Presented as an independent voice for “unbiased” scientific advice, iSAGE provided a channel for media spinmeisters, spies and psy-op specialists to influence Britain’s pandemic policy without accountability. Leaked internal emails show members fretting over its unethical methods.
“The stakes could not be higher, and it has never been more essential to seriously engage with uncomfortable possibilities – even if that means interrogating explanations that move beyond reducing what we are all experiencing to blunder and incompetence.”—Dr Piers Robinson
We welcome to the programme Dr Piers Robinson—co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies—for an in-depth interview on his recent article: “Cock-up or Conspiracy? Understanding COVID-19 as a ‘Structural Deep Event’ “.
As debate over “The Science” has intensified, increasing numbers of people are coming to question the Covid-19 Event. What best explains the often bizarre, and sometimes frightening, responses by authorities over the last two and a half years? Irrational panic by well-intentioned but incompetent politicians and health experts? Profiteering and power seeking by corporate and political vested interests? Or might we be looking at something more—a “structural deep event”—in which globally powerful actors might have harnessed (or even instigated) the Covid-19 Event in order to drive deep structural changes in society? Arguing that all possible explanations need to remain firmly on the table, Dr Robinson appeals to all thinking people to ask such difficult and uncomfortable questions, because to understand the past and the present is to guard the future and “the stakes could not be higher”.
Scientists abandoned their objectivity, misled with alarming models and failed to appreciate the damage lockdown would cause, a government adviser has claimed in a damning indictment of Britain’s pandemic response.
In his memoir, The Year The World Went Mad, Prof Woolhouse claimed that lockdowns “had surprisingly little effect” and just “deferred the problem to another day, at great cost”.
He argued that Spi-M was set up to tackle the wrong disease, influenza, and that early models were based on flu dynamics, and so mistakenly thought schools were a major driver while underrepresenting the impact of shielding.
Anti-lockdown scientists were viewed as having ‘fringe’ ideas because those calling for draconian restrictions had more followers on social media, a study has shown.
Professor John Ioannidis, of Stanford University, an expert in data science and the reliability of research, studied the expertise of authors who signed the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) compared with signatories of the John Snow Memorandum.
…In an article published in BMJ Open Research, he found that both letters were authored by very influential experts, but that the John Snow Memorandum authors had a far greater reach on social media, which made it appear that their view had more support.
…Prof Ioannidis concluded: “Both the Great Barrington Declaration and John Snow Memorandum include many stellar scientists, but JSM has far more powerful social media presence and this may have shaped the impression that it is the dominant narrative.
It seems obvious that wherever vaccine mandates, mask mandates, and lockdowns have been imposed in response to covid-19, progressive political and media elites have been the driving forces behind them. This is clear to those of us alive today, but it is worth considering whether future history books will attempt to erase progressives’ culpability for the disasters their covid policies have caused. The argument that follows is speculative, but bad ideologies should be held to the fires of their own making, and it seems to be in the nature of progressivism to attempt to escape the historical reckoning it is due.
The South African GP who first raised the alarm about Omicron says she was pressured by governments “not to publicly state that it was a mild illness”.
Dr Angelique Coetzee told Germany’s Die Welt newspaper this week that European governments asked her to portray the new strain as just as serious as previous Covid-19 variants, including Delta.
“I was told not to publicly state that it was a mild illness,” she said. “I have been asked to refrain from making such statements and to say that it is a serious illness. I declined.”
Asked what she meant, Coetzee said “based on the clinical picture there are no indications that we are dealing with a very serious disease”.
The British government is spending tens of millions on media projects in Eastern Europe which are often presented as fighting “Russian disinformation”, but which may involve the UK’s own information operations.
The British government ploughed at least £82.7m of public money into media projects in countries bordering or near Russia in the four years to 2021.
The projects, which take place across 20 countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, are run through the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF), a cross-government pot of money with the stated aim of preventing “instability and conflicts that threaten UK interests”.
The Government’s “grossly unethical” uses of its “nudge unit” inflated fear among the public during the Covid pandemic, psychologists have said – prompting MPs to launch an investigation into scare adverts.
A group of psychologists have written to Parliament’s Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, warning that a team of civil servants dedicated to “nudging” public behaviour during the pandemic were unaccountable and unethical.
The letter’s 40 professional signatories – led by Dr Gary Sidley, a retired clinical psychologist – said they opposed the use of dramatic adverts, which included slogans such as: “If you go out you can spread it, people will die.”
Results Among the 47 key GBD signatories, 20, 19 and 21, respectively, were top-cited authors for career impact, recent single-year (2019) impact or either. For comparison, among the 34 key JSM signatories, 11, 14 and 15, respectively, were top cited. Key signatories represented 30 different scientific fields (9 represented in both documents, 17 only in GBD and 4 only in JSM). In a random sample of n=30 scientists among the longer lists of signatories, five in GBD and three in JSM were top cited. By April 2021, only 19/47 key GBD signatories had personal Twitter accounts versus 34/34 of key JSM signatories; 3 key GBD signatories versus 10 key JSM signatories had >50 000 Twitter followers and extraordinary Kardashian K-indices (363–2569). By November 2021, four key GBD signatories versus 13 key JSM signatories had >50 000 Twitter followers.
Conclusions Both GBD and JSM include many stellar scientists, but JSM has far more powerful social media presence and this may have shaped the impression that it is the dominant narrative.
One of the checks and balances on rampant bad scientific research is to continuously assess how new ideas fit into the framework of the bigger picture. A new piece of information may seem perfectly reasonable and well-documented, but the domino effect of its implications gives you another way to test its validity. When multiple lines of seemingly rock-solid evidence contradict one another, that’s a good sign that something is wrong, even if you don’t yet know why. Whenever a thread seems out of place, it’s time to pull on that thread until you can figure out what exactly is going on.
…”Trusting the science” is not (and never has been) about trusting results or trusting experts. Trusting the scientists is what got us into this mess. For science to function properly, we must NOT trust the scientists. Instead, we must trust in the messy self-correcting process that allows truth to boil to the surface even if every participant in that process is flawed.
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the Experts”
— Richard P. Feynman
Science is the relentless competition between measurable pieces of evidence, the ruthless gauntlet of debate, the willingness to question even the most “obvious” of assumptions, and the humbleness to test and retest any and all assumptions against hard evidence, most especially when those assumptions are our own.
The collaboration between a major UK broadcaster and the Nudge Unit to promote one of the most controversial policies today is deeply alarming. The report, The Power of TV: Nudging Viewers to Decarbonise their Lifestyles, jointly published by BIT and Sky, shows little regard for the obligation imposed on broadcasters by Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code to maintain “due impartiality” across all their output, particularly when it comes to news and current affairs. It also neglects the requirement that broadcasters expose viewers to a wide range of different views when it comes to “matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy”.
The Aspen Institute’s Commission on Information Disorder recently released a report that blamed misinformation for a range of social problems: “Information disorder is a crisis that exacerbates all other crises . . . Information disorder makes any health crisis more deadly. It slows down our response time on climate change. It undermines democracy. It creates a culture in which racist, ethnic, and gender attacks are seen as solutions, not problems. Today, mis- and disinformation have become a force multiplier for exacerbating our worst problems as a society. Hundreds of millions of people pay the price, every single day, for a world disordered by lies.”
With $65 million in backing from investors such as George Soros and Reid Hoffman, the newly organized Project for Good Information also vows to fight fake news wherever it roams. As Recode reported, the group’s marketing materials claim, “Traditional media is failing. Disinformation is flourishing. It’s time for a new kind of media.” The project is run by Democratic operative Tara Hoffman, whose company ACRONYM created the app that spectacularly bungled the Iowa Democratic caucus vote in 2020.
The Gates Foundation money going towards media programs has been split up into a number of sections, presented in descending numerical order, and includes a link to the relevant grant on the organization’s website.
…Together, these donations total $166,216,526. The money is generally directed towards issues close to the Gateses hearts. For example, the $3.6 million CNN grant went towards “report[ing] on gender equality with a particular focus on least developed countries, producing journalism on the everyday inequalities endured by women and girls across the world,” while the Texas Tribune received millions to “to increase public awareness and engagement of education reform issues in Texas.” Given that Bill is one of the charter schools’ most fervent supporters, a cynic might interpret this as planting pro-corporate charter school propaganda into the media, disguised as objective news reporting.
Riccardo Bosi interviews health professionals about censorship. Featuring Professor Dolores Cahill and Ros Nealon-Cook
“The [New South Wales Premier] is lying…she’s under an ICAC inquiry that particular lobbyists in Sydney have told her that the ony way she gets out of that inquiry is if she pushes the double-jab…and his clients are AstraZeneca and Pfizer…Clive Palmer at 9min10sec
…she’s being paid by AstraZeneca and by Pfizer 10’s of millions of dollars to get these policies through to make sure the vaccine is pushed.”
The UK Cabinet Office awarded £320,000,000 to OMD GROUP LIMITED for COVID 19 – Media Buying Services in advertising, radio and television starting 2 March 2020.
The contract was extended by six months to 31st March 2021 with an increase in value of £229,200,000.00.
- Google Ventures’ investment in the AstraZeneca vaccine via Vaccitech.
- Reworking of the healthcare system and replacement of doctors with artificial intelligence.
- The ties between government, Big Tech, the military, healthcare and artificial intelligence.
- The AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine is not non-profit. The two developers at the Jenner Institute, Sarah Gilbert and Adrian Hill, have a company, Vaccitech, on which the technology is based.
- The British Government has directly invested in Vaccitech and is expected a profit.
- The other main stakeholder is Bravos Capital (through Oxford Science Innovation), which was set up by former head of Global Equity Trading at Deutsche Bank.
- The German Government has invested money in CureVac BioNTech vaccine. 20% of the shares is owned by the German Government.
- Sequoia Capital‘s Chinese Branch, Fosun Pharma and The Wellcome Trust (through Oxford Science Innovation) are also investors in Vaccitech.
- The Wellcome Trust is the institution that is most involved in the AstraZeneca vaccine.
- The Jenner Institute is conducting trials in Africa for a universal malaria vaccine and they have a nasty track-record of not being honest about their trials. They lied about risks and infants died.
- The Jenner Institute was a public-private partnership with GlaxoSmithKline and the UK Government in the 1990s. They are one of the main vehicles at Oxford University for vaccine development and also UK vaccine funding research.
- Adrian Hill, the head of the Jenner Institute, is the chief at the UK Government’s UK Vaccine Network which decides which technology to research, fund and give to the population both in the UK and globally through vaccine philanthropy.
- COVAX, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation effort to vaccinate the developing world, relies almost entirely on AstraZeneca.
- Johnson & Johnson is being manufactured by Emergent BioSolutions which previously was called BioPort.
- BioPort was a spin-off of a fusion between Porton Down, the UK’s bio-defence lab (Defence Science and Technology Laboratory), and the between [William_J._Crowe] the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under US President Ronald Regan.
- Emergent BioSolutions/BioPort was chosen to manufacture the Johnson & Johnson vaccine despite many scandals.
- The person in-charge of quality control for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine has no experience in the field. His background is head of Military Intelligence teams for the US Military in Iraq and Afghanistan and is also an expert on Iran and North Korea.
- Emergent BioSolutions are intimately connected to the CIA and Bechtel Corporation which has ties to the anthrax attacks in the US.
- Dr. Wodarg raised the possibility that the current situation is being used to covertly study wide use mRNA vaccines.
- Pfizer and Moderna mRNA technology was started with significant investment from DARPA in 2013.
- In 2016, Moderna was the most highly valued biotech company in the US but had no products.
- Regina Dugan greenlighted the investments from DARPA and later left in 2012 to create a DARPA-equivalent for Google and Facebook. She has now teamed up with the Wellcome Trust to create a ‘global health DARPA-equivalent’.
- Some discussion on the pre-911 anthrax vaccine and anthrax attack scandal, with links to reporter Judith Miller who was later involved in the Dark Winter simulation in June 2001.
- A lot of the same people who produced the Dark Winter simulation are the same people who oversaw Event 201 simulation.
- Dr. Wodarg raised concerns about the experimentation with lipid nanoparticles.
- There is a clear push to ‘remake healthcare’ from Silicon Valley towards AI healthcare and Precision Medicine, which is medications, vaccines and gene therapy targeted to the individual.
- A lot of COVID-19 testing in the Western US has been done by Google subsidiary Verily Life Sciences.
- AI healthcare and Precision Medicine is being co-developed by Google and the US military’s Defense Innovation Unit.
- Dr. Wodarg observed that we are seeing the unveiling of a long developed strategy.
- The push in medicine for gene editing goes back to Julian Huxley, first Director General of UNESCO and former president of the British Eugenics Society (renamed in 1989 to the Galton Institute). Julian Huxley, brother of Aldous Huxley, said in 1946 that we should, “make the unthinkable thinkable again” and also coined the term Transumanism. He said that gene editing as a eugenics science needed to be applied along with efforts to merge humans with machines in order to create a ‘new human being’. This goes back to 1957.
- Adrian Hill of the AstraZeneca vaccine spoke at the Galton Institute’s 100 Year Anniversary. The Wellcome Trust hosts their archive.
- Julian Huxley’s speech about “making the unthinkable thinkable again” was in connection with the founding of UNESCO.
- The push for Precision Medicine is ultimately about control and eugenics.
- The Obama Administration funded a lot of the Precision Medicine initiatives. The Biden Administration is creating a ‘health DARPA’ which will be led by Eric Lander (who has ties with Jeffrey Epstein).
- Jeffrey Epstein wanted the seed the human race with his own DNA. The scientists Epstein funded are still around. One of them is Harvard genetecist George Church who has openly promoted unethical human experimentation and eugenics.
- The Edge Foundation was operating as a front for Epstein as a way to gain influence in Silicon Valley, science and academia. His main handler is probably the Mega Group. He has ties with Isabelle Maxwell (Gislane Maxwell’s sister) who is a World Economic Forum technology pioneer.
- Bill Gates‘ ties with Epstein looks to go back to the 1990s. A 2001 Evening Standard article claims that Epstein’s main business partners were Leslie Wexner, Donald Trump and Bill Gates. Microsoft as a company may have been compromised by the same intelligence networks that Epstein operated in.
- Yuval Noah Harari: soon there will be an age of digital dictators and humans have been reduced to ‘hackable animals’ through technology.
- Klaus Schwab openly talks about COVID-19 being the catalyst for The Great Reset and Transhumanism. The fear of COVID would give way to the fear of Climate Change and Cyber Pandemic.
I had no choice but to speak out against lockdowns. As a public-health scientist with decades of experience working on infectious-disease outbreaks, I couldn’t stay silent. Not when basic principles of public health are thrown out of the window. Not when the working class is thrown under the bus. Not when lockdown opponents were thrown to the wolves. There was never a scientific consensus for lockdowns. That balloon had to be popped.
…Ultimately, lockdowns protected young low-risk professionals working from home – journalists, lawyers, scientists, and bankers – on the backs of children, the working class and the poor.
The ‘Unite for Freedom’ anti-lockdown protest in London yesterday was as good-natured and peaceful as the previous anti-lockdown protests I have reported on for spiked. Seeing the sculpture and words was a gladdening moment on a day blessed by sunshine.
…The coverage from major news agencies and outlets told the story of ‘hundreds’ of ‘anti-vaxxers’. ‘Hundreds’ is the downplaying part. It worries me. I was there, and I know it is not true. Do I need to see the news unfold with my own eyes every time in order to fact-check the front pages?
I can’t estimate the numbers because the scale of the crowd was too vast, and moved steadily for many hours through the streets of London. Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Presumably the Met Police could estimate if they wanted to. The Guardian at least reported ‘vast numbers of people’. The Press Association declared, ‘Hundreds join anti-vaccination protest in central London’. The comments put that misconception straight.