Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?

Pashalis said:
For example: when the others persons says something like "the pandemic is really bad and serious" I answer with something like "The situation is very tragic indeed". I try to only explicitly agree with them (aka directly reinforcing the lie) when there is no other way that I can phrase a response.
Click to expand...
I do the same. If the person is in the lie, like the other day a taxi-man that said to me:

We have what we merit
Click to expand...

I shut my mouth and look elsewhere as if the person was talking to the wind. However I am aware of what he is saying and study his psychology from far away because in fact I am far away, really, I study his ignorance and stupidity while I look outside the car, as nothing. I listen his tone, his words so moralistic, his contempt for people that do not think like him. But! it do not touch me at all. Because it is too late for this person.... And I say to him

Bye bye, have a beautiful day!
Click to expand...
 
So I found a Twitter List of accounts that tweet / retweet truths about COVID much better / more comprehensive than even the tiny one I could compile. :-)

COVID 'Team Reality'
"Doctors, medical professionals, analysts, data hounds, media, etc. who tell the truth about COVID-19"

(The other 'team' is regularly referred to as "Team Apocalypse".)
 
Yale investigates how to guilt-trip people into taking controversial COVID vaccine
The study of 4,000 people tests ten different messages aimed at convincing people to get the COVID vaccine

shutterstock_1046188327_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg


August 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Yale University is currently conducting a study on the effectiveness of various messages in getting people to take an eventual COVID-19 vaccine, ranging from appeals to self-interest to pressuring individuals for their reluctance.

Launched in July, the study of 4,000 people tests ten different messages to “compare the reported willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine at 3 and 6 months of it becoming available.” The messages appeal to “economic freedom,” “self-interest,” “community interest,” “economic benefit,” “guilt,” embarrassment,” “anger,” “trust in science” and “bravery.”

While several of the appeals are straightforward arguments, others hint at a willingness to use public shaming to elicit compliance.

One, for instance, “asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don't get vaccinated and spread the disease,” with variants exchanging guilt with anger or embarrassment. Another suggests someone who refuses vaccination “doesn't understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.” Another declares that “those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.”

The eventual findings will likely influence the messaging of state officials and academic institutions who have discussed mandating vaccination, as well as advertising campaigns surrounding a vaccine once it is completed.

“Fear of a disease -- which we know very little about, relative to other similar diseases -- must not lead to knee-jerk reactions regarding public health, nor can it justify supporting the hidden agenda of governmental as well as non-governmental bodies that have apparent conflicts of interest in plans to restrict personal freedoms,” says LifeSiteNews’ ongoing petition against mandatory COVID-19 vaccination, which has gathered more than 850,000 signatures.

The source: Yale investigates how to guilt-trip people into taking controversial COVID vaccine
 
In regards to some of the harsh police action being witnessed in Victoria at the moment, back in 2015 SOTT ran this article Strong Cities Network: Did the UN just install a global police force? There is also a 2016 article about the same network here by the New American.

It all sounds so reassuring and reasonable! Acting for the Obama administration, the nation’s attorney general has placed the United States into an international grouping of cities whose advertised purpose involves combating violent extremism. Some of the cities in the new group will even be in other countries where terrorism has occurred or is surely a threat. All of the members of this new group will share their experiences and planning. Everyone should be most grateful that the Strong Cities Network (SCN) has been created.

But a closer look at this network reveals some problems. The first is that U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch decided to announce U.S. participation in the SCN at the United Nations. Then, in her speech before the world body last September, Lynch noted that SCN would have an International Steering Committee and an International Advisory Board “run by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a leading international think-and-do tank” based in London, whose members include veterans of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

Representatives of Norway’s Oslo and Canada’s Montreal joyfully announced membership in the new SCN during the world body’s confab. And the UN’s high commissioner for human rights, Jordan’s Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, added his enthusiasm for the new organization.

Boiled down to its essence, the SCN is actually a new law-enforcement body whose laws will govern participating cities, including New York, Atlanta, Denver, and Minneapolis, that have already signed on as members. Law-enforcement measures for these cities will dovetail with or emanate from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and the United Nations, not from the U.S. Constitution and locally elected officials and the laws governing them. In her remarks at the unveiling of this new organization, Attorney General Lynch claimed that the new arrangement would work toward being “an alliance of nations” and would aspire to be “a global community.”

The Strong Cities Network, therefore, should be known as a nascent global police force controlled by the United Nations. Where central or global authority doesn’t govern police power, it is controlled locally. When it is controlled by a national or international governing body, as it was in the hands of Germany’s Gestapo, the Soviet Union’s KGB, or the ruling body in a communist-led country, tyranny reigns.

In the United States, attacks against the very concept of local control over police power have been varied, with campaigns regularly complaining about treatment of rioters and protesters. This style of lawlessness customarily includes calls for replacing local control with state or even national oversight. Until the unveiling of the SCN and its Institute for Strategic Dialogue, however, there were no calls for global oversight over police.

In her speech at the UN praising the creation of the SCN, Attorney General Lynch used the word “global” five times. She also employed the terms “international” and “world” while at the podium. Then she closed her remarks by introducing Sasha Havlicek, the CEO of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.

Widespread understanding of the slogan “Support Your Local Police and Keep Them Independent” has never been more needed. It reminds all who encounter it that trading the American system of local control over police to any national or international governing body is suicidal. Unfortunately, the Obama administration and its attorney general seem determined to destroy America’s long-standing police policy and, by doing so, deliver our independent United States of America into the steadily growing power of the United Nations. This is something all decent Americans must oppose. Contact Congress today with our pre-written alert to let them know of your opposition!
Click to expand...

There is a list of member cities and states in this link.

Strong Cities advisory board is run by the Institute of Strategic Dialogue, from the SOTT article:

Technically, SCN doesn't have much to do with the U.N. but people think of the U.N. because this action is global and the launch was announced on the margins of U.N. General Assembly in New York on September 29 by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. To a lot of people, that match-up doesn't bode well. The Keynote address came from U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch.

All cities are encouraged by them to join up, but the major U.S. cities that are currently a part of it are actually among the founding "Steering" committee. New York, Denver, Atlanta and Minneapolis are among the couple dozen founding cities across the world. They will all "steer" simultaneous action among city authorities and officials. And while SCN tries to portray itself as for the little guy, that couldn't be further from the truth if you really browse around their website and cut through the B.S. language. Citizens will have virtually nothing to do with their decisions and actions unless they are of high community affluence. Just look at the information of their first global summit and see who it's intended for and who will speak.

SCN's Internation Advisory Board is run by by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) which considers itself a leading international "think-and-do" tank. It began as The Club of Three, started in the mid-1990s by Lord Weidenfeld. The Institute for Strategic Dialogue was created in 2006 as an umbrella organization and also created initiatives like Against Violent Extremism, Extreme Dialogue, Counter Extremism and European Muslim Women of Influence.

Regular readers to this site probably don't just think in terms of the U.N. power grab - but the myriad NGOs, institutes, think tanks, initiatives, corporate foundations etc. that seal and bolster global authority. That's what this reeks of.
Click to expand...

And here's the 2015 statement from the US Dept of Justice on Strong Cities - it's all about fighting violent extremism - both domestic and international:

Launch of Strong Cities Network to Strengthen Community Resilience Against Violent Extremism

Cities are vital partners in international efforts to build social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism. Local communities and authorities are the most credible and persuasive voices to challenge violent extremism in all of its forms and manifestations in their local contexts. While many cities and local authorities are developing innovative responses to address this challenge, no systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale.

“The Strong Cities Network will serve as a vital tool to strengthen capacity-building and improve collaboration,” said Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch. “As we continue to counter a range of domestic and global terror threats, this innovative platform will enable cities to learn from one another, to develop best practices and to build social cohesion and community resilience here at home and around the world.”

The Strong Cities Network (SCN) – which launches September 29th at the United Nations – will empower municipal bodies to fill this gap while working with civil society and safeguarding the rights of local citizens and communities.

The SCN will strengthen strategic planning and practices to address violent extremism in all its forms by fostering collaboration among cities, municipalities and other sub-national authorities.

“To counter violent extremism we need determined action at all levels of governance,” said Governing Mayor Stian Berger Røsland of Oslo while commenting on their participation in the SCN. “To succeed, we must coordinate our efforts and cooperate across borders. The Strong Cities Network will enable cities across the globe pool our resources, knowledge and best practices together and thus leave us standing stronger in the fight against one of the greatest threats to modern society.”

The SCN will connect cities, city-level practitioners and the communities they represent through a series of workshops, trainings and sustained city partnerships. Network participants will also contribute to and benefit from an online repository of municipal-level good practices and web-based training modules and will be eligible for grants supporting innovative, local initiatives and strategies that will contribute to building social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism.

The SCN will include an International Steering Committee of approximately 25 cities and other sub-national entities from different regions that will provide the SCN with its strategic direction. The SCN will also convene an International Advisory Board, which includes representatives from relevant city-focused networks, to help ensure SCN builds upon their work. It will be run by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), a leading international “think-and-do” tank with a long-standing track record of working to prevent violent extremism:

“The SCN provides a unique new opportunity to apply our collective lessons in preventing violent extremism in support of local communities and authorities around the world”, said CEO Sasha Havlicek of ISD. “We look forward to developing this international platform for joint innovation to impact this pressing challenge.”
“It is with great conviction that Montréal has agreed to join the Strong Cities Network founders,” said the Honorable Mayor Denis Coderre of Montreal. “This global network is designed to build on community-based approaches to address violent extremism, promote openness and vigilance and expand upon local initiatives like Montréal’s Mayors’ International Observatory on Living Together. I am delighted that through the Strong Cities Network, the City of Montréal will more actively share information and best practices with a global network of leaders on critical issues facing our communities.”

The Strong Cities Network will launch on Sept. 29, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. EDT, following the Leaders’ Summit on Countering ISIL and Violent Extremism. Welcoming remarks will be offered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City, who will also introduce a Keynote address by U.S. Attorney General Lynch. Following this event, the Strong Cities International Steering Committee, consisting of approximately 25 mayors and other leaders from cities and other sub-national entities from around the globe, will hold its inaugural meeting on Sept. 30, 2015, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT.
Click to expand...


About the Institute of Strategic Dialogue:

Founded in 2006, ISD is now the leading global ‘think and do’ tank dedicated to understanding and innovating real-world responses to the rising tide of polarisation, hate and extremism of all forms. We combine anthropological research, expertise in international extremist movements and an advanced digital analysis capability that tracks hate, disinformation and extremism online, with policy advisory support and training to governments and cities around the world. We also work to empower youth and community influencers internationally through our pioneering education, technology and communications programmes.
Innovating, trialling and scaling data-driven solutions across our unique networks of community influencers, city and government officials and tech sector partnerships, we work to mount a soft power strategy, proportional in influence and impact to the ever-more sophisticated, cross-border polarisation and recruitment machineries of state and non-state actors promulgating hate, division and conflict.

Defining ‘extremism’

Extremism is the advocacy of a system of belief that claims the superiority and dominance of one identity-based ‘in-group’ over all ‘out-groups’, and propagates a dehumanising ‘othering’ mind-set that is antithetical to pluralism and the universal application of Human Rights. Extremist groups pursue and advocate a systemic political and societal change that reflects their world view. They may do this through non-violent and more subtle means, as well as through violent or explicit means. Extremism can be advocated by state and non-state actors alike.
Click to expand...

Here's a list of the partners of the ISD. Some of the usual suspects and some that I wasn't expecting at all!

Partners:
Academic Institutions
Curtin University, Australia
George Washington University
Harvard Berkman Klein Center for the Internet and Society
Victoria University (Australia)
Yale University

Private Sector:
Ark Jammers
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Jigsaw
Love Frankie
M&C Saatchi
Microsoft
Roland Berger Strategy Consultants

Foundations:
Asia Foundation
British Council
Carnegie Corporation NY
Eranda Foundation
Gen Next Foundation
Open Society Foundations
Robert Bosch Stiftung
Vodafone Foundation

Governments and Intergovernmental Organisations:
Australian Department for Home Affairs
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Danish Ministry of Immigration and Integration
Department of Premier & Cabinet, Victoria, Australia
Dutch Ministry for Foreign Affairs
Dutch Ministry of the Interior
European Commission
Finnish Interior Ministry
German Federal Agency for Civic Engagement
Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF)
Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security
Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
OSCE
Public Safety Canada
Swedish Ministry of Justice
Swedish Ministry of Integration
UK Home Office
UK Foreign Office
US State Department

NGO's
The COVA Project
Empowerment & Human Development Society
Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC)
IGAD Center of Excellence in Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism
International Republican Institute (IRI)
Individualland Pakistan
International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP)
Maldives Institute for Psychological Services
Terres des Hommes
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Zanzibar Youth Alliance

Think Tanks:
Brookings Institution
Bangladesh Enterprise Institute
Chatham House
ICSR (International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation)
LSE Arena
RUSI (Royal United Services Institute)

The ISD says this about violent extremism:

ISD’s Against Violent Extremism (AVE) network is a unique and powerful global force in the ongoing struggle to tackle violent extremism. Former violent extremists (‘formers’) and survivors of violent extremism are empowered to work together to push back against extremist narratives and prevent the recruitment of ‘at risk’ youth.
By connecting former extremists from different backgrounds we facilitate a sharing of best practice and ideas to encourage collaboration between members. The network leverages the lessons, experiences and connections of individuals who have dealt first-hand with extremism in an effort to challenge it effectively.

The AVE network has played a vital role in the success of ISD’s counter-narrative programmes including our Extreme Dialogue counter-extremism education programme and our One to One direct intervention initiative. We draw on the experience of our AVE network members to inform and develop our wider counter-extremism work.
Click to expand...

So with the C's saying that Nazi Germany was a practice run, it seems that this time around preparation was being made to roll out plans over all continents at the same time and grannies sitting on park benches are being treated as though they are potential violent extremists, not to mention actions being taken against protestors either real or potential. If all of this lines up, there's some method in the madness of Dan Andrews and CHO Brett Sutton both initially stating that they didn't order curfews in Melbourne, Andrews then going on to say that it was an order from the Police Commissioner to facilitate enforcement, and now the Police Commissioner is denying it. SCN and ISD indicate that it was possibly a police order, but maybe one not from the line of authority of the Police Commissioner!

Curiously, Melbourne also on the Rockerfeller Foundation's initial 33 Resilient Cities announced in 2013 where the aim was to grow the number to 100 cities. I'm not sure what that means yet but more than likely has something to do with elite making more money out of crises.

About Resilient Cities:

Cities selected for the Network will receive four kinds of support:

The support to hire and empower a Chief Resilience Officer, a central point of contact within each city to coordinate and oversee the resilience activities, coordinate stakeholders, and ensure resilience is a city-wide priority.

The support for that Chief Resilience Officer to develop a resilience plan, which will take stock of existing efforts, identify priority areas of needs, conduct analysis to understand the interconnected risks and opportunities, and develop a clear and actionable set of priorities and initiatives.

Access to a platform of services to support the implementation of such a strategy, which may include solutions to spur investments and financing for resilient infrastructure, information technology tools, and policy models for resilience-enabling laws and regulations.

Connection to other Network members, to share what works, spotlight success, and advance both global and regional dialogues on urban resilience.
Click to expand...
 
Just saw this article about a good strategy for resisting any future mandated vaccines.
Even prior to the founding of the United States, our laws have been rooted in the idea of natural rights. As opposed to the government-granted privileges of past monarchies, natural rights are innate, granted to everyone by God, and cannot be given—only taken away.

Supreme among these are the rights to bodily autonomy and medical choice. Nobody, certainly no government can vaccinate or force a healthy person to take medicine without their permission.

Whether or not you believe in vaccination, it’s hard to deny the importance that government respects our bodily rights. Jerry Day, a liberty activist with a focus on mandatory inoculations and smart meters, explains what he believes should be done if one is being coerced into receiving a jab against their will.

“The first thing we must do is state our position clearly and on the record to those people who administer vaccines. We are certainly not protected if we haven’t even stated our position. [ https://www.freedomtaker.com/downloaddocuments/VaccinationNotice_v3.doc provides a document to consider using for this purpose. It requires all medical service and vaccine providers, to acknowledge the risks of vaccines, that they are causing that risk by offering vaccines, and that they accept full personal liability to pay for all damage they cause by administering a vaccine.]

Of course, if vaccines were safe and effective, they would not hesitate to sign a liability agreement… [but] they know they are doing harm, so most likely, they will refuse to sign that document, and refuse to be responsible for the harm they cause. That refusal to sign is evidence that they know that vaccines have risk, and you therefore are fully within your rights to refuse the vaccine regardless of any legal mandates. That type of document is referred to as a ‘Conditional Acceptance.’ You agree to have a vaccine if they agree to pay for all damage you suffer. They will refuse to sign it. And that gives you the right to refuse their vaccine, because they failed to meet your reasonable requirements of safety.”
Click to expand...

phillipschneider.com

Liberty Activist Explains How to Assert Your Right to Refuse a Mandatory Coronavirus Vaccine

Are you a sovereign human being who does not want someone else deciding what medications you take?
phillipschneider.com phillipschneider.com
 
SevenFeathers said:
I stopped discussing covid with my work friend when she made it clear that she believed the hype of the MSM.

... her mom had tested positive for covid. Her mom is in a nursing home due to Alzheimer's. My friend and her dad haven't been able to visit the woman since the scamdemic started.
Click to expand...

Now my friend's mom has been taken to the hospital due to low oxygen levels and low grade fever. They have now told the dad that the woman has viral pneumonia and won't let him see her. The doctor told them that the pneumonia was brought on by the covid.

I think that is backwards. When the mom got a "positive" test, it was probably because she was getting sick from the pneumonia virus. But now, her sickness can be blamed on covid. This is all just so heartbreaking.

I only responded to my friend that I was sorry to hear that and I know her dad is sad.
 
Another interesting snippet - earlier in the thread it was mentioned that the World Bank started issuing pandemic bonds in 2017 as a basis for providing pandemic insurance and financing. Here's a Market Watch article from 21st of Feb this year stating that up until the time of writing, the World Bank hadn't paid out any pandemic insurance because the terms for payout are very strict and at the time of the article, the virus did not meet the conditions for insurance payouts. However, there was something noted in the behaviour of the bonds on the market - bond investors lose out if there are valid insurance claims but do well if insurance premiums are getting paid without claims and they were looking pretty nervous through 2019, rallying towards the end of the year before dropping again after Jan 20, 2020.

From the article:

"To be sure, the class B note offering a 14% yield is trading at a range between 40 to 50 cents on the dollar, according to some estimates, implying that investors could now be expecting a sizable hit from the coronavirus as the number of confirmed cases in China’s neighboring countries has climbed.

“It’s trading as if there will be a payout,” said Morton Lane, a financial consultant specializing on catastrophe bonds and a former employee of the World Bank.

The chart below posted by the Man Institute shows the bond has experienced considerable volatility after the ebola crisis and the coronavirus, as investors’ expectations for a payout has vacillated."

MW-IA618_image_20200220133601_NS.png


So investors also had an idea that there would be insurance payouts in 2019, but something happened around Oct 2019 where their confidence started to rally.
 
Jones said:
So with the C's saying that Nazi Germany was a practice run, it seems that this time around preparation was being made to roll out plans over all continents at the same time and grannies sitting on park benches are being treated as though they are potential violent extremists, not to mention actions being taken against protestors either real or potential. If all of this lines up, there's some method in the madness of Dan Andrews and CHO Brett Sutton both initially stating that they didn't order curfews in Melbourne, Andrews then going on to say that it was an order from the Police Commissioner to facilitate enforcement, and now the Police Commissioner is denying it. SCN and ISD indicate that it was possibly a police order, but maybe one not from the line of authority of the Police Commissioner!
Click to expand...

Well, today is the 19th anniversary of 9/11 and I was just thinking how the excuse, 'there are terrorists among us', has been replaced with; 'there's a virus among us,' as the justifiable reason du jour to strip away rights and freedoms. I mean, I must admit I don't really watch mainstream news, but where did the terrorists go? That was so serious as to be elaborated upon 24/7 in the news cycle for well over a decade. And so it goes...

You try and tell people, "these people are lying to you." But they haven't wanted to believe it and this is what you get. We don't even know where the orders are coming from anymore.

edit: spelling
 
Last edited:
Thanks to the sessions the Russian vaccine is the clear choice. But Mexican authorities will allow some experimentation by other outside sources.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1304128164315181058
Russia has announced an agreement with a Mexican pharmaceutical company to supply 32 million doses of its Sputnik V coronavirus vaccine.
The Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), the nation’s sovereign wealth fund, said in a statement that it had reached a deal with Landsteiner Scientific, which will distribute the vaccine in Mexico.

“Deliveries are expected to start in November 2020 subject to approval by Mexico’s regulators,” the RDIF said.

The Sputnik V vaccine was registered by Russian authorities in August after phase one and two clinical trials “demonstrated no serious adverse events and a stable immune response in 100% of participants,” the fund said.

“Post-registration clinical trials of Sputnik V vaccine involving 40,000 volunteers are currently ongoing. First results of these trials are expected to be published in October-November 2020.”

Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the RDIF, said that “our Mexican partners clearly understand the advantage of the Russian vaccine Sputnik V compared to other vaccine candidates.”

“In particular, they highlight a much greater safety track record of human adenoviral vectors versus novel technologies such as monkey adenoviral vectors or mRNA,” he said.

Dmitriev noted that a survey conducted by the newspaper El Financiero found that 66% of Mexicans have confidence in the Russian vaccine.

“We have agreed to deliver the large batch of Sputnik V vaccine to Mexico which will help 25% of the Mexican population to receive access to the safe and effective vaccine,” he said.

The announcement of the agreement comes after Foreign Affairs Minister Marcelo Ebrard said in late August that 2,000 Mexican volunteers would participate in phase three trials of Sputnik V.

The participation of Mexicans in the trials was confirmed last week but only 500 to 1,000 volunteers are set to take part. The Sputnik vaccine is administered in two doses with the second dose applied 21 days after the first.

Coronavirus cases and deaths reported by day. milenio-(Gráfico)

Mexico has also committed to participating in late-stage clinical trials for vaccines developed by United States company Johnson & Johnson and two Chinese companies.

If it passes phase three trials, millions of doses of a vaccine developed at Oxford University are slated to be produced in Mexico after the Carlos Slim Foundation reached a deal with the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, which has been licensed to supply the vaccine.

President López Obrador said last month that he was confident that the vaccine would be available for application in the first quarter of next year.

But Deputy Health Minister Hugo López-Gatell said Tuesday that the arrival of the Oxford University/AstraZeneca in Mexico could be delayed as a result of the decision to pause the trials due to a serious adverse reaction in a participant.

According to medical news website Stat, AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot said in a private call with investors on Wednesday that the participant who triggered the suspension of trials was a woman in the United Kingdom who developed neurological symptoms consistent with a rare but serious spinal inflammatory disorder called transverse myelitis.

Meanwhile, Mexico’s coronavirus case tally and death toll continue to increase.

The Health Ministry reported 4,647 new cases Wednesday, increasing the accumulated total of confirmed cases to 647,507.

There are an estimated 39,994 active cases across the country while the results of 83,537 Covid-19 tests are not yet known.

Mexico City has the highest number of active cases among the country’s 32 states followed by México state and Guanajuato. At the municipal level, Monterrey, Nuevo León, leads Mexico for active cases with 793.

Mexico’s official Covid-19 death toll increased to 69,095 on Wednesday with 611 additional fatalities registered by health authorities. Based on confirmed cases and deaths, Mexico’s fatality rate is currently 10.7 per 100 cases, the highest rate among the 20 countries currently most affected by Covid-19, according to Johns Hopkins University.

Mexico City has the highest death toll in the country with 11,043 fatalities attributed to Covid-19. México state ranks second for deaths with 8,482 followed by Veracruz, Puebla and Baja California, each of which has recorded more than 3,000 fatalities.

Puebla city has recorded more Covid-19 deaths than any other municipality in the country with 1,973 as of Wednesday.
Source: El Universal (sp)

tass.com

Israel scrutinizes Russian coronavirus vaccine

According to official information, Russia received preliminary applications to purchase more than one billion doses of its breakthrough vaccine from 20 countries
tass.com tass.com
According to official information, Russia received preliminary applications to purchase more than one billion doses of its breakthrough vaccine from 20 countries
TEL AVIV, August 11. /TASS/. Israel is interested in holding talks with Russia on purchasing the first registered novel coronavirus vaccine in the world, Israeli Health Minister Yuli Edelstein said Tuesday.

"We have already agreed to hold talks about the vaccine development with the research institute [Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology - TASS]. If we are reassured that it is a serious injection, we are interested in launching talks," the minister said when reporters asked him about the coronavirus vaccine that was registered in Russia Tuesday.

Edelstein also revealed that Israel "is carefully watching any news and checks all publications [about coronavirus vaccines - TASS]." At the same time, the minister noted that there’s little use in hoping that "the vaccine will be available tomorrow" since "there is yet to be a vaccine that passed all the necessary [trial] stages and received all the needed certifications."

Earlier on Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia had registered the world's first vaccine against the novel coronavirus. According to Russian Health Minister Mikhail Murashko, the vaccine dubbed Sputnik V was developed by the Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology and its clinical trials were successfully completed in June-July. Putin also revealed that one of his daughters received the injection and is feeling well.

According to Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Russia received preliminary applications to purchase more than one billion doses of its breakthrough vaccine from 20 countries. He noted that Latin American, Middle Eastern and Asian countries are most interested to buy it, with a number of contracts already finalized.
 
I have meant to post this for some time, but other things have intervened. So now here it is, for the record:

In August information came out about a Round Table, that has been arranged by Michael Grasemann, a sculptor from Dresden in the Federal German state of Saxony, with Saxon Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer and scientists critical of the COVID-19 official narrative. Among them were Sucharit Bakhdi (who was mentioned on this thread quite a few times), his partner Karina Reiss who co-authored the book "Corona Fehlalarm" [Corona False Alarm] (bestselling book with German magazine Der Spiegel since its release in June) with him, and a few more scientists (critical and mainstream, I assume). The event took place on June 26th in Dresden, but under exclusion of the public which has been the main condition imposed by the Prime Minister beforehand. The purpose of this event was to acquaint Michael Kretschmer with other lines of argument aside from the official narrative. One would be inclined to give credit to the fact that he got himself involved in this endeavor instead of blocking things right from the beginning. But as the transcript from the following video indicates, the organiser who had arranged this got his SD card erased from all the recorded data he had from the discussion - thus it is lost to the public, to the attending scientists and to the initiator himself.

However, there's a blog post from a guy who resides in Dresden as well and gives some interesting information regarding this event. He in fact indicates, that Saxon Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer might have been blackmailed by people higher up in the rungs which may explain his explicit declaration of a "Second Wave already here" to a Western German newspaper back in July. And it might have also been in correlation for the emptied SD card. A translation of this blog post will be provided below the video transcript.

Next comes the transcript from the video, which consists of four parts. (I did not understand everything due to background noise or overlaps of several people talking when creating this transcript, but the message is nonetheless perfectly preserved.) The first part is an interview conducted with one of the attending scientists (Martin Haditsch) prior to the discussion, the second part comprises talk by the attending critical scientists after the discussion and the third one is a statement by Michael Grasemann who arranged this event. The fourth part shows a letter Grasemann wrote to the Prime Minister after the event, as well as the reply from the Prime Minister.

From the talk and the comments of its participants you can observe how far-reaching ponerization of science has become and how full-fledged it has grown by now under the guise of the Covid narrative. However, that's just one sad example of many.

Note: To save time, translation of the content of all following quote windows is provided with the help of deepl.com translater.


PREFACE TO VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

Scientists are making efforts to engage in dialogue with political decision-makers and to provide information.

Scientific Round Table, initiated by Michael Grasemann in Dresden, moderated by Dr. Peter Ufer, with the current Prime Minister of Saxony, Dipl. Ing. Michael Kretschmer and the scientists
Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Karina Reiss
Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi
Prof. DDr. Martin Haditsch
Prof. Dr. Stefan Homburg
Prof. Dr. med. Sven Hildebrandt
Dr. med. Michael Schnur
Dr. phil. Patrizia Gulde
Prof. Dr. med. Christoph Lübbert
Dr. Regine Krause-Döring.

The only permitted sound recording remained with the State Chancellery. Why, the MP did not answer this question. But since a round table is essentially based on transparency and publicity, here you can see the interview with Prof. Dr. Haditsch in the run-up to the round table, as well as the round table discussion of the participants after the departure of Prime Minister Kretschmer and his advisors and the statement of the initiator Michael Grasemann.

TRANSCRIPT

Part I: Interview with Martin Haditsch (Austrian physician for micro biology, virology and infectious diseases)

Martin Haditsch:

I would hope - and one may well be allowed to dream - that the Prime Minister is basically open and receptive to the arguments. That he is prepared to make a fair assessment and that one may to catch him a little bit - don't get it wrong - in his vanity. Namely, I believe that someone who now takes the reins, who now contributes to the reversal of the current trend [the official Covid narrative with resulting policies], may have to be exposed to harsh criticism in the first phase, but in the long term he may well become a hero.

And if we succeed in conveying this truly state-supporting function to him, that he can make the difference, then perhaps we might have a historic day today. And that would be the wish. The question, of course, is always - and I know him too little for that - how far people who are in these positions of power are willing and able to question their own position, and also say for once: Well, so far I have supported the [current] way, but now it is time to tread new paths. One may hope. In any case, I wish all the best for this event today.

Interlude

After 2.5 hours behind closed doors... without press and under exclusion of the public. The only authorized sound recording remained at the Saxon State Chancellery after the Prime Minister and his advisors left...

Part II: After-discussion talk - Sucharit Bhakdi, Karina Reiss, Stefan Homburg, Martin Haditsch et. al.

Stefan Homburg:

I must say that I envy him... if my science had something like this prevention paradox, then any nonsense could be... there is this, I don't know if you know it. A man walks through downtown clapping his hands, asking, "What are you clapping for?" "To drive away the elephants." "But there aren't any elephants here." "You see? It works." This is the logical structure of the prevention paradox. You can do anything with it. And he brings it on three times instead of saying something meaningful to you [points to Sucharit Bhakdi]. That is so bad. [They probably refer to C. Lübbert, a virologist and scientific advisor to Kretschmer.]

[Sucharit Bhakdi (epidemiologist) shows himself being quite perplexed about this behavior.]

Martin Haditsch:

First of all, only a de-emotionalized debate [?]... only by this way such messages can be transported. At the moment when it becomes emotional, it is also very difficult to get through with factual matters. And the other thing is...I mean, my colleague Lübbert certainly doesn't have an easy game either. He needs the third-party funds, he needs the [?], he is under extreme pressure and he is here to support his Prime Minister. That is the task he has set himself and he has already broken up this role in his initial statement: "I agree with you, I agree with you, I agree with you, I agree with you," etc. pp. I think to myself, he was a background noise that was here, but substantially everyone leaves this round questioning: "Where were the strengths, where were the weaknesses?" And I had the impression that he went out and thought: "I wasn't that good today." Well, so far...

Stefan Homburg:

It was a tragedy for a scientist as he found himself struggling to admit that Sucharit was right. So you could tell he knew inwardly that Sucharit was right, but he didn't want to say it at all, because he didn't know to what bad a thing would this lead? That is a disgrace for a scientist. And all this third-party-funded prostitution, you can't just accept that either.

Martin Haditsch:

I'm not saying I apologize this, I'm just saying that I understand it. These are the mechanisms, unfortunately, of course, that's the way it is. There are a lot of plausible reasons why he behaves exactly like that.

Stefan Homburg: But not one that is acceptable to science.

Martin Haditsch: Yes, this is the scientist's evaluation.

Stefan Homburg:

I asked him to discuss with us for another five minutes. And then he fled in panic and said something about his family. [It's not clear, if he refers to the Saxon Prime Minister or to his scientific advisor or someone else. On Telegram channels someone has assumed that Kretschmer was meant, but I am not sure.]

Sucharit Bkahdi:

It is going through society... that they realize, without vaccination, 80 to 90 percent of them have herd immunity, because immunity in this case does not mean getting sick - not hard. That would be enough to [end] everything. Because then we do not need any measures at all. We don't have to [?]...because 80 to 90 percent are affected by herd immunity anyway. We already have that experiment behind us. It is finished. It's that simple.

Karina Reiss:

An epidemic or pandemic takes this curve, which has become so flat ["draws" with finger on a tissue], then the wave has passed. Then we can wait until the next season for the viruses to return. Because when the wave is through, you have a basic immunity in the population. And it doesn't affect everyone, this virus will go... like a wind that blows through the country once and then the wind is gone. When the wind gets to Mexico, you have this wave. But that has nothing to do with the fact that in Germany a second wave could come, when someone from Mexico returns to Germany. Germany is now through.

Sucharit Bkakdi: Mr. Kretscher has understood this.

Martin Haditsch:

I went back to this statement, I tried to break it up a bit. What I unfortunately did not succeed in doing is to bring up this [?] with the colleague [Lübbert] himself. He talks as if there is only Covid-19, and the fact alone that according to conservative estimates between 5K and 125K people are dying or will die in the same period of time due to the lack of medical treatment alone, because treatments have not taken place - this is simply ignored with a shrug of the shoulders. Leipzig [where Lübbert is employed] has one of the largest treatment centers in Germany; it is established [...] has, as far as I know, still one of the [?] units for highly pathogenic pathogens. Ebola patients were also treated here in Leipzig, one or two of them - at that time still by my colleague Ruf and so on, because the infrastructure for this is here and therefore he [Lübbert] naturally has a very important say in the matter. I only regretted that he is also a representative of our professional group, where I have the impression - I don't presume the right now to judge him in general - that the professional ethics, which we also have in the end-of-day, are subordinated to other things. That is deplorable.

Stefan Homburg:

[...] Krause is an epidemiology professor at the MAH and the Helmholtz Centre in Braunschweig. And when he was still a scientist, he said quite clearly and repeatedly before the lockdown that he thought it to be wrong. And then after my [?] interview he was invited to Markus Lanz [German TV show moderator] and was shown my graph, where this R-number is below 1 even before the lockdown. And then he was asked by Markus Lanz, who is a nice and harmless guy, what does this graphic tell you? And then he says that we implemented the measures exactly at the right time and in the right amount. And then Markus Lanz comes and says: "But look, this is already below 1 beforehand, how can you explain this?" This is his own YouTube [?], he [Krause] collapses in the next three minutes, can't substantiate anything anymore, suddenly says that he can't recognize pictures anymore. Then Markus Lanz says: "Then just turn around!" Well, a harmless journalist like Markus Lanz took it apart because he [Krause] simply lied. And that was the height of absurdity, to say about that graphic that it indicates that this [lockdown] was exactly the right policy.

Karina Reiss: That such a consultant [Lübbert] is totally wrong.

Sucharit Bhakdi: But he [Kretschmer] has to take him [...]. Leipzig has [this] infection department.

Someone: Kretschmer is his boss, after all, in the end. And that [in Leipzig] is also a university clinic.

Karina Reiss: But this blatant lack of knowledge is already embarrassing.

Stefan Homburg: That was so extreme. Also that he has probably never heard of delaying the effects of measures, that just can't be!

[Unintelligible]

Part III: Statement by Michael Grasemann

My main concern was that the Prime Minister be fully informed and to hear the opinions that are currently so suppressed - [those] of Professor Bhakdi, Professor Homburg, Professor Haditsch and Mrs. Karina Reiss as deputies of this side. I had the impression that [he] doesn't know this side, this information yet and that's why I got engaged into this format, to let it take place outside the public. It was about the information. Now he [Kretschmer] has it, now he can base his actions on it. In the Great Garden he told us that he has set out to find the truth and listen to all opinions and I hope that he will stick to this great credo.

Part IV: Letter to the Saxon Prime Minister with reply

Letter from 7th of July 2020 to the Prime Minister of Saxony:

Dear Prime Minister M. Kretschmer,

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you once again for participating in our Round Table 2020 on June 26th. You are very honored that you are the only politician in Germany to have taken part in such a meeting. Since this meeting took place without publicity, the next important step is a discussion on a broader level, involving the public. As a result of our meeting in the Great Garden, many people are aware of your promise to come to the public Round Table 2020, which I initiated.

Through my statemant in the state chancellery I have reminded you of your promises to come to us. Many people who cannot understand your political decisions in the Corona crisis assume that you, Prime Minister, may not be fully informed.

For these people it is an important concern that other voices of renowned scientists are also taken seriously and that their knowledge also flows into the decision-making process of the politically responsible persons.

So far I have been able to answer the many questions people have asked about your appearance at the 2020 Round Table by saying that we are both in negotiations. Now a Round Table has taken place without publicity (Why this had to happen under exclusion of the public, I think this question is still open).

In order to maintain my credibility, I now want and need to provide answers.

What can I do to answer people's increasingly pressing questions?

Do you publicly acknowledge that our meeting has taken place and/or will you come to another, this time public, round table? Would you be willing to make the contents of the first meeting available to a broad public and share your views on the topics?

You, as a politician, will certainly understand my situation, since you, like me, have been given a mandate by the people, and you have a duty to be accountable to them.

I think it is very important to continue talking to you and I invite you to a public round table within the next four weeks.

I would be very grateful for an answer by Friday July 10th 2020, so that I can give an answer at the next opportunity to those questioners who refer to your promise during the broadcast of the Round Table in the State Chancellery whether and when you will come to our public Round Table.

Furthermore I would like to ask you to give me back my SD card with the sound recordings, I can also come and pick them up.

With respect for your courage and best regards.

Sincerely, Michael Grasemann

Reply from M. Kretschmer (July 9th, 2020):

Dear Mr. Grasemann, thank you very much for your letter. I would also like to thank you once again for organizing the round of talks on June 26th, 2020. The exchange was very interesting and I was very impressed by the long journey that some of the participants had to make to participate in the discussion.

It was important to you that political decision-makers like myself can also hear and evaluate the arguments of scientists who have adopted a critical or even negative attitude towards the corona protection measures of the past weeks and months and who, in your opinion, are not given enough consideration in the process of political decision-making. I was happy to comply with this request, as I believe that it is only and especially by the examination of opinions and arguments that I may not yet know or perhaps do not share, that by this a comprehensive picture of the situation will be provided, as well as the path to be taken. We discussed in advance why we conducted the discussion round without publicity which was also met with approval in the round of those present. Therefore, I see no reason to deviate from this afterwards.

As the Saxon state government, we are continuing to take the path of relaxation in the face of the current low infection rates. With the new regulation, from July 18, 2020, fun fairs and smaller celebrations will once again be possible. Vacation camps, company and club celebrations with up to 50 people as well as mass sports events with spectators will also be permitted again. Now that the daycare centers are already back in regular operation, the new school year is to begin on September 1st in all schools in regular operation. In addition, we also want to allow major events with approved hygiene concepts to be held again from September onwards. So you see that these restrictions are reduced to an absolute minimum. But the fact is: the virus is still there. It is still highly contagious. It is still deadly for a significant proportion of those infected. And there are still no effective and safe drugs and vaccines. The pictures and figures from the USA and Brazil, for example, must be a reminder to us not to take the next steps too lightly and confidently, but to proceed with due caution and a sense of proportion. Personal responsibility and solidarity will continue to be the guiding principles for the coming weeks and months.

From my point of view, there has been no change since June 26th with regard to the discussion situation and the different lines of argumentation, which is why a new discussion round under similar conditions does not seem to me to be very fruitful. Also in view of my busy schedule and the approaching vacation season, I ask for your kind understanding.

You receive back the memory card, as agreed, emptied with this letter.

I wish you all the best and a beautiful summer. Stay healthy!

With best regards,
Michael Kretschmer

***

"It is degrading when man loses his individuality and becomes a mere cog in the wheel." - Mahatma Gandhi

END OF TRANSCRIPT
Click to expand...

Now here's the translated blog post mentioned above:

Is the Saxon state government being blackmailed?

Published on August 7, 2020 by Ped

Politicians stepping out of line are put under pressure worldwide - including in Germany.

According to credible sources available to me, in June or July of that year, Saxony's Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer was put under massive pressure to prevent his state government from turning away from the regulatory policy prescribed from Berlin, which violated fundamental rights and was being pursued under the pretext of fighting the pandemic. Other examples both inside and outside Germany show that this does not have to be taken out of thin air.

Put at the beginning: It is up to each individual to classify the facts I convey in terms of their credibility. The sources - why this is so, everyone can imagine for himself - are not revealed by me.

Let us recall the advance of the Thuringian Prime Minister Bodo Ramelow in May of this year. In view of a minimum number of cases - i.e. positive tests for the "novel virus" - the state leader considered it sensible to return to everyday life. But he had made the calculation without the host (1).

No sooner had this become generally known, a well-coordinated political and media campaign against Ramelow was launched, in which he was reprimanded for his "fatal signals" and warned to "carelessly gamble away the successes he had achieved." In the usual manner, the impression of a generally outraged public was created. Thuringia would then play "vabanque" and concern for "the reasonable" was feigned. This was a media blackmail of the very first order (2 to 5), albeit by no means new.

Those who are interested in this have long known that there is no evidence whatsoever that this "lockdown" was successful in containing an epidemiological event. Instead, this "success" was conjured up in a mass media and unified political chorus. Whoever thinks of a version of GDR 2.0 - regarding this expressed uniform opinion - is by no means out of the woods [i.e. wrong]. The fact is that Ramelow finally gave in to pressure. An actually extensive lifting of all emergency measures did not take place.

We can easily see that there have been repeated attempts by state governments to end the madness of coercive measures. Only from Bavaria, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Lower Saxony and Berlin the state of emergency was constantly being fired up anew. This will have greatly relieved companies such as CureVac, Biontech, SAP and Siemens (6 to 9).

Let us now go to Saxony. Its Prime Minister, Michael Kretschmer, had been quite reserved before July 25th of this year regarding the population's commitment to a "fight against the virus". Therefore his statements, which he announced to the Rheinische Post in an interview, were quite surprising:

"The second Corona wave is already here. It already takes place every day. We have new foci of infection every day, which could become very high numbers." (10)

What drove Kretschmer to suddenly advertise the "corona measures" in a West German media paper, possibly against his better judgment? The head of government of the Free State of Saxony was not at all noticed as an agitator before, I even concede him an authenticity which goes beyond the general measure of high-ranking politicians.

Since the beginning of the emergency ordinances, there had also been repeated protests in Dresden and other Saxon cities. Every weekend since March/April, hundreds of people went "for a walk" in the state capital, the majority without masks and without the ordered "safety distance". The authorities and security forces were generally very careful with their enforcement obligations, so that unpleasant scenes were not absent but can still be considered exceptions. By the way, in Dresden these were never "hygiene demonstrations" - an expression that would not do justice to the concern - but rather demonstrations of basic rights.

Surprisingly, Michael Kretschmer appeared among the participants at one of these demos - the one on May 16 - in Dresden's Großer Garten and spent three-quarters of an hour answering their questions. Two days earlier he had publicly warned against "lumping together" the protests against the Corona measures. He respected the protesters (11). He also made a statement to the Sächsische Zeitung:

"There are people who have questions that I would like to answer," Kretschmer said. At the same time, however, there are also people "who reject everything and want to say so clearly", he explained: "I would like to understand what they reject". (11i)

From this point of view, his appearance at the fundamental rights demonstration was conclusive, his request credible. At this point I would like to ask the readers to raise their awareness. We should signal special respect, even concessions, to politicians who dare to come out of their comfort zone. In contrast to the author of the video on the Internet, who thankfully documented the guest visit in full, I do NOT consider Kretschmer's appearance to be a PR stunt. His attitude, his emotions, the narratives he represents, his disturbing medical and biological ignorance, but also his efforts to understand the other side: All this seems authentic to me. The man faced the demonstrators in a really uncomfortable atmosphere and showed courage (12).

Already at that time he was confronted (a1) with the topic of face masks and exaggerated "hygiene" (disinfection), where he got powerfully into floundering. But it had got stuck with him, and we will come back to that later. Finally, the head of the state promised one of the participants, Michael Grasemann (13) in front of the cameras, that he would accept the invitation to a round table organized by him (12i). The fact is: Kretschmer was afraid of the virus in March, but this fear increasingly dissolved in the May days.

Unfortunately, it did not come to the round table, not to the one he had promised. Instead, he himself invited to a round table on May 28. On the part of the Saxon state government, the Minister of Health Petra Köpping and the Minister of Justice Katja Meier were also present. Except for the respectful atmosphere, the event was ultimately a disappointment. The only ray of hope was the appearance of Professor Peter Dierich, founder of the Zittau University of Applied Sciences. He explained what is now openly available from countless sources, including official and governmental sources: When the emergency measures were decreed, the official politicians knew that there was no longer any exponential growth of infections - wrong: positive for the virus tested - (14).

Also Michael Grasemann, who had actually been the inviting one to the round table, was invited to this meeting and renewed this original invitation to the Prime Minister. Again Kretschmer promised, but I do not know that he has kept this promise to this day. At least that was my knowledge until recently.

Because officially nothing fundamentally new happened, not even with regard to "corona control", for which a look into the Saxon Corona Ordinance is sufficient (15). However - as I have already mentioned and it is of course my personal view - in Saxony in general, and in Dresden in particular, there had always been an effort to avoid a dictatorial and excessive handling of the regulations. For example, in Saxony the compulsory wearing of masks is still not punishable - neither for retailers nor for customers.

Now to the information I received:

At the end of June of this year, i.e. before July 14th (when the new Saxon Corona Ordinance was issued), another round table was held, according to sources. At this table the following people met afterwards:
  • Michael Kretschmer (Prime Minister of Saxony)
  • Petra Köpping (Saxon State Ministry for Social Affairs and Social Cohesion)
  • Sucharit Bhakdi (German specialist in microbiology and infectious disease epidemiology/certified professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and from 1991 to 2012 head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene there)
  • Stefan Homburg (finance scientist, 16)
  • Martin Haditsch (Specialist in microbiology and infection epidemiology in Hannover)
  • Karina Reiss (Clinic for Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology in Kiel)
  • and more
During his visit to the fundamental rights demonstration in May, Kretschmer had considered and hinted, among other things, at an end to the obligation to wear masks. Now it is said that after the corresponding explanations by Sucharit Bhakdi and Stefan Homburg, Kretschmer expressed his agreement to abolish the compulsory mask in the near future, possibly in July. There were also sound recordings of this meeting, which had originally been released for distribution by Michael Kretschmer.

But after the meeting, these were confiscated by two ominous security agents with "special privileges" and a Brandenburg/Berlin dialect. A few days later, the so-called Health Minister Jens Spahn is said to have turned up for an unofficial lightning visit to Kretschmer. Why this happened and what was talked about is not known. What remains is however that Kretschmer subsequently decreed that over the round table with Bhakdi and Homburg, neither over contents nor to the meeting at all - may be communicated over the media. Finally Kretschmer gave the above mentioned interview to the Rheinische Post with his statement on the "second wave".

It seems, however, that there may be an interest among employees in the Saxon state government to inform the public about this roundtable via an "unofficial" channel. This is the purpose of Leaks. People who see themselves as responsible bypass the instruction structures. This could even apply to the Saxon Prime Minister himself.

It is an unpleasant idea that in politics one likes to play out pure power, but this is real, even if it rarely comes to the surface. Media escapades, in which suddenly over-investigative editorial offices expose dark spots of politicians to the point of vomiting and often in fascinating orchestration, are a signal that the person attacked accordingly does not "function properly".

Some of these ugly extortions only become known later, like that of the former head of the Organization for the Prevention of the Use of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Jose Mauricio Bustani. In 2003, Bustani opposed a war against Iraq, citing the Iraqi government's total willingness to cooperate in the search and destruction of chemical weapons. This counteracted the war against the country explicitly sought by the United States. In his office, a certain John Bolton (until recently security advisor to the US president) opened for him in 2003:

"Cheney [US vice president in the George W. Bush administration] wants you out. You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you do not comply with the decision from Washington, we will find ways to retaliate against you. [...] Be prepared to face the consequences that will ensue, because we know where your children live. (17)

There are, of course, other ways to let politicians make the desired decisions. Anyone who does not go along with the unified opinion in this country of ours will be mercilessly belittled. Thus the deputy chairman of the CDU parliamentary group, Arnold Vaatz, had recently actually dared to criticize the reporting on the large demonstration against the Corona measures on August 1 of the year. The artificially inflated outrage, which the public media were happy to spread, was not long in coming (18).

Internationally we experienced the same thing, Burundi but also Sweden were branded irresponsible by the media, Belarus even more so. In the case of the latter, to which 580 with (!) Corona deaths are attributed so far, although the government has completely renounced "lockdown" measures, IMF loans are now tied to the condition that exactly this is still to be implemented for Belarus - de facto in retrospect (19).

One more thing - a reward to you for working through this text:

The meeting of the Prime Minister of Saxony with the above mentioned scientists: It actually took place on June 26, 2020 in the presence of the demonstrator Michael Grasemann! (20)

Which visit Kretschmer later received, in order to possibly be brought back "on the right track", whether this was actually Spahn, and why the sound recording was deleted, must remain open. It remains for you to do your own research in this direction.

Please stay alert, dear readers.

Notes and sources
Click to expand...
 
As one who is living in Saxony, I can certainly relate to the quote of the post of the blogger above, relating of the willingness for more relaxations of the corona measures by this German state back in June. There was an ongoing sense of optimism and it even was conveyed via media, that the "necessity" for having to wear face masks was to be reconsidered and probably to be abolished by July. However, only to experience that nothing like that came into existence, unfortunately.

The above information casts some light on this in respect to the possible reasons, and it may do so for others here as well, whose decision-makers might have been put to similar blackmailing (I can't say that it is 100 percent true, but the blog post above indicates it very much and it would look like the typical "handwriting" of pathocrats to keep doubting decision-makers in line).
 
Here in the UK, masks are becoming more normalized among people. Masks are now mandatory at my workplace, but only in corridors - not offices, break rooms etc… Despite many working areas and break areas being only 2ft away from the 'corridors' or part of open plan areas. It is currently hard to tell if companies are going along with this out of fear of having 'outbreaks' and thus having whole departments shut down or if they are part of this whole scam (which could be possible at my place of work as we do cater to big pharma and stand to gain from this whole thing in the long run). One of my colleagues is having to stay home at the moment as one of his kids had a high temperature at school and so now has to be tested. Until then he is not allowed back into work and if the test is positive he will have to stay home for two weeks, or if he tests positive as well – 10 days...

I have come across quite a few people not wearing masks, which is good. However, there is this strange social awkwardness/anxiety as people try to work out how close they can come to you. Some mask wearers still exhibit fear, but others just have this difficult reaction; can I hold a door open for you? Should I wait in a door way for you to pass? Should I step out into the road rather than just walk on the pavement? Or should I just act normally? I just act normally and am still managing to avoid mask (bandana, thought i'd try the outlaw look...) wearing in work corridors and have so far avoided the mask Nazi. On a more positive note, the people who have seen me walking about normally with no mask do not seem bothered at all (though this could just be a typical British aversion to confrontation…).

The company I work for is definitely attempting to try and keep people working from home in future. It is quite clear that management is happy with all the free parking and office space…

I sense an uneasy 'limbo' state in UK. Many people are back to acting relatively normally but I believe there is an atmosphere of unease, probably not helped by the increasingly strange weather. The government is being challenged a bit more over Covid response and lockdowns, but nowhere near enough. It seems too easy at the moment to silence the critics or to use the useful ones to shape the narrative a little more. Peter Hitchens has been fighting the infringement on liberties from the start and it appears that the Daily Mail is joining him along with a few fairly mainstream outlets/pundits. He has also been calling out journalists and the media for not challenging anything the government is doing The Media Seems to have Checked its Brains in Somewhere and Forgotten the Ticket. UK Column news has been on the ball throughout in my opinion. These two articles were particularly good regarding the psychological manipulation going on Covid Coercion and the role of the Behavioural Insights team (essentially psychological warfare being used against their own people) Behavioural Insights: The Second Team Leading the UK Government's Covid-19 Response.

As I write this I see a couple of SOTT articles from mainstream sources so maybe a push back is gaining traction, we shall see: Lockdown Rules Turning Brits Against Each Other and Under Cover of Covid...

I think Sargon of Akkad's recent video series about the Rule Britannia issue is particularly on the money. He uses Yuri Bezmenov's lectures to examine the demoralization of nations in preparation for Marxist/communist takeover: Active Measures: Demoralisation. The issue of the music being played at the proms is to my mind less important that the overall idea of demoralizing a nation (though it does reveal the role that the BBC is playing in this Psy-Op). Unfortunately Sargon has not fought back much against the Covid narrative at all and I believe he misses the fact that there are at least two programs of demoralisation running parallel to each other at the moment (Covid and the destruction of 'British culture' and history). This has been occurring in the UK for many years now and is rapidly coming to a head; I wonder if it is the same in other countries and how the tactics differ to achieve the same aim?

The UK is moving back into a form of lockdown from Monday, limiting gatherings to 6. this is of course due to rising numbers of 'cases' by which they clearly just mean positive tests. There does not appear to be any increase in actual medical cases, hospital admissions or deaths. There is a lot going on behind the scenes under cover of the plandemic which likely all ties into the 'great reset'. I am not sure to what extent this is true in other countries but a few examples from here: Assange extradition trial, arrest of Piers Corbin (again) and other disidents, increase in police brutality, dodgy Brexit dealings, restructuring of government, restructuring of local and city councils, move to a digital economy, implementation of AI, etc, etc, etc. A hugely complicated web to examine and untangle.

My own personal hope at the moment is that this is far too huge and complex for the PTB to really control, though I am sure in their arrogance and hubris they believe they can. There may be some wishful thinking here, but I do not see how this global narrative can keep going too much longer, cracks are appearing all over the place. What comes next is where I believe the focus needs to be in order for us to prepare to mitigate the negative fall out many are going to experience very soon and of course to limit the control that the PTB are so desperately trying to implement. It is certainly looking interesting out there!
 
genero81 said:
Well, today is the 19th anniversary of 9/11 and I was just thinking how the excuse, 'there are terrorists among us', has been replaced with; 'there's a virus among us,' as the justifiable reason du jour to strip away rights and freedoms. I mean, I must admit I don't really watch mainstream news, but where did the terrorists go? That was so serious as to be elaborated upon 24/7 in the news cycle for well over a decade. And so it goes...

You try and tell people, "these people are lying to you." But they haven't wanted to believe it and this is what you get. We don't even know where the orders are coming from anymore.

edit: spelling
Click to expand...

Good question. No need for that specific type of bogeyman at the moment? The virus 'threat' is so much more potent if one wants to push through authoritarian measures on a society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom