Search Results

Donald Trump will likely become the Republican Presidential nominee in 2024, without ever having to answer any questions about his administration’s disastrous pandemic response. If there were any accountability, and any real journalists insisting on it, these would be some of the questions Trump would have to answer.

During the Covid pandemic, the U.S. government spent billions of dollars on nearly 400 products intended to protect, diagnose, and treat hundreds of millions of people – all with the label “EUA” or “Emergency Use Authorization.” But what does EUA actually mean?

Finally, if you agree with me that my cast of Covid characters much more closely represents what we actually mean by that term, what does this tell us about how the Deep State is now encroaching on the lives of the civilian public in the homeland, rather than sticking to its pre-2020 playbook of sucking up resources by destroying and then rebuilding foreign countries?

As the “novel coronavirus” spread throughout the world in the early months of 2020, two diametrically opposed responses to such a virus were in play: The public health response, which was initially followed everywhere except China, involved telling the public not to panic, wash hands, and stay home when sick. This was standard protocol for a novel flu-like virus. Behind the scenes, the biodefense-industrial-complex was gearing up for a bioterrorism response: quarantine-until-vaccine.

The Wuhan Cover-Up does a better job than any other book or article I have read at exposing the trends, forces, and institutions that brought us the Covid catastrophe – with hundreds of pages of notes and references. What’s frightening is that the enormity of the problem is beyond the scope of the book, not just to solve, but even to fully acknowledge.

Internet-wide surveillance and censorship, enabled by the unimaginably vast computational power of artificial intelligence (AI), is here. This is not a futuristic dystopia. It’s happening now. Government agencies are working with universities and nonprofits to use AI tools to surveil and censor content on the Internet. This is not political or partisan. This is not about any particular opinion or idea.

If the heads of the US public health agencies, including Anthony Fauci (NIAID) and Francis Collins (NIH), were spending a large portion of their time on that day frantically trying to come up with ways to claim the virus was not manufactured in a bioweapons lab – there must have been a reason other than public health. The reason is becoming increasingly undeniable: The Covid crisis was a military/national security operation, not a public health event.

It sure seems like the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine, for an undisclosed reason, was privileged over the J&J product by regulators, such that even more than 1,000 deaths in three months were not considered a “novel safety concern or risk requiring label changes.” Not to mention withdrawing the product from the market.

It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population.

Much has been made of the Netflix peri-apocalyptic yawner, Leave the World Behind, directed by Sam Esmail and produced by Michelle and Barack Obama. Most reviews focus on the supposedly contentious racial attitudes expressed in the film, the bizarre collapsing-world images, and the incomprehensible ending. But all of the focus on race, crashing planes, and errant flamingos misses the crux of Leave the World Behind: a fascinating peek into the psyches of its producers and their socio-political milieu.

The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines was based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. (This last point is being challenged in multiple court cases, so far to no avail.)

The conundrum for free and open societies has always been the same: How to protect human rights and democracy from hate speech and disinformation without destroying human rights and democracy in the process. The answer embodied in the recent coordinated enactment of global censorship laws is not encouraging for the future of free and open societies.