Never forget the evil done to the United States when Biden pardoned an accomplice to mass murder deeply involved in both the creation of the COVID-19 virus and bio-weapons development. Speculations surround his most likely profiteering from the various “pandemics” over the years, and the sudden jump in his family net worth after leaving Federal employment.
To quote:
“A pardon for ANY OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.”
Think about that. The actual text of the pardon reads:
I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, …
HAVE GRANTED UNTO DR. ANTHONY S. FAUCI A FULL AND UNCONDITIONAL PARDON FOR ANY OFFENSES against the United States which he may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014, through the date of this pardon arising from or in any manner related to his service as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force or the White House COVID-19 Response Team, or as Chief Medical Advisor to the President.”
Although many scholars believe that President Biden’s autopen signature and lack of cognitive function make the document invalid and that President Trump could invalidate the pardon with an executive order, I am not so sure that it would stand up in a court of law. Presidents signing with autopens or delegating the signing to subordinates has long been an accepted practice since Thomas Jefferson.
Biden was never declared unfit for office while serving, so this is also unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. It’s worth a try, though, I suppose.
The big legal issue with this pardon is that it is for crimes not named.
The Constitution addresses presidential pardons in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, known as the Pardon Clause. The exact wording is:
“Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Does the wording above mean that a president can give a blanket pardon for any offenses against the United States, or do the offenses have to be named?
The most notable example of a blanket pardon is President Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon. Ford granted Nixon “a full, free and absolute pardon… for all offenses against the United States which he… has committed or may have committed or taken part in” during his presidency. This pardon did not enumerate particular offenses. This blanket pardon was never challenged in a court of law. Therefore, a precedent was not set by the courts.
Some like to point to President Jimmy Carter’s blanket pardon for Vietnam-era draft evaders as a precedent. However, that pardon specified a category of offense and was not a blanket pardon for crimes not enumerated. That said, this pardon was also never challenged in a court of law.
As neither case was challenged in a court of law, many legal scholars still debate whether a pardon must specify offenses in detail. It seems to me that now is the time to question whether a blanket pardon for all crimes not enumerated reflects the framers’ intent when they wrote the Constitution. Of course, another, more straightforward solution would be for Congress to pass a law articulating what that phrase actually means. However, it is still up to the Supreme Court to determine the literal meaning of the Constitution.
This principle was solidified in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which affirmed that “it is the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”. While Congress’s interpretations can shape constitutional discussions and legislative actions, when the Constitution lacks clarity, the courts—particularly the Supreme Court—ultimately determine the meaning of constitutional phrases.
That said, there may be an easier route to prosecute Anthony Fauci.
The DOJ can work with state prosecutors to uncover crimes. If the DOJ, during a joint investigation, finds evidence of a crime that has been pardoned federally, that evidence can still be shared with state prosecutors. State authorities may use that evidence to pursue state charges, as the presidential pardon does not extend to state offenses.
So, even if a presidential pardon blocks federal prosecution for the pardoned acts but does not shield the person from state prosecution, the DOJ can share evidence with state prosecutors if the conduct violates state law.
The DOJ can investigate and acquire federal documents related to monetary misconduct, ethical breaches, and even manslaughter, which can then be shared with state attorneys general and prosecutors.
Furthermore, that evidence could be shared with other governments.
A final note: the COVIDcrisis made many people rich; they used psychological bioterrorism to scare government officials into reacting in ways that benefited those parties significantly.
Yes, there is no debate that the COVID-19 crisis triggered what many analysts and organizations describe as the largest upward transfer of wealth in modern history.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States saw a dramatic upward transfer of wealth, primarily benefiting billionaires and the wealthiest households:
Billionaire Wealth Surge: U.S. billionaires’ combined wealth jumped from $2.9 trillion in March 2020 to $4.7 trillion by July 2021-a gain of $1.8 trillion, or about 62% 1, 2, 3. By early 2023, this growth reached $1.7 trillion, with the nation’s roughly 700 billionaires holding more wealth than the bottom half of all Americans combined 4.
New Billionaires: The number of U.S. billionaires increased, with dozens joining the ranks during the pandemic 5.
Wealth Gap: While the typical American household’s net worth increased (partly due to stimulus payments and higher home values), richer households gained far more-adding about $172,000 to their net worth from 2019 to 2021, compared to just $500 for poorer households 6. The richest 25% of households still held over 80% of the nation’s wealth 6.
Inequality Worsened: The share of national wealth owned by the top 1% continued to rise, reaching around 45%, while the bottom 50% received just 10% of total income 7.
In summary: The pandemic accelerated and magnified existing inequalities, with America’s wealthiest corporations, individuals, and households capturing a disproportionate share of the economic gains while millions faced job losses and hardship. This dramatic shift was driven by rising asset prices, stock market gains, and policy responses that disproportionately benefited those who already held significant wealth, deepening the divide between the richest Americans and everyone else.
Conclusion: The pandemic increased billionaire and millionaire wealth at unprecedented rates and deepened inequality in the United States, marking it as a period of historic upward wealth transfer.
Fauci is the figurehead; he must be brought to justice, as must the other public officials, scientists, and physicians who profited enormously from the lies and half-truths.
But in the end – many people and institutions need to be brought to justice for the damages done to the American people. It is the job of the FBI and the DOJ to determine how this upward money transfer happened in the United States during the COVID crisis and who benefited via illegal means. This includes government officials, politicians, scientists, big pharma, and hospital systems that have profited enormously. Which government officials wrote the policies that aided and abetted this upward transfer of wealth and why?
This can not be swept under the rug as just another F/U by big government.
Black propaganda is being used to try to take down President Trump, Sec. Kennedy, and the MAHA movement. In the following essay, Jeffrey Tucker of Brownstone Institute documents one such ploy of many.
Yet another report just appeared about how HHS has contracted with Moderna to produce a Bird flu vaccine. The contract is worth $176 million. The latest report, dated May 1, 2025 runs in something called Endocrinology Advisor.
Similar stories have run inU.S. News & World ReportandInfectious Disease Advisor.
Here is where things get odd. You can search the sites of HHS, NIH, and ASPR and will not find anything about this contract. That’s odd because government announces all these things unless they are classified.
So what’s the credible authority for this huge breaking news?
Each of these stories links to the cited authority as HealthDay and its report. However, that story is from July 2, 2024, fully nine months old. HealthDay in turn cites the Associated Press, which also has a story from July 2, 2024.
In other words, this supposed breaking news was old news, suddenly resurrected by U.S. News as if it were new. For no apparent reason. The supposed journalists who wrote the story, Robin Foster and Stephanie Brown, are said to work at HealthDay. They have no contact information and my email to the site has not been yet answered.
So far as I can tell, if such a contract did exist, it is now cancelled or on pause.
What the breaking news stories did do was circulate widely in the health freedom movement, cited as an example of “how RFK and Trump are betraying their base”. I personally received probably half a dozen contacts from people who sent the U.S. News story to me.
Several mentioned it on the phone without recalling the source.
It is now widely believed that the Trump administration has approved $176 million for Moderna even though there is no credible or new source on this at all. The canard is already burrowed into the brains of the people who matter.
Is this how medical news works?
The story gets even better. The $176 million number from last spring was upped in January 2025 to an incredible $600 million. The widely reported story appeared on January 17, 2025.
The announcement used to live here. You can try the link. The page has been archived. Kaput.
So far as anyone knows, this contract is on pause or canceled. Not just the $600 million but the $176 million contract too.
It was archived by RFK following the Trump inauguration. Pretty obviously, the old HHS tried to sneak in a huge contract to Moderna just before Trump arrived. It was quickly nixed by the new administration.
There is not one word either way on the Moderna site itself.
Meanwhile, Moderna’s stock price has been devastated, down a shocking 75% in one year. You can also observe how the stock briefly blipped upwards when the big contract was announced in January.
It had previously reached a high of $454. Now it stands at $27. That’s what is called a freefall. No government money is there to rescue the stock. Nor can the company rely on forced consumption in the form of vaccine mandates, all of which have been repealed.
What’s shocking is to realize that this kind of shabby journalism might not be unusual. Take it as a case in point. You cannot believe what you read in legacy media. It is just as likely to be designed to manipulate your sense of things, to goad you into thinking a certain way in order to achieve some surreptitious scheme. In this case, it is all about the goal of undermining RFK with his base, thus preventing future reforms.
Already in such a short time, HHS under Trump has closed Fauci’s gain-of-function lab in Maryland, newly required placebo-controlled trials for vaccines, and said that private interests will no longer share in royalties for new vaccine products. Further, he has worked with NIH to fund new research into the cause of autism in addition to working out agreements with food producers to stop putting petroleum dyes in their consumer products.
These are the first major steps toward eliminating a deeply corrupt system. Do you see why the controlled media – 70% of the advertising for that comes from pharma – might want to undermine RFK?
This is a must-read for those interested in the topics of Dr. Fauci and gain-of-function research. Speculation about the author includes Dr. Jeffrey Taubenberger. The question now is whether or not DNI Tulsi Gabbard is serious about calling out Fauci’s perjury before Congress, and whether the autopen blanket pardon is valid. I strongly suspect that the pardon relates to much more than just the WIV GOF. Fauci probably knew what was happening in the Ukraine biolabs and much more.
“I admired Fauci in his earlier career because I thought he was a strong leader with a vision for global research. But I can’t say that anymore.”
MAY 4
Today’s guest essay is by a infectious disease researcher at the National institutes of Health who wishes to remain anonymous to guard against retribution.
As a decades-long NIH insider, I wasn’t surprised to see Dr. Tony Fauci go toe-to-toe with President Trump in his first term. After all, this is a man who built a $4 billion taxpayer-funded empire—the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)—and transformed it into a medieval Italian Signoria, where his every word was law, his every whim obeyed. When I entered his office, I couldn’t help but notice a portrait of The Godfather hung above his desk—Marlon Brando as Don Vito Corleone, not Al Pacino as the young, upstart Michael—a fitting tribute to his persona and leadership style.
Upon entering NIH meetings, I sometimes caught a favored capo slouching down in his chair after dutifully raising Fauci’s own, so that, feet dangling, the diminutive Don would appear the tallest man in the room. From such commanding heights, the Boss often humiliated staff members, both women and men, in expletive-laden tirades. To avoid this wrath, his minions worked feverishly to anticipate his every desire and satisfy a relentless ambition to expand the Fauci’s scientific dominion.
I admired Fauci in his earlier career because I thought he was a strong leader with a vision for global research. But I can’t say that anymore.
Several incidents caused me to change my view beginning in March 2020 when a group of renowned virologists published a paper in Nature Medicinethat falsely concluded a lab accident could not have started the COVID pandemic. A year later, I watched in disbelief as Dr. Fauci testified before Congress where he strongly denied allegations about dangerous virus research he was funding at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I realized that the Fauci-led NIAID had participated in a classic Washington ploy: satisfy your critics by pretending to regulate activity that can harm the public, while actually letting your friends do whatever they want. In this case, I’m talking about gain-of-function virus studies, research that should end tomorrow to protect us from future man-made pandemic disasters.
Like most everyone in the federal government, in the early months of the pandemic I was working from home when Nature Medicine published a paper called “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2.” Written by prestigious virologists Scripps researcher Kristian Andersen and Tulane University’s Robert Garry, this paper concluded, “We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.” The paper analyzed the genetic sequence of the COVID virus and concluded that SARS-CoV-2 was a naturally occurring virus, as no clear signs of “gain-of-function” were detected.
Gain-of-function is a process where virologists manipulate a virus’s genetic sequence to make it more transmissible, lethal, or able to overcome countermeasures. After making a virus more dangerous through gain-of-function, researchers then try to figure out how to defeat it. However, the “Proximal Origin” letter in Nature Medicine overlooked a common gain of function method.
Virologists often use a technique called “serial passaging,” where a virus is repeatedly introduced to laboratory animals or different cell types, such as human cell lines. Repetitive passaging allows the virus to genetically adapt, enabling it to grow in the new animal or cells. And such passaging does not require direct genetic manipulation.
The authors of the “Proximal Origin” paper completely ignored the possibility of serial passaging. And because they didn’t discuss this very common laboratory practice, they did not “disprove” a laboratory origin for the virus. I have no idea how ignoring something so obvious could make it pass peer review and get published in a prestigious journal like Nature Medicine.
I remember sitting in my living room, carefully reading the paper line by line, and shouting over to my partner in the next room, “What the fuck is going on?!”
Despite such a gaping hole in the analysis, the paper was taken as gospel by basically every reporter covering it—New York Times, CNN, Science Magazine, NBC, Science News, Nature Magazine, Washington Post, etc…—as if it ended all doubt that the COVID virus could have come from a lab.
I discussed this quietly with a few close colleagues I consider friends, but I’m embarrassed to admit that I was afraid to speak out publicly. At the time, people were being called “conspiracy theorists” for even asking if the virus could have had a lab origin. There was a real fear of saying what you thought—shame, humiliation—and I was worried about getting fired. I believed the entire virology and the NIH-funded scientific communities would have banded together to discredit me if I said anything, and my career would have been over. Dr. Fauci was the most powerful man in the scientific community at that time and his word was undisputed.
Besides, the toxic political climate at the NIH did not allow much for dissenting opinions. All communications by federal employees are vetted and go through a multi-layered review process, and criticism of the official narrative would never have been allowed. As any member of the NIH knew, you don’t ever take sides against the family.
The authors of the “Proximal Origin” paper completely ignored the possibility of serial passaging.
During this same time period, I also became aware that something weird was happening inside the NIH. In April 2020, Trump cut off a grant to Peter Daszak who ran a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance. Daszak was partnering with researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology to collect and characterize bat coronaviruses in China. Trump’s executive action was an effort to prevent another possible COVID-19-like pandemic, even though Politico called these concerns a “conspiracy theory.” But rather than reassess the risks of this research, as the President wanted, the Fauci-led NIAID doubled down on high-risk viral research, funding new programs called Centers for Emerging Infectious Diseases (CREID). These research programs focused entirely on global collection and surveillance of zoonotic viruses from nature.
Instead of pausing to investigate whether a lab leak had occurred, Fauci awarded Daszak a new multi-million-dollar CREID grant dedicated to hunting for novel viruses in bats—not just in Chinese caves, but across Southeast Asia and parts of Africa. From 2020 to the present, Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance received $4,474,707 for his CREID grant plus another $3,353,628 for similar virus hunting grants.
At the same time, NIAID also awarded the authors of the Proximal Origin paper—Scripp’s Andersen and Tulane’s Garry—large CREID grants which have cost American taxpayers $11,322,650. By handing out awards to political allies, Don Fauci maintained a web of allegiances.
But these grants were a slap in the face to President Trump and completely dismissed the American public whose family members were dying from a pandemic which could have started from NIH-funded virus research. The timeline of these awards is also interesting. Andersen’s CREID grant had been reviewed in November 2019 and presented to the official NIAID Advisory Council in January 2020. Fauci would have known the names of researchers getting such a massive grant, and Andersen and Garry would have been very eager to please Fauci.
By publishing the “Proximal Origin” paper, both Andersen and Garry gave Fauci a handy talking point to misdirect public attention away from a lab accident in a Wuhan lab that he was funding. Dr. Collins promoted Andersen’s “Proximal Origin” paper in his March 2020 NIH Director’s Blog, and Fauci seized upon the paper during a televised White House briefing.
Fauci cast aside the possibility of a laboratory-based origin by citing the “Proximal Origin” paper in an April 17, 2020 White House Coronavirus Task Force press briefing. When asked whether the virus was possibly manmade in a lab in China, President Trump stepped aside from the podium and let Fauci answer:
There was a study recently that we can make available to you, where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists look at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve and the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of species from an animal to a human. So, the paper will be available. I don’t have the authors right now, but we can make that available to you.
Fauci’s remarks, as he stood next to the President, really gave the paper added media and public value. At the time, I thought it was weird that Fauci would promote researchers who ignored the obvious possibility of serial passaging, but we later learned that Fauci was intimately involved in the “Proximal Origin” paper.
Emails showed that Andersen sent Fauci several updates as the paper was being written, and even invited him to make suggestions. In a sworn congressional deposition, Fauci later admitted to receiving 5 to 10 drafts of the paper but claimed he didn’t really understand it. But if he really didn’t understand the paper, then why did he promote it to reporters at a White House briefing?
For such a politically savvy man to manipulate the scientific process directly under the nose of the President was rather unexpected. But it got worse. He also thumbed his nose at Congress.
Fauci was the darling of Republicans and Democrats, so he shocked me during a May 2021 Senate hearing when he pointed his finger at physician Senator Rand Paul and called him a liar for noting that NIAID funded dangerous gain-of-function virus research in Wuhan, China.
“Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect,” Fauci said while under oath. “The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
In retrospect, none of this behavior should have surprised me. Fauci is highly territorial and has never allowed anyone—even the President of the United States—to mess with his fiefdom.
President Obama put a pause on funding for gain-of-function research in 2014 that lasted until 2017. The gain-of-function moratorium suspended federal funding for research that enhanced the pathogenicity, transmissibility, or host range of dangerous pathogens—the exact type of research Chinese scientists had been conducting at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This moratorium covered all types of pathogens such as influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses—the type which gave us the COVID pandemic. President Obama imposed the moratorium in 2014 after growing concerns from the scientific community and public advocacy groups about the risks associated with research and the potential for accidental release or misuse of enhanced pathogens.
The pause was triggered by a group of virologists at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands who used a gain-of-function techniques including serial passaging to adapt influenza to ferrets and made the virus airborne. The pause was lifted in 2017 after the government created a new framework to assess the dangers of gain-function research called P3CO Framework (Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight).
But in the end, nothing really changed.
The P3CO Framework was supposed to enforce stricter oversight for high-risk virus research. I now think it was a distraction. Once P3CO was put in place, Fauci’s NIAID simply resumed funding scientists to develop bioengineered viruses. For instance, researchers used a synthetic gene library to generate all possible H5 bird flu variants capable of escaping detection by the human immune system.
I feel certain today that the moratorium was a political show that lasted just long enough for the critics to forget about the dangers of high-risk virus research that created the airborne influenza virus. NIH spent years creating the P3CO safety review, but I now realize there is a gaping hole in the very guidelines designed to check the power of funders like Fauci. A gain-of-function study was only sent for P3CO review if Fauci or his subordinates felt it needed review.
This is an obvious conflict of interest, like allowing a batter to call his own balls and strikes, while sometimes letting an umpire opine, but only if the batter permits it. Although I have no direct evidence, I am suspicious that Fauci purposely avoided sending gain-of-function projects for review to the P3CO committee.
The details of this process are very intricate and hard for outsiders to follow, but Senator Rand Paul made some of this public during an interview a year back.
We have evidence, yes, that they were dishonest, that Anthony Fauci lied in hearings to me, which is a felony, punishable up to five years. We have emails that show him saying that he knew it was gain-of-function, that the virus looked manipulated, and he was worried that this came from Wuhan lab [on] February 1 of 2020. Then he spent the last three years saying nothing to see here. We also know there was a safety committee that should have reviewed this and we know that Anthony Fauci went around the safety committee – the safety committee set up in place to make sure this didn’t happen.
After President Biden granted Fauci a preemptive pardon on his last day in office, Senator Paul sent subpoenas to get answers about what Fauci knew and when he knew it. “In the wake of Anthony Fauci’s preemptive pardon, there are still questions to be answered,” he posted on X. “Who at NIH directed funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and why was the proposal not scrutinized by the P3CO safety committee?”
Throughout the COVID pandemic, concerned scientists and the general public began piecing together a troubling narrative. Emails found that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been funded by NIAID through a subcontract to Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. The work was ostensibly classified as viral surveillance, which allowed it to bypass the new P3CO guidelines created to rein in dangerous virus research.
However, a closer look revealed that scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology led by Dr. Zhengli Shi had been trained by Dr. Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina. Baric is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading bioengineers specializing in coronaviruses, and the NIAID had been funding him for years through a combination of grants and service contracts for pandemic preparedness. His groundbreaking work on manipulating coronaviruses (including constructing Frankenviruses) was pivotal, and that expertise had made its way to Wuhan—intentionally or otherwise.
This is an obvious conflict of interest, like allowing a batter to call his own balls and strikes, while sometimes letting an umpire opine, but only if the batter permits it.
“Don’t want to be cited in as having commented prior to submission,” Baric emailed the essay authors, before sending in his text changes.
NIAID’s international cooperation efforts were rooted in the belief that building scientific capacity abroad was a global good—an ideal that often holds true. But in this case, cooperation with foreign researchers came with unintended consequences. The transfer of technical expertise and bioengineering know-how across borders, paired with inadequate oversight and misclassification of research objectives, may have created the perfect storm. While the intent may have been altruistic, the outcome was anything but.
The NIH has repeatedly demonstrated a dangerous inability to safeguard public safety. The P3CO Framework was intended to enforce stricter oversight, but proved to be a hollow safeguard, allowing NIAID to continue funding dangerous research with a fig leaf for compliance. Worse, EcoHealth Alliance’s funding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology was classified as “viral surveillance,” an administrative sleight-of-hand that enabled high-risk experiments to continue with impunity. By allowing gain-of-function research to proceed unchecked, NIH abandoned its responsibility to ensure that taxpayer-funded science did not jeopardize public health.
But NIH’s errors are not merely a matter of oversight failure—they are the result of scientific arrogance compounded by an ingrained, symbiotic relationship between federal science officers and the research academics they fund. This relationship is mutually beneficial as scientists depend on NIH funding to build their careers, while NIH officers rely on these same scientists to generate the groundbreaking studies that justify new initiatives and expand NIH’s influence.
Academic scientists and NIH bureaucrats don’t just collaborate professionally—they often emerge from the same university laboratories, attend the same conferences, and publish together in the same journals. Instead of government oversight of academic research, we have a system that rewards allegiance and mutual advancement. This cozy relationship is cemented by lavish taxpayer-funded travel to international conferences, where federal officers and the university scientists they support fly around the world, stay together at luxury hotels, and forge alliances that prioritize career advancement over public safety.
This conflict of interest is baked into the system, making genuine oversight of dangerous research nearly impossible. This is not just my professional experience, emails show this is the case. Despite public concerns about the nature of EcoHealth Alliance’s research and multiple media reports about the veracity of Peter Daszak’s public statements, the NIH program officer who oversaw EcoHealth Alliance’s grants began working directly with Daszak on his 2023 grant renewal.
NIH’s pattern of circumventing research safeguards, misrepresenting funding, and the entrenched culture of mutual dependency between program officers and academics has created a system where oversight becomes performative and regulatory frameworks like P3CO become mere window dressing. Dr. Fauci’s public denials of NIH involvement in gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, despite documented evidence to the contrary, highlights a culture of obfuscation and regulatory evasion. NIH has forfeited public trust and can no longer be relied upon to serve as the gatekeeper for high-risk pathogen research.
Instead of government oversight of academic research, we have a system that rewards allegiance and mutual advancement.
The “conspiracy theory” label deployed by NIH leadership to knock down the possibility of a lab accident troubles me to this day, especially since it seems to have been a misinformation campaign. In my entire scientific career, I have never seen an alternative hypothesis shot down by labeling it a “conspiracy theory.” This was something completely foreign to me, a shameful example of McCarthyism in the scientific community, and the very antithesis of science.
To prevent future disasters, gain-of-function virus research should end at the NIH and should not be funded by any federal agency. Moreover, the government needs to assume legal authority to prevent gain-of-function virus research at private companies or institutions as well. High-risk research that involves manipulating pathogens capable of causing global pandemics should not be treated as routine biomedical research—it should be viewed as having the same risk as bioweapons development.
Despite its defenders, gain-of-function research has not demonstrably contributed to the prevention of pandemics. Let’s not forget, the COVID pandemic started in Wuhan, China, a city that hosts a research lab that is supposed to stop pandemics. The time has come to abandon the false promise that we can outwit nature by engineering lab viruses. We need to shift research to rapid identification of emerging pathogens when they cause symptoms in humans and domesticated animals, and funding should be redirected toward safer, more responsible methodologies such as structural and computational modeling, and laboratory techniques like deep mutational scanning, and loss-of-function studies.
These approaches can help us understand how viruses jump from animals to humans without making these same pathogens more dangerous. For too many years, scientists have sold the public on a lie. It is time to realign our research priorities with the principle that science should serve public safety and protect lives—not gamble with them.
This one below may be dated- but it is still damn funny.
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. We are deeply grateful to the decentralized network of paid subscribers that enables us to continue doing what we do to support freedom.
I travelled to Brussels to meet Robert Malone, who was there for a conference. After the press conference I sat together with Robert and his wife Jill in the hotel restaurant for a casual conversation, an interview for Dutch language magazine De Optimist.
Robert Malone, MD, first made his mark in biological sciences in the late 1980s when he was pioneering the use of mRNA for therapy purposes and suggesting its possible use for vaccines. He moved to medicine and biomedical consultancy, specializing in drug repurposing. In the Corona years he was an outspoken critic of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines based on bioethical principles.
To start off with an optimistic thought: in 100 million years, everything that we see around us, including ourselves, will be compressed to a couple of millimeters in sedimentary stone. Does that worry you?
‘I don’t see that as a negative. Time flows. Things change. I live in the present and celebrate my family, my wife, my life. I’m not seeking immortality. I’m totally comfortable with the fact that I will die and I will become dust.’
Not everyone is comfortable with that…
As a graduate student, I was able to go to what, at the time, I thought was the pinnacle of biological science, the Salk Institute. At the time I was there, I think there were eight Nobel laureates. Francis Crick was still there, and Jonas Salk was still alive.
What I learned was these people are incredibly competitive. To my great surprise, because they had achieved the pinnacle of success in biological science and research: the Nobel Prize. And yet most of them were not content with that. There was a pecking order, a hierarchy among them, having to do with how important their prize was compared to the other person’s prize, whether or not they’d had to share it or they got it alone.
The Nobel laureates were competing with each other for status, influence and immortality. They were striving so hard that they sacrificed their family, they sacrificed their life. They sacrificed their happiness on the altar of fame and fortune. I think that one of the big problems we have right now in Western society is rampant narcissism, the obsessive need to glorify the individual. That is not a path to happiness.
Talking about the Nobel prize, what is your personal experience with those?
‘The Nobel Prize for the mRNA vaccines was clearly political. The politicization of science awards has a long, rich history, but in this case it became very overt. The Nobel prize committee and the spokesperson for the prize committee said outright that the reason why they awarded the prize to Karikó and Weissman was because of their work enabled this COVID vaccine. They didn’t mention whether or not this was all their idea or initial work. They only limited it to this vaccine. And the justification for that was that they hoped that by awarding it for this vaccine, it would encourage people all over the world to take it.
Therefore it was in the service of a social objective that was predicated on the thesis that this product was safe and effective, and that it had saved millions of lives. The paper they cited at the time, for the millions of lives saved, has since been demonstrated to be false. It was based on modelling and assumptions which did not withstand scrutiny. So the Nobel Prize was awarded in this case based on a false pretence.
In the year before the Nobel was awarded, according to a senior full professor at the Karolinska whom I know well, the committee had reviewed the advocacy and submissions for Karikó and Weissman and didn’t feel like their work merited the prize. And then the following year they did, on the basis of this seemingly humanitarian objective of needing to promote the uptake of the vaccine because it has “saved millions of lives”.’
Background: Robert Malone and the Nobel Prize
Robert Malone is a pioneer in the development of mRNA technology. In a 1989 article titled “Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection,” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Malone demonstrated that mRNA, encapsulated in cationic liposomes (fat droplets), could be successfully delivered into cells of various types (human, rat, mouse, frog, and fruit fly cells) to produce proteins. This was a groundbreaking experiment that first showed mRNA could serve as a potential tool for gene therapy and vaccine development.
Despite this contribution, he was overlooked for the Nobel Prize, which was awarded in 2023 to Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman for their further refinement of the technology. Malone’s objections to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, such as concerns about their effectiveness and safety, appear to have undermined his chances of receiving this honor.
How did you experience COVID-19 personally?
‘I got very sick in February 2020 with the original Wuhan strain. I thought I was going to die. I self-treated with some of the drugs that we’ve been doing drug repurposing discovery on, and was able to gradually recover.
Disciplines, people, endeavors, technologies tend to get invested in one intellectual structure, which is what we saw with COVID. It’s very difficult to get the people that are within that mental space to break free because they have all kinds of investments in that. For example, virology, it’s kind of a guild, with an insider’s culture. If you challenge the accepted norms you’ll essentially be disbarred from the guild. You won’t be welcome anymore. This insider culture, characterized by hyper competitiveness, with a driver to consensus, not challenging accepted beliefs, is entirely consistent with what we observed during the COVID crisis. For instance, the natural origin theory of the virus became a litmus test: you must support the natural origin of the virus if you were among the guild. Now it’s increasingly accepted that this was a false narrative.’
How do you protect yourself, as an academic, from being caught within a dogma?
‘People have a tendency to become invested personally in a hypothesis. They will say my hypothesis. As soon as you take ownership of a hypothesis, you can never be objective about it. At the center of my thinking is the Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses, published by T.C. Chaimerlin in the 1960s. For this method, first you need to formulate a question based on your observations. That’s perhaps the hardest thing, a good question. Once you formulate the scientific question, you need to generate as many possible explanations or hypotheses – for answering that question. It’s very helpful to have outsiders that aren’t in your discipline to participate in this effort to generate ideas. Then you design and perform experiments to differentiate between the hypotheses. In the end, what remains is the best approximation of scientific truth. The book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn teaches that often the revolutionary ideas, transformational ideas, come from the outside.
Once you’ve generated this list of ideas, your experimental design becomes simplified. Your experimental design should be structured to differentiate between those hypotheses. So instead of “proving” your hypothesis, you design experiments to differentiate between these alternatives, in an iterative process. When you do this, it becomes child’s play to get to objective “truth” because you’re not invested in one idea or another. They’re either all your hypotheses, or really none of them belong to you.
This Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses is a process that I assimilated, and was ground into my brain by my first scientific mentor. It served me really well, because it’s at the root of how I’m able to repeatedly enable innovation. I’ve been through rounds of this where, because I was trained to be more objective about explaining the unknown, I was able to see things that other people weren’t able to see. Simply because they were so invested in the current models. For example, the use of RNA as a drug to generate an immune response, but not as gene therapy. The problem with using it for gene therapy is that you’re conveying a foreign protein, and the patient’s body will reject it. When I had that realization it was heresy, because it basically destroyed the logic of an entire field; the field of gene therapy for treating genetic diseases.’
And so…?
‘For me, COVID wasn’t hard to see through. The thing that was challenging was the fear. Apart from the fear for the virus, there was a very real present fear of retaliation and of economic harm for those who contradicted the approved experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci. But I wasn’t afraid of Tony. I had seen Tony Fauci acting inappropriately, breaking clinical research rules and all kinds of ethical rules, my whole career. Yet, a lot of people that were accepted as experts by the press were in positions to retaliate. I knew very well what their capabilities were, but I was willing to take the risk.
A calculated risk?
I didn’t think they had really that much power over me. I was no longer an academic, I wasn’t dependent on Government grants or contracts, I wasn’t dependent on the approval of a medical board. I wasn’t seeing patients. I was a clinical researcher, and I was standing on solid ground speaking about bioethics and informed consent. I thought it was solid ground. What I didn’t expect, was the corporate media turning on me in a coordinated fashion. That was new, I’d never seen that before.
To analyze that in a broader context, we’ve written our latest book, on propaganda and psychological warfare. The way these have been transformed into an industry, with a huge depth and capability to control how people think and feel.
While this book, PsyWar, focuses primarily on exposing the history and tactics of psychological warfare and the threats to our freedom and autonomy, it is also an optimistic book. By understanding psychological warfare—such as propaganda and censorship—we can strengthen our minds and resist control. Personal and collective resilience can prevail, even against a sophisticated propaganda industry.’
Robert W. Malone and Jill Glasspool Malone co-authored “Psywar: Enforcing the New World Order” [Goodreads].
This article first appeared in print in De Optimist, 2025, Issue 222, pages 60-62.
“All elements are lickable; some elements are lickable only once.”
Is this true? Did researchers actually study this?
#PSYWAR
So, I looked up this article – and yes, the mainstream media had tens of articles, all the same, spread all across the world – same title, same article, same photo about this study. Below is a screenshot of a few such articles:
Not a single one had an actual reference to the study in their “news” story.
So, I went and found that reference – the peer-reviewed article that this was all based upon. This is important because at the end of the conclusions is the sentence:
they could offer mechanisms for enhancing vaccine effectiveness, particularly among populations at greater risk of vaccine failure.
Why yes, this is all about “vaccine hesitancy” and how to overcome it. So, it is no surprise that so many “local” media outlets picked up this study – as money is still floating around to promote overcoming vaccine hesitancy and improving uptake. Frankly, this has all the hallmarks of being disseminated through The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
The journal that this study was reported in does not require that the authors list who paid to have the study conducted, but it has all the hallmarks of being yet another of the 6,000+ studies that governments, NGOs and big pharma have funded to overcome “vaccine hesitancy.”
Of course, the placebo effect is real, and neither the study nor the news articles mentioned the possibility that maybe this is all in people’s heads…
Moving on to something a little more in keeping with comedy:
Truth: Tokyo hotel rooms are the size of postage stamps, but the toilets were awesome.
[to taka chyba piosenkarka, wystrzelili ją jako towar na orbitę. md]
A year ago today, on Easter, President Biden celebrated this sacred event by honoring people who “transitioned.”
Easter honors the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which is a victory over sin and death, offering the promise of eternal life.
That we can all overcome sin in our lives, is something to strive for. The story of Christ gives us that hope. A hope and promise. But we all must work for our own salvation, for our own goodness. To live a life as free of sin as possible.
Which is why, honoring people for their mental health issues that are then being foisted on children, during Easter, of all religious celebrations, was so morally offensive. From the co-option of the rainbow colors, colors that children adore, to the bringing of these fetishes into children’s spaces – such as drag queen hour and a presidential easter egg hunt, is morally wrong. Unbelievably wrong.
That our White House, the people’s house, that was sullied in this way on Easter day. This was and will always be unacceptable.
Ben Garrison – made this cartoon a year ago. It has stood the test of time.
Today is a day to celebrate, to rejoice in family, friends and life.
When I discuss the China tariffs with Trump haters I can’t help but ask, why do we in the United States want to trade with communist China after what they did to us regarding Covid? Really, objectively, this is a country that released a biological weapon, a manufactured, fabricated super virus produced in a lab in Wuhan, and they released it upon the entire world deliberately. They knowingly flew infected people all around the world resulting in millions of people dying. They lied about it. Xi Jinping the communist strong man, that butcher that slave holder, systematically covered it up and didn’t bat an eye as he knowingly allowed infected people to fly out of Beijing and Shang Hai, into Australia, Europe, America, and they spread that virus all over the world. Then to add insult to injury they tried to maximize profit, money, take economic advantage, because they sold us and the world masks and pharmaceuticals. So why would we want to trade with them. I’ll tell you why, because we had a president that was completely compromised, he was on the take, a media that was compromised, they were on the take. They lied to us. The FBI lied, our intelligence agencies lied, the CIA lied, the NSA lied. They knew it came from that lab in Wuhan. Our own government was implicated in it, led by Obama, Fauci and his boss Francis Collins. We funded it, we supported it. We aided and abetted in this crime.
So honestly 125 % isn’t nearly enough, 500% isn’t enough for causing the spread of this death and destruction. Nothing against the Chinese people, they are good hard working people, but this Chinese government, this brutal communists regime in Beijing needs to be bankrupted and they need to collapse just like the old Soviet Union. This is Trumps clear end game and God bless him, I hope, it will work! J.Goodrich
Artificial intelligence will be the next big thing. There is no stopping that juggernaut.
So, we must learn the tools to use AI to our advantage in this fight for freedom – religious, medical, and personal.
That means insisting on standards for training data sets that include precisely what those data are and making those standards transparent to all, providing education on how to use AI at the input level, and training people to understand how AI can be corrupted.
We, the small minority protecting this country, must take it upon ourselves to learn how to use AI to our advantage.
The big truth with AI is that it is a bit like the Wizard of Oz. When you control the data (inputs), then you control the outputs – not the AI system. We can’t let the corporatists – represented by the WEF, the globalists, the administrative state – and, yes, the deep state control the inputs.
So, learn the tools, learn to play the game, and then take control of AI programs in your life and insist on transparency within the government and corporations using AI.
Because this technology isn’t going away, and it will fundamentally change how we live – like it or not.
FYI: The Republicans did not agree to delay the vote on Kash Patel’s nomination for FBI Director. Instead, the Democrats used a procedural rule within the Senate Judiciary Committee to force a one-week delay. This delay was not a result of Republican agreement, but rather a strategic move by the Democrats utilizing existing committee regulations.
Malone News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. We are deeply grateful to the decentralized network of paid subscribers that enables us to continue doing what we do to support freedom.
Who is Robert Malone is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
For those that didn’t get the joke, the first time around – here is your second chance…
FYI: The Republicans did not agree to delay the vote on Kash Patel’s nomination for FBI Director. Instead, the Democrats used a procedural rule within the Senate Judiciary Committee to force a one-week delay. This delay was not a result of Republican agreement, but rather a strategic move by the Democrats utilizing existing committee regulations.
Eggs will remain expensive until we stop the massive fearporn campaign over avian influenza, which has led to bulk testing and “culling” of hundreds of millions of chickens in 2024 alone.
The Demoncrats know this –
“Age is just a number…”
My wife still chooses “fun” over age…
Below is Jill, riding our stallion, Jade, a few months ago.
PSA -Please remember to have your Democrat spayed or neutered.
(Because Women’s sterility rights are most important in this election cycle)?
Truth be told, Owellian wordplay is all around us. This is how they keep us confused and out of control of our lives.
Reproduction rights -should mean the right to have a child instead of the opposite.
The clown car continues – rather than focus on the genuine issues facing America, the Democrats are going with abortion, vasectomies, and IUDs? Is this because they truly do believe in a de-population agenda or because they would rather focus on sterilization rights – than talk about inflation, the two major wars we are engaged in, or the ongoing Hunter Biden/Joe Biden corruption trials?
The brainwashing of our youth – by social media corporations is out of control. Unfortunately, for all of us – it isn’t going to stop.
“We know best. We are going to remake the world. We are going to reshape kids around the world”
The government has a remedy for this type of unlawful business practice. The 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act has bee utilized many times to break up monopolies. The Sherman Act outlaws:
“every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” and any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.”
Google is out of control. They have not only monopolized the internet, they have monopolized the control of advertising. Both business strategies are being challenged by the DOJ in two separate lawsuits. Meta is also being sued for unfair business practices, as it has gobbled up its competitors in a series of buy-outs.
Or you might be watching MSM exclusively and using Google as your search engine.
“Who is Robert Malone” is a reader supported publication. To receive this Substack in your email on an almost daily basis, please consider a free or paid subscription.
Jak widać, istnieje teraz świat, w którym ludzie są w ten sposób zahipnotyzowani. Możesz im powtarzać, aż zsiniejesz na twarzy, jakie są dane [i] fakty – to nie ma znaczenia. Są zahipnotyzowani. Tak działo się na całym świecie. Jest to konsekwencja całej tej cenzury i propagandy, której byliśmy poddawani.
−∗−
W menu na dziś danie podwójne. Wypowiedź dr Roberta Malone, twórcy technologii mRNA, na temat hipnozy jakiej uległ znaczny odsetek osób w związku z covid19, na czym polega formowanie mas i jaką drogę otwiera to do totalitaryzmu. Jako dodatek krótki film [z transkrypcją] podsumowujący hasłowo omawiane zjawiska.
Zapraszam do lektury (i oglądania).
______________***______________
Dr Robert Malone ostrzega przed „psychozą formowania mas” podczas pandemii COVID
Amerykański naukowiec dr Robert Malone ostrzegł przed „psychozą formowania mas” [mass formation psychosis] dotykającą populację podczas pandemii koronawirusa z Wuhan (COVID-19).
Według Malone’a, idea psychozy formowania mas pochodzi od psychologa i statystyka Matthiasa Desmeta z belgijskiego Uniwersytetu w Gandawie. „Kiedy [Desmet] mówi ‘formowanie mas’ [psychoza], możesz myśleć o tym jako o tłumie. Więc to psychoza tłumu. Z psychozą formowania mas jest jak z hipnozą – to naprawdę jest hipnoza”.
Malone zauważył, że apatia narodu niemieckiego wobec Holokaustu w okresie nazistowskim jest doskonałym przykładem takiej psychozy formowania mas.
„Dla przykładu, jak naród niemiecki, który jest bardzo wykształcony [i] bardzo liberalny w klasycznym sensie, składający się z ludzi myślących w zachodnim stylu, mogą tak oszaleć, że robili to, co zrobili Żydom? Jak to się mogło stać z cywilizowanym narodem?” – zapytał Malone. „To podstawowy problem, z którym ludzie się borykają, i jest to zarazem wyjaśnieniem tego. Od dziesięcioleci stanowi to główny przedmiot badań naukowych w Europie”.
Wynalazca technologii szczepionek mRNA powiedział, że aby doszło do psychozy formowania mas, musi być spełniony zestaw warunków wstępnych. Zatomizowana populacja bez więzi społecznych, która identyfikuje się tylko poprzez odrębne plemiona, w połączeniu z nieokreślonym poczuciem niepokoju i niezadowoleniem, tworzy żyzne środowisko, w którym można zasiać ziarno masowej hipnozy.
„Nie jesteśmy już ze sobą połączeni. [Jest to] poczucie nieokreślonego niepokoju, [gdzie] rzeczy nie mają sensu – i doświadczamy też jakiegoś nieokreślonego niezadowolenia spowodowanego przeświadczeniem, że coś jest nie w porządku. To, co dzieje się na świecie, wydaje się po prostu przytłaczające”.
Malone kontynuował: „Pomyśl o tym, co się stało, gdy wybuchł wirus. [Świat] dostał obsesji na punkcie tego wirusa. Nagle każdy komputerowiec na świecie był ekspertem w dziedzinie wirusologii molekularnej i epidemiologii”.
„Wszyscy nagle staliśmy się maniakalnymi ekspertami, śledzącymi cały czas media, próbując dowiedzieć się, co się u diaska dzieje, ponieważ nic nie miało sensu”.
„Kiedy takie uwarunkowania zachodzą, a cała populacja skupia się na jednej rzeczy – tworzy to coś podobnego do hipnozy, gdzie… ludzie mają totalną obsesję na punkcie właśnie tej jednej rzeczy. Kiedy tak się stanie, ludzie tracą zdolność do racjonalnego myślenia i osądu”. https://www.brighteon.com/embed/163d2b23-eada-4fd4-ae5e-74677e04eb71
Masowa psychoza toruje drogę totalitaryzmowi
Wynalazca mRNA wskazał dwie kluczowe rzeczy dotyczące psychozy formowania mas, które torują drogę dla totalitaryzmu.
Po pierwsze, autorytety wykorzystują moment, by dojść do władzy. Malone powiedział: „Wszyscy się skupiają… a potem wkraczają przywódcy [i] wykorzystują ten moment. Kiedy zostaną zidentyfikowani… lub awansowani na przywódców – tłum nie widzi zła, nie słyszy zła [i] nie mówi nic złego. Ci liderzy mogą mówić cokolwiek, to nie musi być prawda, a tłum i tak w to uwierzy”._
Po drugie, głosy sprzeciwu są tępione i wskazywane jako wspólny wróg. „Każdy, kto mówi coś, co jest sprzeczne z narracją, musi zostać zaatakowany. Te sytuacje muszą mieć wspólnego wroga; [ten ostatni był] zawsze używany do wzbudzania strachu w tłumie. Więc ten tłum, który się teraz uformował, ma centralnych przywódców, którzy cały czas go okłamują” – powiedział Malone.
tłum nie widzi zła, nie słyszy zła [i] nie mówi nic złego_
„Nawet jeśli nie miałeś tych obsesji, to doświadczyłeś tej powodzi strachu, którą byliśmy zalewani przez cały czas, 24h na dobę, na każdym kanale. Czy było to zamierzone, czy chodziło tylko o kliknięcia? Wiele wskazuje na to, że był tu pewien składnik intencjonalny. Znajdujemy się w sytuacji, w której pod względem psychologicznym byliśmy aktywnie zarządzani przez jakiś podmiot, który ma z tego korzyści finansowe lub siłę, by na tym skorzystać”.
Kontynuował: „Jak widać, istnieje teraz świat, w którym ludzie są w ten sposób zahipnotyzowani. Możesz im powtarzać, aż zsiniejesz na twarzy, jakie są dane [i] fakty – to nie ma znaczenia. Są zahipnotyzowani. Tak działo się na całym świecie. Jest to konsekwencja całej tej cenzury i propagandy, której byliśmy poddawani”.
Głosy sprzeciwu niszczą ten masowy trans
Według Malone’a, Desmet miał raczej ponure spojrzenie na przyszłość. Psycholog powiedział mu, że masowa psychoza osiągnęła punkt, w którym globalny totalitaryzm jest nieunikniony.
Pomimo tej ponurej prognozy, Malone stwierdził, że wciąż istnieje szansa by się temu przeciwstawić.
„Musimy nadal starać się dostarczać dokładnych informacji. Zamiast strachu przed wirusem, który jest irracjonalny, możemy wskazać większe zagrożenie. Zdołamy dotrzeć do ludzi, jeśli pomożemy im zrozumieć, że to, co widzimy, jest skoordynowaną, ogólnoświatową operacją wdrażania globalnego, totalitarnego rozwiązania. Totalitaryzm jest zdecydowanie większym straszydłem niż wirusy” – powiedział.
„Możesz przełamać to zamieszanie w ich umysłach, jeśli podsuniesz im coś, co jest jeszcze większym zmartwieniem, czyli utrata wolności. Kiedy wyjaśnisz ludziom, że są na progu utraty swoich praw – aktywujesz ich”.
Sam Desmet wyraził potrzebę mówienia o tym otwarcie podczas swojego wcześniejszego wywiadu. „Moim zdaniem najważniejszą rzeczą, jaką powinni zrobić ludzie, jest dalsze otwarte wypowiadanie się – nawet jeśli miałoby to być proste wyrażenie dezaprobaty wobec narracji głównego nurtu” – powiedział Desmet.
„Formowanie mas jest wywoływane przez specyficzny głos, z którym jest kojarzone. Totalitarni liderzy doskonale o tym wiedzą: każdy nowy dzień rozpoczynają od trzydziestu minut propagandy, w której głos lidera nieustannie przenika do świadomości ludności. Tak więc bez środków masowego przekazu i bez możliwości konfrontowania ludzi raz po raz z głosami liderów, żadna formowanie mas nie mogłoby trwać dalej. Odwrotność tego jest również prawdą: jeśli inne głosy są dostępne w przestrzeni publicznej, masowa hipnoza zostanie zakłócona”.
MindControl.news zawiera więcej artykułów na temat psychozy formowania mas dotykającej populację podczas pandemii COVID-19.
Jak wielu z was pewnie już wie, cała ludzkość jest poddana ogromnym działaniom wojny psychologicznej. A profesor psychologii klinicznej Matthias Desmet, który studiował psychologię totalitaryzmu, wykonał świetną robotę, wyjaśniając, jak się tu znaleźliśmy i jak wygramy.
W dyktaturach posłuszeństwo wywodzi się z podstawowego strachu przed dyktatorem, ale totalitaryzm powoduje, że ludzie są zahipnotyzowani do posłuszeństwa. W kategoriach psychologicznych ta powszechna hipnoza jest znana jako formacja mas. A totalitaryzm zawsze zaczyna się od masowej formacji wewnątrz populacji.
Formacja mas wymaga spełnienia czterech warunków, aby mogła być wdrożona:
– [1] Masy muszą czuć się samotne i odizolowane i
– [2] ich życie musi wydawać się bezcelowe i pozbawione znaczenia.
Warunki te narastały od lat dzięki mediom społecznościowym, urządzeniom mobilnym i czteroletniemu masowemu podziałowi, jakiego można było doświadczyć podczas administracji Trumpa. To sprawiło, że ludzie ze wszystkich stron poczuli się bardziej odizolowani.
– [3] Masy muszą wtedy doświadczyć stałego nieokreślonego niepokoju,
– [4] masy muszą również doświadczyć nieokreślonej frustracji oraz agresji.
To sprawi po prostu, że nie będzie dostrzegalnego źródła tego niepokoju czy agresji.
I tak osoba zaczyna irracjonalnie pragnąć lekarstwa. Bez względu na to, jak absurdalne lub destrukcyjne może ono być. I te warunki spotkaliśmy w 2020 roku wraz z covidowymi lockdownami i zamieszkami BLM. Teraz ludzie są już gotowi na hipnozę. A kiedy już zaakceptują eksperymentalne szczepionki, poczują solidarność, co potwierdzi całą sprawę. Nieważne jak bezsensowną. Są teraz odmienieni, nie myślą już racjonalne. Stają się bardziej nietolerancyjni i okrutni.
Jak więc wygramy?
Badania wykazały, że około 25% populacji nie daje się zahipnotyzować. Natomiast około 10% jest na hipnozę bardzo podatnych. Profesor Desmet wyjaśnia, że są jeszcze inne siły. Mówi, że 30% ludzi jest teraz głęboko zahipnotyzowanych i irracjonalnie zaakceptowało eksperymentalne zastrzyki jako rozwiązanie. 40% nie jest jeszcze zahipnotyzowanych, ale automatycznie dołączy do stada. Natomiast reszta z nas widzi rzeczy wyraźnie.
To, co próbuje zrobić wróg, jest niezwykle niebezpieczne, ponieważ masy, które kiedyś uwolnią się z tego zaklęcia, będą domagać się sprawiedliwości. Dlatego stres musi być stale utrzymywany w masach, dopóki formowanie mas nie zostanie zakończone. Jesteśmy głosem sprzeciwu i chociaż możemy nie mieć dużego wpływu na te 30% zahipnotyzowanych, zdecydowanie musimy osiągnąć wpływ na te 40%, które będą chciały pójść za stadem. To my musimy stać się tym stadem. Niezależnie od tego, czy uważasz, że to wszystko dzieje się przypadkiem, czy przez spisek, czy twoje powody oparte są na religii czy zdrowiu osobistym – nasz głos sprzeciwu musi połączyć się w jedno. Musi narastać i nigdy nie zanikać. Musimy wzbudzić tę falę wątpliwości u wszystkich. Na stacji benzynowej, w sklepie spożywczym, w pracy, w domu, u sąsiadów.
Desperacko próbują sprowokować wojnę domową lub jakąś gwałtowną rewolucję, ponieważ mogą to kontrolować.
Przemoc jednak nie wyrwie ludzi z hipnozy. To tylko wepchnie w to jeszcze więcej osób. Mówienie prawdy stało się aktem rewolucyjnym. Mówienie prawdy każdemu, kogo spotkasz, uratuje ludzkość. Więc rób to cały czas.
_________________
Uzupełnienia:
Nowa Normalność – przekraczanie Rubikonu Wprowadzenie Nowej Normalności zakończy się niepowodzeniem, jeśli zacznie być postrzegane jako polityczne (tj. jako forma totalitaryzmu). Póki co, opiera się na naszej niezdolności do dostrzeżenia tego czym jest. Tak więc […]
_________________
Ilekroć pojawia się kryzys… czyli jak zwiększyć kontrolę Ilekroć pojawia się kryzys – czy to kryzys militarny, polityczny, gospodarczy, finansowy czy społeczny – tłum domaga się silnych przywódców, by się nim zaopiekowali. To doskonale pasuje do osób, które […]
_________________
To oni są wirusem Wojna z wirusem zawsze była ideą przegraną. A zresztą to nigdy nie była ta wojna. Zawsze była to wojna przeciwko ludziom i przeciwko wolności. […]
_________________
Wolność od strachu czyli koniec zabawy w rządowe gry umysłowe Przez cały czas ci, którzy są u władzy – kupieni i opłacani przez lobbystów i korporacje – posuwają się naprzód ze swoimi kosztownymi programami. A „my, frajerzy”, obarczani jesteśmy rachunkami […]
_________________
Tyrania – warunkowanie i kontrola behawioralna Żadna „normalność” nie będzie już nigdy możliwa, dopóki zbiorowy indywidualny bunt przeciwko tej tyranii nie stanie się wspólnym rdzeniem naszego społeczeństwa. Jaka będzie nasza przyszłość bez tej aktywnej zmiany postaw […]
==========================================
AlterCabrio, 11 grudnia 2021 https://www.ekspedyt.org/2021/12/11/substytuowanie-wirusa-czyli-jak-wygramy/
W obliczu tworzącej się na naszych oczach globalnej tyranii, 18 listopada 2021 roku arcybiskup Carlo Maria Viganò, były nuncjusz apostolski w Stanach Zjednoczonych, wezwał do zawiązania Sojuszu Antyglobalistycznego.
Abp Viganò mówił m.in.:
„Od dwóch lat jesteśmy świadkami globalnego zamachu stanu, w którym elita finansowa i ideologiczna zdołała przejąć kontrolę nad częścią rządów krajowych, instytucjami publicznymi i prywatnymi, mediami, sądownictwem, politykami i przywódcami religijnymi. Wszyscy oni, bez wyjątku, stali się niewolnikami tych nowych panów, którzy zapewniają władzę, pieniądze i poparcie społeczne swoim wspólnikom. Podstawowe prawa, które jeszcze do wczoraj były prezentowane jako nienaruszalne, zostały podeptane w imię nagłych kryzysów. Dziś jest to zagrożenie sanitarne, jutro ekologiczne, a po nim zagrożenie dla internetu.„
Do apelu abp. Viganò dołączył się znany naukowiec, dr Robert Malone, twórca technologii mRNA będącej platformą dla szczepionek mRNA. Dr Malone, ze znanego niemal jedynie w kręgach naukowych skromnego człowieka, stał się nagle przedmiotem wściekłego ataku, gdy wziął udział w programie internetowym, w którym powiedział kilka słów prawdy o obecnych tzw. „szczepionkach przeciwko Covid-19”, przestrzegając przed ich przyjmowaniem (zob. „Dr Robert Malone o zagrożeniach terapii genowych na C-19„). Od tego momentu kampania nienawiści wobec jego oraz jego rodziny, doprowadziła do cenzury w mediach, w periodykach naukowych, a on sam nie ugiął się, lecz podjął odważną walkę z dezinformacją i o przekazywanie prawdy.
Jest to tym bardziej budujące, że wezwanie abp. Viganò dotyczy tworzenia i udziału antyglobalistycznego sojuszu, który ma mieć podstawy wynikające z wartości chrześcijańskich i powrotu do katolickiej Tradycji, a sam dr Malone nie określa siebie jako człowieka religijnego. Mimo to, widząc taki Sojusz jako jedyną możliwość walki ze złem, dr Malone mówi:
– Przekonałem się, tak jak on [abp Viganò], że mamy do czynienia z celami wykraczającymi poza masowe wyszczepianie oraz „zdrowie publiczne”, i chociaż nie chciałem penetrować tych intelektualnych zagadnień, to jednak nie jest niemożliwe wyciągnięcie takich wniosków z tego co się teraz dzieje na świecie – z [oficjalnych] tłumaczeń, że chodzi o zdrowie publiczne, szczepienia i walkę z wirusami – że mamy do czynienia z erozją naszych praw, i że stoi za tym jakaś większa siła.
– Mam kolegów, którzy obszernie wyjaśniają mówiąc, że chodzi o diabelską siłę. Wśród wielu ludzi wzrasta poczucie zrozumienia, że dzieje się tutaj coś fundamentalnie diabelskiego. Ja sam przekonałem się, że jesteśmy w sytuacji, która w gruncie rzeczy jest wzrostem i ekspansją globalnej tyranii, zharmonizowanego działania, zarządzanego zgodnie w wielu krajach, i okazuje się być zgodna z ekonomicznymi interesami małej grupy funduszy inwestycyjnych reprezentujących większość globalnego zachodniego systemu kapitałowego.
– W mojej opinii, jeśli w świecie zachodnim jest jeszcze pozostałość moralnego autorytetu, to jest to Kościół katolicki, jako główna ostoja autorytetu moralnego. I miałem nadzieję, że Kościół katolicki przyjmie pryncypialną postawę i pokaże, że [to co się dzieje] jest złem, że jest to fundamentalnie przeciwne ludzkości, temu w co wierzyliśmy jako ludzkość. I to jest przyczyna dla której wsparłem Arcybiskupa. Byłem bardzo zadziwiony odwagą Arcybiskupa, że mówi o tych rzeczach tak otwarcie, jak również poczułem się nieco umocniony tym, że jest ktoś reprezentujący inną dziedzinę, obraca się w innych kategoriach, inną tradycję, a jednak dochodzi to tych samych konkluzji co ja.
– Co zatem, w obliczu dysfunkcjonującego rządu i publicznego systemu zdrowia, możemy zrobić? Budować kontakty w ramach lokalnej społeczności. W tym również mieści się tworzenie listy kontaktowej, szczególnie osób starszych mieszkających w lokalnej społeczności. Czy będzie to kościół, czy jakiś ratusz, bez względu na to jakie są twoje polityczne i społeczne struktury, próbuj budować społeczność, twórz listy kontaktowe, listy telefonów, utrzymujcie ze sobą kontakty, a szczególnie utrzymujcie kontakty z ludźmi wysokiego ryzyka [zdrowotnego], starszymi, itp.
– Myślę, że nawiększym aktem kryminalnym jest to, że gdy schorzały stary człowiek zmierza się z wirusem, idzie do szpitala, a tam słyszy: „Nie jesteś wystarczająco chory – idź z powrotem do domu, weź aspirynę i zadzwoń do nas gdy się gorzej poczujesz.” I oni wracają do domu i umierają. Umierają w samotności. A jest to całkowicie bezzasadne, ponieważ wczesne leczenie może im pomóc. Ale to wszystko zaczyna się od zdania sobie sprawy, z tego co ma teraz miejsce, co się dzieje na globalną skalę.
– Myślę, że to jest sposób na to abyśmy wyzwolili się z masowej psychozy, ponieważ, jak mówi Mattias Desmet [belgijski psychoanalityk] możemy przekonać ludzi, że globalny totalitaryzm jest większym zagrożeniem niż wirus.
Warto dopowiedzieć, że jeśli chodzi o wczesne leczenie przypadków określanych jako „covid”, to może być to po prostu odmiana grypy, gdyż do dnia dzisiejszego tego „wirusa” nigdy i nigdzie nie wyizolowano, istnieje on tylko w komputerowym wirtualnym świecie. Zaś późniejsze „komplikacje chorobowe” to w dużej mierzez skutki „leczenia szpitalnego”, z zastosowaniem silnych trucizn (remdesivir) oraz respiratorów, jak również skutki samych „szczepionek”, które doprowadzają do mniejszej odporności organizmu na wszelkie patogeny.
Natomiast na początku „pandemii” w ramach celowego doprowadzenia do psychozy i zwiększenia liczby zmarłych – zmarlych z jakiegokolwiek powodu: pozbawienia opieki zdrowotnej, lockdownów, stresu, pobytu w szpitalu (najniebezpieczniejsze miejsce na świecie!) – zakazano leczenia uznanymi przez świat naukowo-medyczny, skutecznymi lekarstwami, natomiast wprowadzono jako „leki” środki toksyczne, jak na przykład – stosowany również w Polsce – remdesivir (ponawiamy apel: NIGDY nie zgadzajcie się na podawanie tej trucizny!).
Tak więc wspomniany przez dr. Malone schemat odmawiania starszym ludziom pomocy i odsyłanie ich do domu jest podwójnym aktem kryminalnym: ludzie ci umierają ALBO w domach, bo są pozbawieni tanich, skutecznych i (do tej pory) ogólniedostępnych leków oraz podstawowej opieki, ALBO umierają w szpitalu, bo w ramach „protokołu leczenia Covid” podaje im się trucizny.
Należy również podkreślić fragment wypowowiedzi dr. Malone, który – w pełni słusznie – zauważa, że „jeśli w świecie zachodnim jest jeszcze pozostałość moralnego autorytetu, to jest to Kościół katolicki, jako główna ostoja autorytetu moralnego. I miałem nadzieję, że Kościół katolicki przyjmie pryncypialną postawę i pokaże, że [to co się dzieje] jest złem, że jest to fundamentalnie przeciwne ludzkości, temu w co wierzyliśmy jako ludzkość.” Jednocześnie nietrudno jest spostrzec, że dr Malone używa czasu przeszłego („miałem nadzieję” – „I was hoping”), bo sam był zdziwiony postawą Watykanu, jednak go poznał wypowiedzi apb Viganò, utwierdził się – bez wgłębiania się w zawiłości obecnego posoborowego Kościoła – że jest jeszcze gdzieś w tym obszarze autorytet moralny Kościoła.
Bowiem na obecnego administratora Watykanu, na całą chmarę hierarchów siedzących cicho, zamykających potulnie kościoły, układających się z władzami, zakładających maski, tworzących segregację, nawołujących do przyjmowania groźnych i powstałych w wyniku wielu aborcji tzw. szczepionek – na cały ten posoborowy kościół już liczyć nie można.
