Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Censorship Industrial Complex

The Wuhan Cover-Up: Review of Bobby Kennedy’s Crucial Book

Published

7 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Meryl NassMERYL NASS 

” No kidding, he has the receipts. Tony Fauci is only one pawn on the chessboard in this book. “

When Bobby Kennedy talked about writing this book a couple of years ago, I asked him, why? Mindful of how the truth about everything Covid (and much else) was being memory-holed, he said he wanted to create an accurate historical record of what happened, for the future.

I thought that was a good answer. We desperately need a clear, accurate understanding about many things that have been taking place over the past few years, or should I say decades, and we all need to be saving hard copies or pdfs on hard drives of the important bits of history that we dig up.

Bobby did the difficult part and collected those scraps, and he knitted them together into a narrative that very few people know about. In a nutshell: there is a cabal that took the concept of biological warfare 30 years ago and ran with it—in order to create new industries, massive profits, and to control the world using fear of death by contagion. He created a history that is also a page-turner, enabling us to understand in a much deeper way what we have just lived through.

No kidding, he has the receipts. Tony Fauci is only one pawn on the chessboard in this book. There are many others, and I will mention just a few. Robert Kadlec is one. Sir Dr. Jeremy Farrar is a real knight, despite or because of having played a pivotal role in the overdosing of over 2,500 patients with hydroxychloroquine in the UK/Oxford and WHO clinical trials that he oversaw and funded.

There are the funders; the scientists who will do anything for another grant; the massive network controlled by a syndicate: the money men and women from NIH’s many institutes, especially its best-funded NIAID; the NSF, whose former director was on the board of EcoHealth Alliance; the Wellcome Trust, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation; and other charities deeply entangled with the ones I just mentioned. There are think tanks that help guide the direction the funding takes. A US DoD that contributes billions to whitewash and hide its biowarfare research. And a massive bureaucracy and media that protects all these people from exposure and punishment.

Nobody really wants to think about bioweapons. They are unpleasant in the extreme to contemplate. They should not exist. They challenge our entire concept of medicine being sacrosanct, the knowledge of medicine never to be used for harm. This is in the Hippocratic Oath.

Unfortunately, we cannot bury our heads in the sand over this issue. Our lack of knowledge about it, our revulsion toward it, and our deep-seated fears about it have enabled the spectre of biological warfare to lead us on a long and winding road to hell.

The 2001 anthrax letters, sent at the right time to the right Senators, led to the Patriot Act, a massively profitable biodefense industry, and the rise of the Surveillance State.

By 2005 we had the PREP Act, ostensibly to allow the DoD to continue using anthrax vaccines despite the revocation of the vaccine license in 2004. Did anyone know back then that the PREP Act would be used to greenlight contaminated gene therapy injections for billions around the world? Why didn’t the scientists designing these injections predict some, if not all of their harms, having spent hundreds of millions to study beta coronaviruses over 2 decades? Or did they?

Without the PREP Act removing liability from the Covid vaccine manufacturers, the injectors, and the government planners who both designed the program, and gave away billions of taxpayer dollars in bonuses for each shot administered, such untested, unlicensed, and deadly shots would never have been administered.

These Patriot and PREP Acts were passed because Congress and the American public were played like a fiddle, induced to be terrified. Congress attempted to immunize itself from criticism by throwing money at the problem, much of it going to Fauci, while through ignorance Congress made the problem of biological warfare far worse.

Many Americans took the Covid experimental shots willingly, out of terror and ignorance. The half that held back were mostly beaten, shamed, or cajoled into compliance through the most incredible, federally-funded fifth general mind control assault the world has ever experienced.

We have just lived through 3 bioweapon events, at least: the original Wuhan coronavirus, the Omicron variant, and monkeypox, all of which assuredly came from labs.

It is obvious that many more nasty viruses and other microorganisms are still sitting in labs, many sponsored by military and intelligence agencies using our tax dollars. It is absolutely critical that the public act a lot smarter than it did last time, if there is a next time. It is critical to know what it is we are dealing with. And critical to understand that there ARE ways we can save ourselves that lie outside the government’s prescribed Overton window.

The Wuhan Cover-Up gives you the facts, the history, and the understanding you need to grasp what is actually happening, right now. If enough of us read it, we will gain the knowledge and strength in numbers to stop and defund the biowarfare industry, revoke these terrible laws, and lay down our deep, unconscious fears regarding contagion.

[Full disclosure: I helped edit this book. I was the first person in the world to study an epidemic (epizootic) and prove it was due to biological warfare.]

Author

  • Meryl Nass

    Dr. Meryl Nass, MD is an internal medicine specialist in Ellsworth, ME, and has over 42 years of experience in the medical field. She graduated from University of Mississippi School of Medicine in 1980.

CBDC Central Bank Digital Currency

Lawmakers, conservatives blast WHO plan for ‘global governance’ on future pandemics

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

“The treaty would put us under the thumb of the U.N. and communist China and the WHO for whatever they wanted to declare a crisis, whether it’s poverty crisis, or a gun violence crisis or a climate crisis, or a health crisis, and make us listen to the WHO. That is not constitutional.”

Republican lawmakers and conservative activists rallied outside the U.S. Capitol Thursday morning to raise awareness of and opposition to a global pandemic agreement that they say poses a grave threat to national sovereignty and basic freedoms.

On May 27, the World Health Assembly (the governing forum of the World Health Organization’s 194 member nations) is slated to meet and finalize the details of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, on the surface a plan to better handle global health crises like COVID-19 in the future. However, critics have found a number of alarming details in the drafts that have been released.

The Washington Stand’s Ben Johnson explains that the plan’s February 8-15 draft “redistribute 20% of all U.S. ‘pandemic-related products’’ to other nations,” empower censorship for the sake of preventing an “infodemic” of “too much information” and “false or misleading information” from creating “mistrust in health authorities and undermin[ing] public health and social measures,” and institute a “Conference of the Parties” to alter the deal further via a two-thirds vote.

An updated draft released April 16 drops the “infodemic” language in favor of a shorter and more vague statement about “[r]ecognizing the importance of building trust and ensuring timely sharing of information to prevent misinformation, disinformation and stigmatization”; but retains the redistribution language as well as the Conference of the Parties’ amendment power–meaning that the most objectionable aspects of earlier drafts could be restored once the agreement is adopted.

On Thursday, the Sovereignty Coalition organized a press conference to make their opposition to “global governance” known. Participants included U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), U.S. Reps. Bob Good (VA-5), Chris Smith (NJ-4), Chip Roy (TX-21), and other members of Congress; Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, Tea Party Patriots Action president Jenny Beth Martin, Center for Security Policy executive chairman Frank Gaffney, and Women’s Rights without Frontiers and Anti-Globalist International president Reggie Littlejohn, among other heads of conservative groups.

“This is the most important issue that is getting the least amount of attention relative to its importance,” declared Good. “The treaty would put us under the thumb of the U.N. and communist China and the WHO for whatever they wanted to declare a crisis, whether it’s poverty crisis, or a gun violence crisis or a climate crisis, or a health crisis, and make us listen to the WHO. That is not constitutional.”

“Are we for standing up for Americans, or are we for ceding authority to international bodies to govern us and to shove their progressive, radical, Marxist ideas on the American people?” asked Roy.

Should the agreement be ratified, Littlejohn warned, the Conference of the Parties would have the power to “mandate vaccines, mandate masks, mandate lockdowns, and mandate quarantines,” as well as “mandate that the governments of the world surveil and censor their citizens, no doubt through digital IDs, which can be used as the basis of a Chinese-style, social credit.”

Long known for a similar left-wing bias to that of the United Nations, the WHO has faced additional criticism since COVID’s outbreak in 2020 for, among other offenses, opposing bans on travel from China that could have limited the reach of COVID, for legitimizing the false claims coming out of the Chinese government that initially downplayed the gravity of the situation and covered up the Communist regime’s mishandling of it, and for favoring the lockdown and mandate policies that exacerbated harm while curtailing basic freedoms and failing to improve health outcomes.

“In December [2019], the WHO refused to act on or publicize Taiwan’s warning that the new respiratory infection emerging in China could pass from human to human,” U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) wrote in April 2020. “In mid January [2020], despite accumulating evidence of patients contracting what we now know as COVID-19 from other people, the organization repeated the [Chinese Communist Party’s] lie that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. In January, the WHO, at Beijing’s behest, also blocked Taiwan from participating in critical meetings to coordinate responses to the coronavirus and even reportedly provided wrong information about the virus’s spread in Taiwan.”

Near the end of its tenure, the Trump administration began the process of formally withdrawing the United States from the WHO. But upon taking office, President Joe Biden notified the body that it would contribute $200 million by the end of February 2021, restoring the aid Trump had canceled and asserting a “renewed commitment” to the WHO.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Scotland’s crazy anti-hate law may be sign of things to come here

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Giesbrecht

Scotland had 8,000 complaints in the first week. Is it likely that a similar avalanche of claims will result in Canada if C-63 becomes law?

Actually, there will probably be a lot more here.

For one thing, our population is many times the size of Scotland’s.

Some argue that Scotland’s new hate speech law is more draconian than Canada’s yet-to-be-enacted equivalent, Bill C-63. Others say this is not so — that portions of ’63’ are even greater threats to free speech than Scotland’s extreme new law.

Regardless of who wins in this radical experiment in mass censorship, one thing we can predict with certainty: Both laws will be a goldmine for the legal profession and a nightmare for anyone who has ever dared to write, say or broadcast anything controversial.

How? Well, in the first week that Scotland’s new hate legislation has been in force there has been an avalanche of new claims launched — 8,000, and counting. Every one of those claims will have to be defended by a person who believed that they were exercising their right of free speech.

Now, 8,000 of those people will be caught up in expensive, time consuming, and emotionally draining litigation. Their cases will mostly be heard by officials and judges who were appointed specifically because they shared the same views as the government that appointed them — the same government that felt the need to prosecute these 8,000 people.

That 8,000 surpassed the total number of hate crime allegations in Scotland for all of 2023. A projection is that there will be an estimated 416,000 cases for 2024 if this rate keeps up. The complaints have completely overwhelmed Scotland’s police.

The Scottish Police Federation’s David Threadgold said this about how the new law was being used by angry citizens with an axe to grind: “…the law was being “weaponised” by the public in order to settle personal grudges against fellow citizens or to wage political feuds, while suggesting that the government encouraging the public to report instances of ‘hate’ has clearly blown up in their face.”

We have already seen this Scottish law in action when J.K. Rowling, who is famous not only for her wonderful Harry Potter books, but more recently for stating what we knew as fact for the first few hundred thousand years or so of human history — namely that men are men, and women are women — famously reposted that claim and dared the Scottish police to charge her.

The police announced that she wouldn’t be charged — at least that particular police officer wouldn’t charge her at this particular time.

The other person who has been the subject of many of those 8,000 complaints is First Minister Humza Yousaf — the very man responsible for this monstrosity of a law. Yousaf is himself quite famous for complaining that Scotland has too many white people. Who knew?

That odd observation resulted in a world famous spat with none other than Elon Musk. The online slugfest basically took the form of each man accusing the other of being a racist. At times it looked more like a schoolyard fight.

That a national leader seriously feels that the sledgehammer of the criminal law must be used to sort out such cat fights between citizens is rather alarming.

But, in this regard, Yousaf and Trudeau are birds of a feather. Both are convinced that only “acceptable views” — namely the views they agree with — will be allowed, while “unacceptable views,” namely, those they don’t like, must be disappeared by the machinery of the state.

It should be explained at this point that Scotland’s new law, unlike our C-63, requires police to determine whether or not the person under complaint has “stirred up hatred.”

Bill C-63 has those “hate” complaints heard by the Human Rights Tribunal.

In both cases however, one person’s opinion will judge another person’s opinion. However, one person will be paid to perform this function, while the other person might become a criminal if their opinion fails a completely subjective test.

Scotland had 8,000 complaints in the first week. Is it likely that a similar avalanche of claims will result in Canada if C-63 becomes law?

Actually, there will probably be a lot more here.

For one thing, our population is many times the size of Scotland’s.

For another, C-63 allows people to make complaints anonymously if the tribunal says so. It also promises up to $50,000 per complaint. That’s a powerful motivator. That $50,000 doesn’t come from some magic bank, by the way. If you are the person complained about, it comes from you. And you might be required to fork over an additional $20,000 to the tribunal for their troubles.

I’m not sure if they will expect a tip.. 

Much has been written about C-63. Many knowledgeable Canadians have discussed in detail the hundreds of objections they can see with this Bill. Senior Canadian voices, such former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, and world famous author Margaret Atwood, have warned Canadians about this seriously flawed legislation.

But what no one has done — except for Trudeau apparatchiks — is to give any good reasons why Canada needs this legislation.

If Scotland’s projected number of complaints for 2024 is 416,000 and they have a population of less than six million, the projection for Canada would be into the millions of complaints. Even setting aside the obvious impossibility of paying for thousands of new tribunal adjudicators, staff, and the thousands of new lawyers required to help the million-plus people who are thrust into this hate complaint boondoggle, why would any serious government even wish such a thing on their citizens?

Do we not have a rather large bag of serious problems we must contend with?

We have a generation of young people, for example, who might never in their lives be able to afford a home of their own. How do we expect these young people to raise a future generation of Canadians without a home in which to raise them? Isn’t that a bigger problem than someone’s hurt feelings?

Another example… Trudeau has just noticed that we don’t seem to have an army anymore. Isn’t that a bigger problem than whether or not someone feels that they have been misgendered, or called nasty names?

There is a list, as long as the longest arm, of very real problems that need urgent attention. Why are we wasting time and money on the brainchild (yes, I use that term loosely) of a desperate prime minister and his few remaining fellow ideologues?

This legislation is totally unnecessary, and an appallingly disrespectful way to treat Canadians. We already have hate laws. We already have laws to protect children. C-63 is as useless as the tired apparatchiks pushing it.

We should definitely pay attention to what is happening in Scotland. It will be our fate if this perfectly awful Bill C-63 is not defeated.

Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Continue Reading

Trending

X