similar cases following, on these lines, concerning other people, attacked in Sheffield, and also what happened at our great rally on the 26th of September. So again, watch this space. My earlier arrests on the 16th and 30th of May at Speakers’ Corner on Hyde Park, are now coming to trial on October the 23rd at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Rally outside and so forth, but we’ll give you further information soon. I would say right now, now is the time to up the anti. You’re not alone. We’re not alone. And we all have to now stand up together and fight back like we’ve never done before. Thank you”. A statement had been put out the previous day by Doughty Street Chambers headed ‘Coronavirus: Piers Corbyn sues police for unlawful arrest and assault’.

At least, Piers Corbyn is now being widely reported by the mainstream media, even if they are calling him a ‘conspiracy theorist’. But how can they persist in calling these people ‘conspiracy theorists’, when the authorities have openly admitted to disrupting communications amongst those who challenge the authorities on their claims? A conspiracy has to be done in secrecy, otherwise it’s not a conspiracy. Now that it is openly admitted by the WHO, the European Council, and even by my local MP, that they have teams of ‘disinformation  experts’ who are disrupting communications amongst those who challenge the authorities on their claims, there can be no case for calling people who report on such things ‘conspiracy theorists’.

Yes, I wrote to my MP complaining about the government’s ‘consultation exercise’ enabling the deregulation of vaccines, and she wrote back, thanking me for contacting me about the development of a vaccine for coronavirus, and saying that she was concerned that there had been “a great deal of disinformation about vaccines on the Internet recently”. She continued: “I believe that social media companies have a responsibility to ensure that this content has no place on their platforms. Furthermore, the Government must do more to promote the benefits of vaccination and counter these concerning and potentially harmful myths which surround them, before a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available”. I replied that I hadn’t contacted her about the development of a vaccine, and that her text sounded like a standard text from Conservative Party Headquarters designed to answer a different question from the one I asked. She is Labour.

One Labour MP who has spoken out is Dawn Butler, who made a five-minute speech on YouTube which she couldn’t give in Parliament. She says that this government is drunk on power, and that ministers had taken unprecedented emergency powers. It would have been a fine speech.

In fact the whole country seems disturbed at what is going on, but most people seem unable to break away from the respect for authority that they have been brought up with. If you’re going to tell a lie, then you make it big. Hitler knew that, and blamed it on ‘the Jews’. Goebbels knew that, and blamed it on MI6. I think the whole of the British Establishment knows that, and they also have special skills in exuding an aura of authority. The problem with making a lie big is that the next lie has to be bigger, until there’s a war, which exhausts everyone, then they ‘draw a line under it’ and start again. In relying on an aura of authority they have to escalate the appearance of authoritŭ, until they have no more authority to impose, and then they start to lose that authority. Recently the Queen wrote of the “important public service the established news media provides”, stressing that it is vital to to have “trusted, reliable sources of information, particularly at a time when there are so many sources competing for our attention” – an obvious swipe at the alternative media, much of which has been contesting mainstream stories over Coronavirus. The Queen by convention remains out of politics. By issuing such a ringing endorsement of traditional media, as Reuters put it, she will have alienated many of her people. I wrote this up in The Truthseeker, under the heading ‘The Queen wades into “fake news” row’ . My article raises the question of who now is in charge of the Monarchy, and whether the Monarchy, too, has been marginalised by the present government, just as the houses of Parliament have. I think we may be in for turbulent times.

13. The avalanche begins

As I was writing this report the number of medical dissidents who had made themselves known was growing from two thousand to around forty thousand. The 4th of October three eminent professors of medicin and epidemiology in the US town of Great Barrington initiated a declaration against the puresent policy of lockdown. The posted the text in thirty-two languages, with a list of 42 additional medical signatories. A journalist who was working with them explained in one of the videos on their website, that the public perception was that they were in a minority, but in reality they were not in a minority.

On 16 October Michael O’Bernicia (Michael O’Diera), who runs The Bernician website, reported that his legal team is “moving forward into the preparation of the court papers, including an affidavit containing all of the allegations of fraud, treason and genocide against every MP who voted to enact and retain the unlawful Coronavirus Act 2020”. I don’t know what chance he has, but it seems serious stuff, and he says he has been up against the system before, and won.

And in Greater Manchester the Mayor, Andy Burnham, is threatening legal action against the government if they impose the ‘Tier Three’ level of lockdown that they have announced for the area. I am at last hearing a lot of questioning of the evidence for such draconian actions. Now that people are looking for the evidence, it won’t be long before most people realise it’s not there. I think a lot of people already understand that there’s a lot of politics in it, but they don’t yet understand that it’s all politics. They think it’s not for the likes of them to sort such things out. “I’m just a plumber, a teacher, an ordinary guy …”, they say. I’m tempted to reply that that’s what the Germans thought in the 1930s. But we’re British, and it can’t be happening here. Perhaps a better response would be: “Yes, I agree; just leave it to the Mafia. They’ll sort us all out”. And unless we keep talking about it, they will.