How One Spook-Run London College Department is Training the World’ Social Media Managers | Mint Press News

By Alan MacLead

Staffed by NATO military officers and former government ministers and notorious for training the West’s top spies, the Department of War Studies at King’s College London is also providing the workforce for many of the largest social media companies. This includes Facebook, TikTok, Google, and Twitter.

MintPress study of professional databases and employment websites reveals a wide network of War Studies alumni holding many of the most influential jobs in media, constituting a silent army of individuals who influence what the world sees (and does not see) in its social media feeds.

SPY SCHOOL

Set in an imposing building near the banks of the River Thames in Central London, the Department of War Studies is at the heart of the British establishment. Current staff includes the former Secretary General of NATO, former U.K.Minister of Defense, and a host of military officers from NATO and NATO-aligned countries.

It is also a favored training ground for the secret services. A 2009 report published by the CIA described how beneficial it is to “use universities as a means of intelligence training,” writing that “exposure to an academic environment, such as the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, can add several elements that may be harder to provide within the government system,” also mentioning that the department’s faculty have “extensive and well-rounded intelligence experience.”

In 2013, then-Secretary of Defense and former CIA Director Leon Panetta gave a speech at the department. “I deeply appreciate the work that you do to train and to educate our future national security leaders, many of whom are in this audience,” he said, adding that expansion into tech, surveillance, and cyberwarfare was of critical importance.

Last year, MintPress investigated the department’s intelligence links more deeply.

Moreover, the university has freely admitted to having entered into a number of secret funding agreements with the U.K. Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defense. However, it has refused to elaborate on these contracts, tellinginvestigative news outlet Declassified U.K. that doing so could undermine national security.

While the Department of War Studies plays a key role in producing the West’s intelligence operatives, it also trains many of the world’s top journalists, as well as social media managers, whose task it is to protect us from the misinformation put out by the others. As such, it is a central part of the new high-tech information war being waged between Russia and the West, in which the national security state is increasingly taking control over the means of communication under the guise of protecting us from the Kremlin.

FACEBOOK

At any one time, the department educates around 1,000 students, many of whom have gone on to become top military commanders, intelligence chiefs, and government officials, both in the West and in countries as disparate as Jordan, Nigeria, and Singapore. But increasingly, large numbers of War Studies graduates are finding employment in the most influential media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic, and in Silicon Valley.

Chief amongst the social media companies where War Studies graduates hold considerable sway is Facebook (now rebranded as Meta). For example, while working at senior levels in the U.K. government, Mark Smith pursued a Master’s at the department, completing it in 2009. Between 2007 and 2017, he worked for the Ministry of Defense, the Foreign Office, and the National Security Secretariat. According to his own LinkedIn profile, he was deployed overseas three times as a political advisor to top NATO military commanders and was a key figure in strategizing responses to ISIS and other terrorist groups, as well as working on the Ministry of Defense’s response to the Scottish independence question.

In 2017, Smith moved straight from the government to Meta, where he is now the Global Director of Global Content Management, giving him considerable power to dictate what is allowed and what is censored from the world’s biggest news and media platform.

Facebook’s Global Director of Strategic Response is also a former War Studies student. After graduating, Caitlin Bakerworked on Middle Eastern counterterrorism policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense in Washington and as Director for Jordan and Lebanon at the National Security Council at the White House. Between 2015 and 2017, she was also VP Joe Biden’s Middle East Policy Advisor. During this time period, the administration rapidly expanded its drone program, coming to bomb seven countries simultaneously.

In October 2017, Baker moved seamlessly from the Defense Secretary’s office to work for Facebook’s strategic response team, rising to become a global director. The strategic response team decides how Facebook will react to global events like elections, wars and coups, determining what content will be permissible and which views will be banned or suppressed.

There are many more War Studies graduates in influential roles at Facebook, including:

While this is certainly not to say that all those mentioned are government plants, or even that they are anything but model employees, this connection does come at a time when Facebook has rapidly begun intertwining itself with the national security state. In 2018, the company announced that, in a bid to combat fake news, it was partnering with NATO think tank, the Atlantic Council, in a deal that gave the latter significant influence on the platform’s content. Today, Facebook’s head of intelligence is NATO’s former press officer. And a MintPress study published last month detailed how the company has hired dozens of former CIA officials, many of whom now hold the most politically sensitive positions in the company and are in charge of deciding what billions of users see daily.

TIKTOK

War Studies alumni also hold or held several influential positions on the video platform TikTok. These include Haniyyah Rahman-Shepherd, an intelligence analyst who works on threat detection and identifying hate speech, extremism, and mis- and disinformation; Michelle Caley, content strategy leader; Manish Gohil, a former risk analyst for TikTok; Alexandra Dinca, investigations lead; Jeanne Sun, safety program manager; and Tom Dudley, head of physical security.

Scott O’Brien, meanwhile, worked for both Facebook and TikTok, first as an intelligence analyst for Facebook, where he specialized in “human rights investigations” in “at-risk countries,” according to his LinkedIn. He is now an influence operations intelligence and discovery analyst at TikTok. Before that, he worked for the infamousintelligence agency, Pinkerton.

In recent times, TikTok has been the recipient of significant amounts of government attention. From the Trump administration’s threats to ban the platform altogether to the news that President Biden was briefing TikTok stars on how they should cover the war in Ukraine, the U.S. government, it appears, performed a 180-degree turn on the app. This occurred at the same time as the company began employing large numbers of state functionaries in key positions, including individuals from NATO, the White House, and the CIA. A MintPress investigation detailing all this described it as a “NATO to TikTok pipeline.”

TWITTER AND GOOGLE

Twitter has comparatively fewer War Studies alumni. But some are in important positions. For instance, Global Program Manager Sean Ryan describes his role as “lead[ing] a global program team that drives a holistic understanding of Twitter’s dynamic risk and threat landscape while working across the cyber, physical, information, platform, policy, health, and reputation domains.” He notes that his analysis, “informs the decision-making of strategic leadership while supporting key policies across multiple teams.”

Twitter’s director of insider risk and investigations, Bruce A., is also a former KCL man. Bruce A. spent 23 years in the FBI, becoming a supervisory special agent, leaving the bureau in 2020 to directly transfer to Twitter.

Bruce is one of just dozens of FBI agents and analysts that Twitter has hired in the past few years – the majority of whom have been parachuted into highly politically sensitive fields, such as security, content moderation and trust and safety, thus effectively giving the bureau considerable influence over the platform’s content and outlook.

Google, too, employs a number of War Studies graduates, among them Asia-Pacific Information Policy Lead Jean-Jacques Sahel, Policy Advisor Grant Hurst, and Global Threat Analyst Jessica O.

JOURNALISM

For a single department in one college of a university, it is remarkable the impact that the Department of War Studies has had on the field of journalism as well. The department punches vastly above its weight, with alumni in most of the world’s top media outlets, including CNN, NBC News, The New York Times, Reuters, and The Wall Street Journal, as well as a host of individuals populating the ranks of the British state broadcaster, the BBC. Indeed, it appears that if breaking into the field of journalism is the goal, then a degree from the Department of War Studies is more helpful than one from King’s College London’s Department of Culture, Media and Creative Industries, its de facto journalism school.

Some of these journalists cut their teeth at investigative outlets Bellingcat and Graphika, both of whom are funded by the U.S. government and both of whom put out questionable reports demonizing official enemy nations. No fewer than six Bellingcat employees or contributors — including Cameron Colquhoun, Jacob Beeders, Lincoln Pigman,Aliaume Leroy, Christiaan Triebert and senior investigator Nick Waters — all pursued postgraduate studies within the department. Indeed, Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins joined the Department of War Studies in 2018 as a visiting research associate.

Graphika, meanwhile, is also inordinately staffed by KCL War Studies graduates. Together, these two groups pump out highly-publicized “intelligence” reports warning of nefarious actions committed by Russia or other official enemy states, all while quietly being funded by the U.S. national security state themselves.

STATE-BACKED NEXUS

The Department of War Studies publishes similar work to Graphika. Indeed, its faculty was crucial in propagating the idea of Russian interference in American elections, being the source of many of the most far-reaching claims about Moscow’s influence in American society. Reports published by the department accuse Russia of carrying out a campaign of “information-psychological warfare” and advise that military spending should be increased and that NATO must re-up its commitment to countering Russia. Professor Thomas Rid even testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the “dark art” of Russian meddling and condemned WikiLeaks and alternative media journalists as unwitting agents of disinformation.

Many of the organizations detailed above were also identified as proposed members of a Western government-aligned “counter”-propaganda nexus hoping to be established by the EXPOSE Network. EXPOSE was allegedly a secret U.K.-government-funded initiative that would have brought together journalists and state operatives in an alliance to shape public discourse in a manner more conducive to the priorities of Western governments.

A chart showing the leadership structure of the EXPOSE network published as part of the Integrity Initiative Leak 7

The Department of War Studies’ Dr. Neville Bolt was on the organization’s preliminary advisory panel, alongside Graham Brookie of the Atlantic Council (NATO’s think tank) and Ben Nimmo, former NATO press officer, and ex-director of investigations for Graphika, and Facebook’s current head of intelligence. Training support, meanwhile, would be provided by individuals from Bellingcat.

In the past year, MintPress has been detailing how much of the public sphere, from social media organizations like FacebookTwitter, and TikTok to big search engines such as Google, to Think Tanks and Fact-Checking organizations, are quietly much more closely linked to the national security state than first meets the eye. The Department of War Studies at King’s College London is an important part of this state-backed nexus. It is a one-stop shop for training many of the spies, think tank employees, journalists, and supposedly independent intelligence investigators who have been at the forefront of the new information war.

Put simply, one department staffed by former and current military officers is training the people producing the news (journalists), the ones manipulating it (intelligence officials), and the ones who are in charge of sorting fact from fiction and pinpointing disinformation (social media managers). It is quite the system. All the while, they continually warn of the threat of (foreign) state-backed influence operations.

To be clear, Kremlin propaganda is real, but its reach is decidedly minor in comparison to the massive disinformation campaigns being launched by the Western national security state. And the Department of War Studies is a key part of this information war.

Source: Mint Press News

Nearly 5 Million Illegal Immigrants Crossed Border During Biden Administration | Breitbart News

By Spencer Lindquist

A whopping 4.9 million illegal immigrants have crossed our border since Biden has taken office, a report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) found.

The president of FAIR Dan Stein discussed the report, stating that ​​“Roughly the equivalent of the entire population of Ireland has illegally entered the United States in the 18 months President Biden has been in office, with many being released into American communities.”

He continued, saying “In that time, the Biden administration has blamed an unprecedented surge of illegal immigration on all sorts of external factors, except their own sabotage of our nation’s immigration laws.”

The nearly 5 million illegal immigrants who have entered our country since Biden took office includes nearly 200,000 that crossed the border in July of 2022. 

With 199,976 illegal immigrants entering in July, the figure marks a whopping 325 percent increase over the average number of July apprehensions across former President Trump’s four years in office. Of the 199,976 illegal immigrants, 134,362, or 67 percent, were single adults.

There were also 10 individuals on the terror watch list who were stopped on our southern border last month. 

Perhaps even more startling, July is the 17th straight month in which border patrol has had 150,000 encounters or more. In addition, 2,071 pounds of fentanyl, the equivalent of 469 million lethal doses, and 12,989 pounds of methamphetamine were seized at the southern border in July alone.

Thomas Homan, the former Acting Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the Trump Administration, joined Alex Marlow on Breitbart News Daily on Sirius XM to discuss the border crisis.

He said that the number of illegal immigrants entering our country under Biden “blows every other record out of the water” despite the fact that the Trump Administration “handed this administration the most secure border we’ve ever had.”

FAIR president Dan Stein also criticized the Biden Administration, saying “The endless flow of illegal aliens and the incursion of lethal narcotics pouring across our border will not end until this administration demonstrates a willingness to enforce our laws.”

Spencer Lindquist is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SpencerLndqst and reach out at slindquist@breitbart.com.

Source: Breitbart News

WEF Proposes Globalized Plan to Police Online Content Using Artificial Intelligence | Children’s Health Defense

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

Warning about a “dark world of online harms” that must be addressed, the World Economic Forum (WEF) this month published an article calling for a “solution” to “online abuse” that would be powered by artificial intelligence (AI) and human intelligence.

The proposal calls for a system, based on AI, that would automate the censorship of “misinformation” and “hate speech” and work to overcome the spread of “child abuse, extremism, disinformation, hate speech and fraud” online.

According to the author of the article, Inbal Goldberger, human “trust and safety teams” alone are not fully capable of policing such content online.

Goldberger is vice president of ActiveFence Trust & Safety, a technology company based in New York City and Tel Aviv that claims it “automatically collects data from millions of sources and applies contextual AI to power trust and safety operations of any size.”

Instead of relying solely on human moderation teams, Goldberger proposes a system based on “human-curated, multi-language, off-platform intelligence” — in other words, input provided by “expert” human sources that would then create “learning sets” that would train the AI to recognize purportedly harmful or dangerous content.

This “off-platform intelligence” — more machine learning than AI per se, according to Didi Rankovicof ReclaimTheNet.org — would be collected from “millions of sources” and would then be collated and merged before being used for “content removal decisions” on the part of “Internet platforms.”

According to Goldberger, the system would supplement “smarter automated detection with human expertise” and will allow for the creation of “AI with human intelligence baked in.”

This, in turn, would provide protection against “increasingly advanced actors misusing platforms in unique ways.”

“A human moderator who is an expert in European white supremacy won’t necessarily be able to recognize harmful content in India or misinformation narratives in Kenya,” Goldberger explained.

However, “By uniquely combining the power of innovative technology, off-platform intelligence collection and the prowess of subject-matter experts who understand how threat actors operate, scaled detection of online abuse can reach near-perfect precision” as these learning sets are “baked in” to the AI over time, Goldberger said.

This would, in turn, enable “trust and safety teams” to “stop threats rising online before they reach users,” she added.

In his analysis of what Goldberger’s proposal might look like in practice, blogger Igor Chudov explained how content policing on social media today occurs on a platform-by-platform basis.

For example, Twitter content moderators look only at content posted to that particular platform, but not at a user’s content posted outside Twitter.

Chudov argued this is why the WEF appears to support a proposal to “move beyond the major Internet platforms, in order to collect intelligence about people and ideas everywhere else.”

“Such an approach,” Chudov wrote, “would allow them to know better what person or idea to censor — on all major platforms at once.”

The “intelligence” collected by the system from its “millions of sources” would, according to Chudov, “detect thoughts that they do not like,” resulting in “content removal decisions handed down to the likes of Twitter, Facebook, and so on … a major change from the status quo of each platform deciding what to do based on messages posted to that specific platform only.”

In this way, “the search for wrongthink becomes globalized,” concludes Chudov.

In response to the WEF proposal, ReclaimTheNet.org pointed out that “one can start discerning the argument here … as simply pressuring social networks to start moving towards ‘preemptive censorship.’”

Chudov posited that the WEF is promoting the proposal because it “is becoming a little concerned” as “unapproved opinions are becoming more popular, and online censors cannot keep up with millions of people becoming more aware and more vocal.”

According to the Daily Caller, “The WEF document did not specify how members of the AI training team would be decided, how they would be held accountable or whether countries could exercise controls over the AI.”

In a disclaimer accompanying Goldberger’s article, the WEF reassured the public that the content expressed in the piece “is the opinion of the author, not the World Economic Forum,” adding that “this article has been shared on websites that routinely misrepresent content and spread misinformation.”

However, the WEF appears to be open to proposals like Goldberger’s. For instance, a May 2022 article on the WEF website proposes Facebook’s “Oversight Board” as an example of a “real-world governance model” that can be applied to governance in the metaverse.

And, as Chudov noted, “AI content moderation slots straight into the AI social credit score system.”

Download for Free: Robert F. Kennedy’s New Book — ‘A Letter to Liberals’

UN, backed by Gates Foundation, also aiming to ‘break chain of misinformation’

The WEF isn’t the only entity calling for more stringent policing of online content and “misinformation.”

For example, UNESCO recently announced a partnership with Twitter, the European Commission and the World Jewish Congress leading to the launch of the #ThinkBeforeSharing campaign, to “stop the spread of conspiracy theories.”

According to UNESCO:

“The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a worrying rise in disinformation and conspiracy theories.

“Conspiracy theories can be dangerous: they often target and discriminate against vulnerable groups, ignore scientific evidence and polarize society with serious consequences. This needs to stop.”

UNESCO’s director-general, Audrey Azoulay, said:

“Conspiracy theories cause real harm to people, to their health, and also to their physical safety. They amplify and legitimize misconceptions about the pandemic, and reinforce stereotypes which can fuel violence and violent extremist ideologies.”

UNESCO said the partnership with Twitter informs people that events occurring across the world are not “secretly manipulated behind the scenes by powerful forces with negative intent.”

UNESCO issued guidance for what to do in the event one encounters a “conspiracy theorist” online: One must “react” immediately by posting a relevant link to a “fact-checking website” in the comments.

UNESCO also provides advice to the public in the event someone encounters a “conspiracy theorist” in the flesh. In that case, the individual shold avoid arguing, as “any argument may be taken as proof that you are part of the conspiracy and reinforce that belief.”

The #ThinkBeforeSharing campaign provides a host of infographics and accompanying materials intended to explain what “conspiracy theories” are, how to identify them, how to report on them and how to react to them more broadly.

According to these materials, conspiracy theories have six things in common, including:

  • An “alleged, secret plot.”
  • A “group of conspirators.”
  • “‘Evidence’ that seems to support the conspiracy theory.”
  • Suggestions that “falsely” claim “nothing happens by accident and that there are no coincidences,” and that “nothing is as it appears and everything is connected.”
  • They divide the world into “good or bad.”
  • They scapegoat people and groups.

UNESCO doesn’t entirely dismiss the existence of “conspiracy theories,” instead admitting that “real conspiracies large and small DO exist.”

However, the organization claims, such “conspiracies” are “more often centered on single self-contained events, or an individual like an assassination or a coup d’état” and are “real” only if “unearthed by the media.”

In addition to the WEF and UNESCO, the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council earlier this year adopted “a plan of action to tackle disinformation.”

The “plan of action,” sponsored by the U.S., U.K., Ukraine, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, emphasizes “the primary role that governments have, in countering false narratives,” while expressing concern for:

“The increasing and far-reaching negative impact on the enjoyment and realization of human rights of the deliberate creation and dissemination of false or manipulated information intended to deceive and mislead audiences, either to cause harm or for personal, political or financial gain.”

Even countries that did not officially endorse the Human Rights Council plan expressed concernsabout online “disinformation.”

For instance, China identified such “disinformation” as “a common enemy of the international community.”

An earlier UN initiative, in partnership with the WEF, “recruited 110,000 information volunteers” who would, in the words of UN global communications director Melissa Fleming, act as “digital first responders” to “online misinformation.”

The UN’s #PledgeToPause initiative, although recently circulating as a new development on social media, was announced in November 2020, and was described by the UN as “the first global behaviour-change campaign on misinformation.”

The campaign is part of a broader UN initiative, “Verified,” that aims to recruit participants to disseminate “verified content optimized for social sharing,” stemming directly from the UN communications department.

Fleming said at the time that the UN also was “working with social media platforms to recommend changes” to “help break the chain of misinformation.”

Both “Verified” and the #PledgeToPause campaign still appear to be active as of the time of this writing.

The “Verified” initiative is operated in conjunction with Purpose, an activist group that has collaborated with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the World Health Organization, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Google and Starbucks.

Since 2019, the UN has been in a strategic partnership with the WEF based on six “areas of focus,” one of which is “digital cooperation.”

Source: Children’s Health Defense

Key Events Before the FBI Trump Raid | Infographic | The Epoch Times

Click Here to View Infographic: https://www.theepochtimes.com/timeline-of-trump-raid_4675931.html

On Aug. 8, 2022, the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) took the unprecedented step of raiding the Florida residence of former President Donald Trump. The raid prompted a litany of questions. What was the justification for the raid? Were there secondary or unofficial motives? Who ordered and approved the raid? Was the justification compelling enough to take such a dramatic step?

While many of these questions remain unanswered to varying degrees, there are enough facts on the table already to establish a timeline of events before, during, and after the raid.

Source: The Epoch Times

The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary | The Epoch Times TV

Watch the Documentary Here: https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-real-story-of-jan-6-documentary_4596670.html

“The Real Story of January 6,” a documentary by The Epoch Times, reveals the truth that has been hidden from the American people. While a narrative has been set that what took place that day was an insurrection, key events and witnesses have been ignored until now. The documentary takes an unvarnished look at police use of force and the deaths that resulted in some measure from it. The film asks tough questions about who was responsible for the chaos that day. With compelling interviews and exclusive video footage, the documentary tells the real story of January 6. The film is narrated by Joshua Philipp, host of “Crossroads” on EpochTV and a senior investigative reporter at The Epoch Times.

Jasper Fakkert, editor-in-chief of The Epoch Times, said: “There has been a narrative perpetuated about January 6 that omits many of the facts about what happened that day.

“With in-depth interviews and exclusive video footage, we take an objective look at the issues, the people, and the impacts of the events.”

The film takes a close look at the shooting of 35-year-old Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt and the deaths of three other supporters of former President Donald J. Trump. It analyzes the police response to the massive crowds and use of force around the U.S. Capitol.

It examines the human impacts of Jan. 6, including the suicide of one defendant and the long pretrial imprisonment of dozens of others. It also investigates claims that some attacks on the Capitol and police were carried out by unindicted suspicious actors.

Source: The Epoch Times TV

Eating Our Way to Extinction | Film

This film takes audiences on a cinematic journey around the world, from the depths of the Amazon rainforests to the Taiwanese Mountains, the Mongolian desert, the US Dust Bowl, the Norwegian Fjords and the Scottish coastlines, telling the story of our planet through shocking testimonials, poignant accounts from indigenous people most affected by our ever-changing planet, globally renowned figures and leading scientists. This powerful documentary sends a simple but impactful message by uncovering hard truths and addressing, on the big screen, the most pressing issue of our generation – ecological collapse.

Confronting and entertaining, this documentary allows audiences to question their everyday choices, industry leaders and governments. Featuring a wealth of world-renowned contributors, including Sir Richard Branson and Tony Robbins, it has a message of hope that will empower audiences.

Source: Eating Our Way to Extinction

Pfizer Documents Produced by the FDA in FOIA Litigation | Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN)

Download Court Documents & Pfizer’s Documents on Vaccine Safety & Efficacy from This Website

Source: ICAN

The Catastrophic Covid Convergence | Brownstone Institute

By Debbie Lerman

So much basic scientific data and so many best practices and ethical standards in public health were abandoned during the Covid pandemic, it would be difficult to list them all. 

Nevertheless, we must remember just how much reality has been warped since March 2020 and try to understand how that warping occurred. Maybe if we understand what happened, we can prevent it from happening again. Maybe we can unwarp the narrative enough so that more people can see clearly what went wrong.

For my own sanity, I need to understand what happened, so I can come to terms with why people behaved the way they did, and why so many of my own assumptions were shattered during the pandemic. 

I want to know why real science got thrown out as misinformation, propaganda turned into absolute truth, the free press morphed into a government mouthpiece, and supposedly liberal and scientific institutions abandoned ethical standards and critical thought to impose zero-evidence, zero-Covid authoritarian lockdowns and mandates. 

How did my family, friends and neighbors – who I thought shared my liberal, humanist values – turn into a group-thinking, bullying herd? What forces were exerted to erase scientific and intellectual integrity from the minds of literally millions of doctors, scientists, economists, journalists, educators and other normally curious and compassionate people worldwide?

To answer these questions, I am less interested in an exact timeline than in a story that makes sense of seemingly senseless behaviors. I am also less interested in the culpability of specific individuals than in an examination of the factors – psychological, social, historical, political – that drove those behaviors.

Overall, I believe four extremely powerful forces converged catastrophically to initiate, and then perpetuate, the snowball that became the avalanche of Covid insanity. And by insanity, I mean the imposition of unprecedented, untested and predictably unsuccessful – not to mention horrifically damaging – pandemic containment measures.

Those four forces were: panic, politics, propaganda, and profits. 

  1. Panic

I believe pandemic panic was driven from above – from the highest echelons of the most powerful governments – and below – within populations primed for disaster and perpetually on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

Panic from above: it had to be a lab leak 

The stratospheric level of panic unleashed over a virus of relatively low lethality (estimated overall infection fatality rate <0.2%) has always seemed wildly disproportionate to me. When previous, muchmore lethal viruses were discovered in various populations, nothing near the level of Covid hysteria happened. 

I therefore surmise that, at the onset of the Covid pandemic, there was a spark of panic from a very powerful place that ignited the fear already smoldering in the population. 

Where did the initial code-red alarm come from? A likely explanation, based on Covid origin researchand many reports of Covid detected before December 2019 as well as the strange, erratic behavior and sudden policy reversals by top US health officials, is that the “novel coronavirus” leaked from a high-security US-funded lab in Wuhan, China. 

Much has been written about the lab leak hypothesis in terms of detailed timelines and specific people involved. To me, the most compelling argument in its favor is psychological: Without the lab leak there would be insufficient momentum to fuel such a juggernaut of global panic, causing scientists and public health experts to abandon everything they knew about respiratory viruses, and leading democratic governments to adopt Chinese-inspired authoritarian policies.

Specifically, the Wuhan lab leak makes sense as the source of initial panic because the research conducted there is highly sensitive and controversial. It involves EPPPs – enhanced pandemic potential pathogens – viruses engineered to be very contagious so their spread can be studied in animal models. Interest in this type of research comes not just from the virology and epidemiology fields, but also from national security and intelligence agencies focused on bioterrorism.

If both public health and intelligence officials knew, or suspected, that a virus had leaked from a lab studying EPPPs, there would be huge levels of apprehension, not to say hysteria, in that group, even if initial data showed, as it did, that the virus was not very dangerous to most people and affected mostly those over 65 with multiple underlying conditions.

If the virus was intentionally engineered for its pandemic-causing potential, it could be way more dangerous than just any old pathogen jumping from animals to humans. Who knew how an engineered virus would evolve? How much more virulent could it become? Intelligence and national security officials, in particular, might push for a maximal response without reference to standard epidemiologic or public health protocols.

In fact, it is almost impossible to explain the drastic abandoning of everything scientists and public health practitioners knew and believed about flu-like pandemics, without adding to the equation the terrifying unknown of what an engineered pathogen might do.

And to top off the panic palooza, if and when the truth of the virus’s origins came out, those involved with the EPPP research, already riddled with safety concerns, would be blamed. Major international and diplomatic crises could ensue.

Further strengthening this hypothesis is the fact that the countries with the strictest and most prolonged lockdowns, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada, were all members of the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance, along with the US and UK. It makes sense that precisely those countries sharing the earliest and most detailed intelligence about the lab leak felt not only justified, but compelled, to carry out the strictest lockdowns.

All of this leads me to conclude that a small group of top intelligence and public health officials, fearing a catastrophically deadly engineered virus had been released (regardless of its observed effects in the real world), convinced themselves, their governments, and in turn their populations (without publicly revealing the virus’ origin) that the strictest containment measures were needed or else millions would die. 

Panic, then, became not just a reaction to the virus but, in the minds of those instigators, a necessary state in which to hold the population in order to elicit maximum compliance with containment measures. As inertia set in following the big initial push, panic and compliance became not just means for supposedly ending the pandemic but goals in and of themselves.

Scientists and media enlisted in panic campaign

All major media outlets, including the billionaire owners of the largest social media platforms, were likely asked by panicked government officials for their help in supporting draconian virus-suppressing measures. It seems likely, based on the strict adherence to the panic narrative, that guidelines were disseminated as to how the pandemic should be discussed, warning that any deviation therefrom would lead to countless unnecessary deaths. The threat of the virus could not be overstated. Questioning anti-virus measures was taboo

Although prominent epidemiologists and public health experts outside the inner circle tried to publicize alternative, more realistic scenarios, based on data already gathered about the virus’s actual fatality rates, I believe the government’s allies in academia – some perhaps apprised of the EPPP situation, some politically motivated and/or petrified by the propaganda (as discussed below) – brutally silenced any discussion or debate. 

Panic from below: the madness of crowds

The US population was primed to react strongly when massive panic from above was unleashed upon it. Covid fears had already been building since early 2020, with the proliferation of terrifying videos and reports of people falling dead in China’s streets from a hitherto unknown virus. We now know these videos were most likely fake and related to the Chinese propaganda campaign discussed later in this article. But at the time, they went viral, fomenting fear of the new virus. 

Even before that, in the years leading up to the pandemic, especially in liberal coastal cities, a culture of hyper safety and risk aversion had taken hold. It was a perfect setup – in addition to the strong political forces acting on the very same populations (as described below) – for pandemic hysteria to proliferate even more virulently than the pathogen that prompted it.

Once large socioeconomically and politically homogeneous groups embraced the panic, as Gigi Foster, Paul Frijters and Michael Baker so cogently explain, herd mentality, or the madness of crowds, took over. To this day, the crowd madness continues to block any critical analysis or questioning of Covid policies in these groups.

  1. Politics 

If the pandemic had not happened during the Trump presidency, the panic from above and below might not have garnered enough scientific and media buy-in to turn the entire Democratic Party, as well as other self-regarding liberal governments around the world, into mirror images of totalitarian authorities they so often decried.

Trump was considered by the politically left-leaning coastal elites in the US (myself included!), and their allies around the world, to be a menace the likes of which had never been elected before, and a clear and present danger to the very foundations of democracy. For over three years, these groups, largely controlling the mainstream marketplace of ideas, spent much of their time ridiculing, lambasting and whipping up fear of Trump’s incompetence and nefarious intentions. 

Like many others on all sides of the political spectrum, I believe criticism of Trump was largely justified. However, for many Democrats, Trump hatred went beyond rational debate and came to dominate not just the discourse but the very identity of the party, fostering a self-righteous superiority complex displayed through ritualistic virtue signaling, and engendering the apt label “Trump derangement syndrome.” The derangement part was the turning of anti-Trumpism into a self-identifying obsession and singular standard of virtue, to the exclusion of any objective examination of Trump’s words or deeds.

Anything Trump said, the anti-Trump camp felt it their civic and moral duty not just to proclaim, but to deeply believe, the opposite. 

When it came to the pandemic, this meant that:

  • If Trump warned that prolonged lockdowns would wreck the economy, left-leaning economists derided anyone who, as they myopically contended, put economic concerns over human life.
  • If Trump claimed children were immune to the virus, every Democrat was convinced it would kill their own children and everyone else’s, and that schools should be closed indefinitely.
  • If Trump said masks don’t work, doctors who for years had known masks to be useless at blocking transmission of flu-like viruses, now believed masks should be mandated everywhere forever. 
  • If Trump suggested that the virus came from a lab in China, editorial boards at major newspapers believed this must be a racist smear which should never ever be entertained, let alone investigated.
  • And, in my personal life, if I tried to share data showing Covid was not very lethal or that mask mandates did not work, instead of discussing the merits of the data, my friends (who knew very well my ultra-leftie politics and socialist worldview) would turn to me in horror and ask: “Are you a Trumpist?”

Thus was Trump derangement syndrome seamlessly transmuted into Covid derangement syndrome. All the rage directed at Trump was redirected toward anyone who, like Trump, dared to doubt its deadliness or question the authoritarian measures used to fight it. 

To top it all off, the pandemic happened during an election year. So Trump hatred and pandemic hysteria were effectively bundled together to get Trump voted out and Biden, a Democrat more aligned with the public health establishment, in. Subsequently, anyone elected on a pro-lockdown, zero-Covid agenda was incentivized to continue advocating for the strictest measures for as long as possible. 

  1. Propaganda 

The third force contributing to global Covid hysteria was, as Michael Senger points out in his eye-opening book Snake Oil: How Xi Jinping Shut Down the World, a concerted propaganda campaign by the Chinese Communist Party, or CCP, that managed to turn the pandemic (at least until recently) into a celebration of China’s inimitable social cohesion and a showcase for the supposed success of its authoritarian anti-pandemic measures

Previously, China had suffered loss of face and international condemnation due to a pandemic outbreak and coverup. This time, the CCP seized control of the narrative by imposing draconian, unprecedented zero-Covid measures no democratic government would ever dream of, then claiming, contrary to logic and basic epidemiologic science, spectacular victory

Everything from social media bots to China-friendly editorial boards at prestigious medical journals was leveraged to denigrate any state or nation with a less restrictive approach. Deviations from the Chinese methods were labeled – in a brilliantly insidious 21st-century demonstration of Newspeak – heartless, pro-death, anti-humanitarian and materialistically motivated. 

The World Health Organization, largely supported by and beholden to China, vociferously praised the CCP and the Chinese people for their discipline, commitment, and ultimate victory. Fawning scientificand general press coverage marveled at how sometimes authoritarianism could be good, if it meant saving millions of lives.

Thanks to the propitious convergence of panic and politics described above, the CCP propaganda succeeded spectacularly in convincing democratic governments to adopt hitherto unthinkable authoritarian measures and to pretend, or convince themselves, that such measures actually worked.

Although they knew from the experience of past epidemics, and from basic epidemiologic science, that it is not possible to stop the spread of a flu-like virus once it has seeded itself throughout a global population, I think public health and national security officials – especially those in the lab leak group, as described above – desperately wanted to believe that the Chinese measures were working. After all, nothing like that had ever been tried before. If China said it was working for them, maybe it would work everywhere else. It had to work. Otherwise, they feared, millions of people would die and they would be blamed.

Even as months and years passed, and the virus continued to infect every population in every other country, the world continued to believe China’s zero Covid reports. In fact, the scientifically and medically nonsensical “zero-Covid” goal became the mantra for the authorities imposing Chinese-style virus containment measures everywhere else.

Scientists and media successfully propagandized

One very influential part of the effort to freak the world out about Covid was the early modeling provided by the Imperial College of London in early 2020. Not coincidentally, as proudly declared on its own website, Imperial College is one of China’s top academic and research partners in England

The Imperial College models, which were very soon proven to be grossly wrong, predicted millions of deaths from the virus in just a few months if strict Chinese-style measures were not imposed. The reports accompanying the models strongly recommended unprecedented zero-Covid suppressionrather than normal pandemic mitigation measures (like those, for example, adopted by Sweden).

Major media outlets immediately publicized these highly uncertain models, making them sound like proven facts and never mentioning the past failures of Imperial College models that had led to terrible government policies or questioning the obvious biases in the models’ underlying assumptions.

A scientific and journalistic consensus quickly coalesced around these models and the necessity for the zero-Covid measures they supposedly proved. As mentioned above, dissenting views were silenced, but they were also a small minority. The toxic confluence of panic, politics and propaganda worked like an anti-truth potion to preclude even the possibility that someone would think, let alone publicize, anything suggesting it wasn’t as bad as everyone – the Chinese, the US government, the leading newspapers and scientific journals – said it was.

  1. Profits

President Biden took office just as Covid vaccines became available. This was supposed to be the beginning of the end of lockdowns and a return to normal.

Alas, at this point so many profit-driven interests had piled onto the zero-Covid train, that it continued to hurtle forth at unstoppable speeds.

The nonsensical, non-scientific zero-Covid measures that had begun from a place of mortal panic, spread through political polarization, and amplified by Chinese propaganda, now generated unprecedented profits for anyone who made anything related to the pandemic. 

As far as these money interests are concerned, the pandemic might as well go on forever.

In assessing the potential influence of profits on the indefinite continuation of the state of Covid emergency, the numbers speak for themselves. Here are just a few of the jaw-dropping reports on the beneficiaries from never-ending Covid:

Big Tech 

In October 2021 the New York Times reported: “In the last year, the five tech superpowers — Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook — had combined revenue of more than $1.2 trillion. … some of the companies are growing faster and are more profitable than they have been in years.”

Test Makers and Sellers

In January 2022 CBS reported “Windfall profits for test makers,” including Abbott Laboratories ($1.9 billion in third-quarter sales related to COVID-19 testing, up 48% compared to the year-ago period). Other beneficiaries with skyrocketing profits were labs that process PCR tests and drugstore chains like CVS and Walgreens.

Vaccines 

In February 2022 The Guardian reported that Pfizer made nearly $37 billion in sales from its Covid-19 vaccine in 2021 – making it one of the most lucrative products in history. Pfizer’s overall revenues in 2021 doubled to $81.3 billion, and it expects to make record revenues of $98 – $102 billion this year.

Billionaires

In January 2022 OxFam reported: “The world’s ten richest men more than doubled their fortunes from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion —at a rate of $15,000 per second or $1.3 billion a day— during the first two years of a pandemic that has seen the incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall and over 160 million more people forced into poverty.” 

“If these ten men were to lose 99.999 percent of their wealth tomorrow, they would still be richer than 99 percent of all the people on this planet. They now have six times more wealth than the poorest 3.1 billion people.”

Conclusion

  • An engineered pandemic potential pathogen leaked from a high-security US-funded lab in Wuhan long before it was acknowledged by China. By the time it became known, it was too late to contain. 

Having outlined the cataclysmic convergence of forces I believe came together to create the Covid catastrophe, I now have a Covid story that makes sense to me: 

  • When they found out, top US intelligence and public health officials affiliated with the Wuhan research panicked, fearing millions of deaths, international mayhem and personal culpability. This caused them to disregard real-world data about the virus and to abandon basic epidemiological principles and best practices in public health.
  • The Chinese authorities adopted scientifically nonsensical zero-Covid policies not because they thought they would work but to deflect attention from China’s role in the viral leak and coverup. In a brilliant propaganda coup, they turned the pandemic into a celebration of their authoritarian measures, convincing the world to follow their example.
  • All Democrats in the US and their allies elsewhere reflexively and uncritically favored all the policies that President Trump – viewed as their mortal enemy – opposed. These were the very same scientifically bogus policies that the panicked officials and Chinese propagandists were pushing.
  • Many who controlled the narrative in media, academia, public health and medicine were particularly susceptible to panic, politicization of the pandemic, and Chinese propaganda, which all came together to induce widespread groupthink and herd behavior. As cogently explained inThe Great Covid Panic, such behavior is detached from logical reasoning and the ability to objectively evaluate reality.
  • Major industries and individuals with enormous wealth and influence saw huge gains from the pandemic. It was, and still is, in their best interests to push for more testing, more treating, more vaccinating, more remote work and learning, more online shopping, and more of everything else pandemic-related.

Although terrifying and depressing to the extreme, this story helps me understand how so many people’s views of data, science, truth, ethics and compassion became so warped. I hope the telling will at least help a little with the unwarping.

Source: Brownstone Institute

Are the Covid mRNA Vaccines Safe? | Brownstone Institute

By Martin Kulldorff

new scientific study entitled Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA vaccination in randomized trials” provides the best evidence yet concerning the safety of the mRNA Covid vaccines. For most vaccines in common use, benefits far outweigh risks, but that may not be the case for the mRNA covid vaccines, according to this study by Joseph Fraiman and his colleagues. It depends on your age and medical history. 

The randomized controlled clinical trial is the gold standard of scientific evidence. When regulators approved the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines for emergency use in December 2020, tworandomized trials showed that the vaccines reduced symptomatic covid infection by over 90% during the first few months after the second dose. 

Pfizer and Moderna did not design the trials to evaluate long-term efficacy or the more important outcomes of preventing hospitalization, death, or transmission. 

The randomized trials did collect adverse event data, including the presence of mild symptoms (such as fever) and more serious events requiring hospitalization or leading to death. Most vaccines generate some mild adverse reactions in some people, and there were considerably more adverse such reactions after the mRNA vaccines compared to the placebo. 

That is annoying but not a major issue. We care about severe health outcomes. The key question is whether the vaccine’s efficacy outweighs the risks of severe adverse reactions. 

The Fraiman study uses data from the same Pfizer and Moderna-sponsored randomized trials presented to the FDA for vaccine approval, but with two innovations that provide additional information. 

First, the study pools data from both mRNA vaccines to increase the sample size, which decreases the confidence intervals’ size and the uncertainty about the estimated harms. 

Second, the study focuses only on the severe adverse events plausibly due to the vaccines. Serious adverse events such as gunshot wounds, suicide, animal bites, foot fractures, and back injury are unlikely to be due to a vaccine, and cancer is unlikely to be due to a vaccine within a few months after vaccination. By removing such random noise, the ability (statistical power) to detect genuine problems increases. If there is no excess risk, shorter confidence intervals bolster confidence in the safety of the vaccines. 

Classifying adverse events into the two groups is not a trivial task, but Fraiman et al. do an excellent job to avoid bias. They rely on the pre-defined Brighton Collaboration definitions of adverse events of special interest (AESI). Founded in 2000, the Brighton Collaboration has two decades of experience using rigorous science to define clinical outcomes for vaccine safety studies. 

Moreover, Fraiman and colleagues blinded the process where they classified the clinical events as AESIs. Adjudicators did not know whether the individual had received the vaccine or the placebo. Hence, any criticism of so-called p-hacking is unwarranted. 

So, what are the results? There were 139 AESIs among the 33,986 people vaccinated, one for every 244 people. That may sound bad, but those numbers mean nothing without comparison against a control group. There were 97 AESIs among the 33,951 people who received a placebo. Combining these numbers implies 12.5 vaccine-induced AESIs for every 10,000 people vaccinated, with a 95% confidence interval of 2.1 to 22.9 per 10,000 people. To phrase it differently, there is one additional AESI for every 800 people vaccinated (95% CI: 437-4762). 

That is very high for a vaccine. No other vaccine on the market comes close. 

The numbers for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are 10 and 15 additional events per 10,000 people, respectively, so both vaccines contributed to the finding. The numbers are similar enough that we cannot confidently say that one is safer than the other. Most excess AESIs were coagulation disorders. For the Pfizer vaccine, there was also an excess of cardiovascular AESIs. 

While these safety results are concerning, we must not forget the other side of the equation. Unfortunately, the study does not calculate composite estimates that also included the reduction in serious covid infections, but we have such estimates for mortality. 

Dr. Christine Benn and her colleagues calculated a combined estimate of the effect of vaccination on all-cause mortality using the same randomized trial data as Fraiman et al. They did not find a mortality reduction for the mRNA vaccines (relative risk 1.03, 95% CI: 0.63-1.71). 

One important limitation of both Fraiman’s and Benn’s studies is that they do not distinguish the adverse reactions by age, comorbidities, or medical history. That is not their fault. Pfizer and Moderna have not released that information, so outside researchers do not have access. 

We know that the vaccine benefits are not equally distributed among people since covid mortality is more than a thousand times higher among the old. Thus, risk-benefit calculations must be done separately for different groups: with and without prior covid infection, by age, and for the first two doses versus boosters. 

  1. Covid-recovered people have natural immunity that is stronger than vaccine-induced immunity. So, the benefit of vaccination is – at best – minimal. If the risk of adverse reactions is the same as in the randomized trials, there is a negative risk-benefit difference. Why are we mandating people in this group to be vaccinated? It is both unethical and damaging to public health.
  2. While everyone can get infected, children have a minuscule risk of covid mortality. There is very limited safety data from the trials on children. If the risk of adverse reactions is the same as for adults, the harms outweigh the risks. Children should not receive these vaccines.
  3. Older people above 70 have a much higher risk of covid mortality than the population in the Fraiman study. If their risk of adverse reaction is the same, then the benefits outweigh the harms. Hence, older people who have never had covid and are not yet vaccinated may benefit from these vaccines. However, we do not know if they are better than the Johnson & Johnson and Astra-Zeneca vaccines.
  4. It is unclear from the clinical trial data whether the benefits outweigh the risks for working-age adults who have not been vaccinated and who have not already had covid. This is true both historically, for the original covid variants, and currently for the newer ones.
  5. The Fraiman study analyzes data after the first and second doses. Both risks and benefits may differ for booster shots, but no randomized trial has properly evaluated the trade-off.

These results concern only the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines. Fraiman et al. did not analyze data on the adenovirus-vector vaccines marketed by Johnson & Johnson and Astra-Zeneca. Benn et al. found that they reduced all-cause mortality (RR=0.37, 95% CI:0.19-0.70), but nobody has used trial data to analyze AESIs for these vaccines. 

Critically, the Fraiman and Benn studies had a follow-up of only a few months after the second dose because Pfizer and Moderna, unfortunately, terminated their randomized trials a few months after receiving emergency use authorization. Of course, a longer-term benefit can provide a basis to tolerate negative or neutral short-term risk-benefit differences. However, that is unlikely since we know from observational studies that mRNA vaccine efficacy deteriorates a few months after the second dose. 

There may also be long-term adverse reactions to the vaccine regarding which we do not yet know. Since the randomized trials ended early, we must look at observational data to answer that question. The publicly available data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is of low quality, with both under- and over-reporting. The best observational data is from CDCs Vaccine Safety Datalink(VSD) and FDA’s Biologics and Effectiveness Safety System (BEST), but there have only been limited reports from these systems.

Fraiman and colleagues have produced the best evidence yet regarding the overall safety of the mRNA vaccines. The results are concerning. It is the responsibility of the manufacturers and FDA to ensure that benefits outweigh harms. They have failed to do so.

Source: Brownstone Institute

Germany Labels Journalist ‘Criminal’ And Seizes Her Bank Accounts For Reporting From Ukraine | Kanekoa’s Substack

A German journalist living in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region has been criminally charged by the German government for interviewing Ukrainian citizens and reporting her findings.

Independent reporter, 28-year-old Alina Lipp, moved to the Donbas area six months ago, where she transmits first-hand information to her audience in German, Russian, and English from her telegram channel.

Lipp claims she is only doing what any journalist would do — interviewing citizens and documenting what is happening around her.

The journalist explained she is “doing interviews with people in Donetsk and merely translating them into German.”

“I am simply filming everything I see around,” Lipp added.

She inquired rhetorically “what is it that’s illegal in that, or dangerous?”

Share

The controversy around Lipp began in March when one of her videos explaining the history and the context of the war went viral.

In Lipp’s viral video, she said, “you need to understand that Russia has been asking for eight years that the Minsk agreement be upheld. Ukraine did not adhere to it, nor did they approach the Donbas region in an attempt to come to agreement.”

“Instead, they have been bombing the outskirts of the Donbas region for eight years. They are shooting at civilians, who now also have to live in completely shot-up houses. Very many people have died here,” Lipp continued.

In the video, Lipp alleged that the Donbas citizens who overwhelmingly voted to secede from Ukraine in 2014 had been, “thankful that Russia finally did something”.

Lip added, “Finally, the people here have been liberated from the terror that they’ve been experiencing for the last eight years,” under continuous shelling by the Ukrainian military.

Soon after the video went viral, Lipp’s YouTube channel was closed, her PayPal account was blocked, and the Ukrainian government labeled her a “terrorist”.

Source: Kanekoa’s Substack