Tuesday 30th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

of scientism, politics and popularism....

SCIENCE AND POLITICS ARE OFTEN SUBJECTIVE BEDFELLOWS, A BIT LIKE RELIGION AND POLITICS OF THE PAST… SCIENCE ISN’T A RELIGION, BUT POLITICS, THOUGH UNDER DIFFERENT SYSTEM THAN MONOCRATIC RULERS ARE STILL DEPENDENT ON A MONOCRACY OF SORTS, ALBEIT ONE WITH ONE MORE VOTE THAN THE OTHER “SIDE”. 

 

SCIENCE DOES NOT LIKE BLIND FAITH, WHILE POLITICS IS AN ART FORM THAT PRETENDS TO BE SCIENTIFIC BUT IS MORE A PROPAGANDA SYSTEM DESIGNED TO CATCH FLIES.

SCIENCES RESEARCH, DISCOVER RELATIVELY AND MAKE PROGNOSIS. POLITICS DECIDES. UNLIKE RELIGION WHICH IS ALWAYS WRONG, SCIENCES ARE OFTEN RIGHT, BUT CAN BE WRONG — OR INCOMPLETE. 

 

FOR POLITICIANS TO MAKE A DECISION ON SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION, THEY WILL BE INFLUENCED BY THE IMPORTANCE OF SCIENTISTS PRESENTING A CASE, THE PROPAGANDA OF NEGATIVITY (POLITICAL OPPOSITION), THE REMNANTS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, RICH PEOPLE WHO FUND THEIR CAMPAIGN, THEIR OWN PSYCHOPATHY AND THEIR MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF THE ARGUMENTS.

 

GUS LEONISKY IS WELL AWARE OF THIS. THIS IS WHY IT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO MIX SCIENTIFIC ISSUES FOR JOURNALISTIC (OR POLITICAL) ILLUSTRATION OF ARGUMENTS AND PURPOSES. MICHAEL MEYEN, IN HIS CRITICS OF PROFESSOR PETER STROHSCHNEIDER’S NEW BOOK, FALLS IN THIS TRAP: 

“… and demonizes everyone who doubts the climate narrative and pandemic policy.”

 

I HAVE NOT READ PROFESSOR PETER STROHSCHNEIDER’S BOOK, YET FROM THE ONSET MIXING THE CLIMATE NARRATIVE AND THE PANDEMIC POLICIES IS A GRAVE ERROR… 

ERRORS STEMS FROM THE AMOUNT AND THE QUALITY OF THE DATA, PLUS THE FORMULATION OF A THEORY THAT COULD HAVE MORE LEGS THAN THE OTHER. 

 

GLOBAL WARMING IS A THEORY — THAT HAS MADE A LINK BETWEEN RISING CO2 ATMOSPHERIC CONCENTRATION (NATURAL AND INDUSTRIAL) AND RISING GLOBAL TEMPERATURES — THAT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED FOR ABOUT 127 YEARS… 

 

NUMEROUS RESEARCH POSITS AND MODELS HAVE BEEN DONE, WITH MUCH CONFIRMATION OF THE PROCESS THOUGH WE STILL COULD DISPUTE THE LINK BETWEEN FOSSIL FUELS AND THE WARMING WE ARE UNDENIABLY EXPERIENCING TODAY. 

 

ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE COVID PANDEMIC STARTED ON THE WRONG FOOT WITH MANY POLITICAL LIES AND SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTIES PRESENTED AS GOSPEL . MUCH OF OUR SOLUTIONS WERE TOO FAST AND QUITE TOO OFTEN FLAWED. THE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION WAS BARELY 50 PER CENT OF WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TO MAKE A PROPER ASSESSMENT. 

 

MEANWHILE POLITICS AND RESEARCH FOR “CURES” BECAME OUTRAGEOUSLY MANIPULATED FOR PROFITS. MOST OF WHAT WAS DONE AGAINST THE PANDEMIC WAS IMPROVISED, NOT SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND, WITH SIDE EFFECTS THAT ARE STILL IN THE UNKNOWN. HERE IS MICHAEL MEYEN’S ESSAY (PLUGGING HIS OWN BOOKS) WHICH DEMANDS A GRAIN OF SALT, SOME ACCEPTANCE AND SOME REJECTIONS OF HIS ARGUMENTS — THOUGH PETER STROHSCHNEINDER’S OWN WORK IS UNSETTLED:

 

Peter Strohschneider, one of the most important border crossers between science and politics, writes in his new book “Truths and Majorities” against science activism, against Karl Lauterbach and against the idea of replacing democratic debates and majority decisions by relying on research. His most important argument: It may be that we know more tomorrow or something completely different. The problem: Strohschneider himself does not adhere to what follows from this and demonizes everyone who doubts the climate narrative and pandemic policy.

 

MICHAEL MEYEN, April 8, 2024, 3 comments, PDF

 

My first impulse was: no. I don't read this book. Peter Strohschneider. Not again. Not to be misunderstood: Strohschneider is a big deal. Anyone who works at a university and is also involved in science itself, i.e. wants to understand why things are the way they are, can't ignore this man. Peter Strohschneider was President of the Science Council (2006 to 2011) and President of the German Research Foundation (2013 to 2019). More is not possible. Both committees decide where the money goes. Which universities are supported, which disciplines, which ideas? During Strohschneider's term at the Science Council, the Excellence Initiative took place - a program that plowed up the German university landscape and allowed a two-tier society to grow there. The LMU Munich, where Strohschneider, born in 1955, once studied and held a German studies chair from 2002, particularly benefited from the millions in taxes.

 

None of this says anything about his new book, but it perhaps explains why I didn't give in to my first impulse. Strohschneider's word carries weight. His CV includes the Federal Cross of Merit and numerous academy memberships, including the Leopoldina. Strohschneider also has the ear of politics, perhaps more strongly today than ever before. Since 2020 he has headed the Agriculture Future Commission, appointed by Angela Merkel and taken over by Cem Özdemir after the change of government. Ursula von der Leyen elevated him to a very similar position at EU level at the beginning of 2024. If a man like that, I thought to myself, contrasts “Truths and Majorities” on the book cover and promises in the subtitle to demystify contemporary belief in science (“Criticism of Authoritarian Scientism”), then that could be a harbinger of a change of course.

 

Strohschneider avoids the core of the problem

 

I should have known better. Peter Strohschneider puts his finger in the wound, that's it. He sees that science is losing ground. He knows how ridiculous many find politics that requires white coats and academic titles when it comes before the people. 

 

He knows the doubts that arise, for example, from a health minister who claims to have read more or less every study in a mass of publications that even specialists can hardly keep track of in their own fields. In short: Peter Strohschneider is worried about the reputation of the institution he represents and therefore also about the creative opportunities that this creates for people like him. But he avoids the core of the problem. To put it bluntly: He cannot or does not want to see that the corporate state either buys science or offers a stage to precisely those protagonists who publicly represent what is currently popular (1). 

 

This blind spot has to do with his glasses and perhaps also with a position so close to the Sun of Power that it would melt like snow in spring if Strohschneider allowed even the slightest doubt about the climate and pandemic fetishes to shine through would.

 

To explain this, I have to go back a little, get theoretical and go back to my first impulse. A good six years ago I had the pleasure of dealing with a Strohschneider text. At that time I was the spokesman for a research association that was committed to transdisciplinary science. 

 

We not only wanted to break down the boundaries between the faculties, but also to leave the ivory tower, at least with one leg. I was sure: There are suggestions out there that will help us move forward. Other topics, other questions, unconventional answers. Citizen science seemed to be becoming a trend at the time, supported by political funding programs, and was attacked for precisely that reason - by Peter Strohschneider, among others. I was on the road to success and took the liberty of having fun with the DFG President, using scientific arguments, of course.

 

My starting point was systems theory (which is also his lens in the new book) – an academic game that dissects science, politics or journalism in the same way that it dissects organisms or cells. 

 

In short: The system wants to survive and reproduce. It therefore reacts to stimuli (when it gets colder, it has to invest in body heat), as this happens, but it can hardly or not be influenced from the outside. What is art is decided solely within the art system - as if there were no collectors, no powerful schools and no juries that distribute tax money according to political and other conformity. 

 

I use this theory every now and then because it helps reduce complexity. But if such an analytical perspective is declared a reality and science policy is made from it, as with Strohschneider - here I paraphrase my review from before - then we have a problem. Strohschneider believes in “the boundary between science and society” and also assumes (or at least says) that scientists search for and identify problems and solutions “intrinsically,” without external instructions (2).

 

You don't have to know the science system from the inside to see that this is nonsense. Peter Strohschneider actually sees this too. Knowledge “never exists purely as such,” he writes in his new book. “We only have it as communicated information.” And: “Science is an order of knowledge and at the same time an order of the social. Both orders are neither completely identical nor independent of one another” (p. 43). 

 

There is a simpler way to say this and thereby expose the blind spot that is the issue here. Of course: It's fun to philosophize about what happens to a scientific finding when it no longer comes in book form, but on a poster or even in a twenty-line letter for the Chancellor. It is also not wrong to refer to everyday research in which “the criterion of greater numbers often decides” and trumps questions of truth (p. 45). 

Who has raised the most money, who is quoted the most, who wins the most prizes, which applicant gets the important votes?

 

Universities were made into vassals

 

But Strohschneider ignores what makes the topic exciting - especially if, like him, you are concerned with the climate, the environment, and health. 

 

I'll simply quote the first sentences from my university book, published in late summer 2023: “Science is the religion of the present. In order to get something done, I need priests with professorial titles, studies, academies, ethics councils. Without the ordinations of scholars, there can be no absolution. This interpretive sovereignty makes universities attractive to everyone who can actually get something done.” (3) In this book I show how politics, in conjunction with large companies and their foundations, have turned universities into vassals over the last quarter century - not least over one Salary reform and a new reputation system (keywords for further reading: H-index and rankings), which encourage researchers to publish in very specific places primarily what promises third-party funding, i.e. money from where the music is playing.

 

Peter Strohschneider deals with “political interventions” (p. 152) and “state crackdowns” (p. 15) in a few subordinate sentences. He has to do it this way because otherwise he would neither be able to celebrate the “broad climate science consensus” (p. 35) nor the “amazing performance of modern research” in the “rapid vaccine development” (p. 140) or propaganda figures like Eckart von Hirschhausen and Harald Lesch and Maja Göpel (4). 

 

Above all, however, Strohschneider needs the fiction of an autonomous scientific system in order to turn “lateral-thinking pandemic deniers and vaccine refusers” (p. 23) into an opponent who has absolutely nothing to do with science and its principle of “methodological skepticism” (p. 145). and with whom you don't have to talk because he doesn't care about facts ("inconsistent chains of denial of reality", p. 148), but draws his self-esteem solely from the contradiction or resistance as such.

The multipolar audience might say at this point: That's grotesque. I don't need to be insulted and will stop reading now. But it's worth reading a little further, because Peter Strohschneider uses the cardboard comrade he creates for himself ("truth denier", "radicalization of dissidence", "conspiracy nexus") to attack the "diktat of the political truth owners" (p . 151). In other words: If you swallow the toad that criticism of corona or pandemic policy should be little more than a form of “self-aggrandizement” or even “wild enlightenment” (p. 145), then you will find Peter Strohschneider taking a reckoning with that Faith in science, which is particularly important because it comes from the center of the system. 

 

Turning things around again: Anyone who has only kept a little distance from this system will not learn much new, but at least they will see that the center is by no means as monolithic as it sometimes seems from a distance.

 

Rejection of all activism in the name of science

 

Peter Strohschneider says: Science is no substitute for politics, for public debates and for majority decisions. He is taking a stand against Greta Thunberg and her disciples (“You cannot make deals with physics”), against Karl Lauterbach (“We have to dare to do a lot more science”) and generally against everyone who, from 2017 onwards, in the name of “science”. street, at least since then we have been paying homage to this new deity and, for example, we want to suppress any contradiction with the slogans “evidence-based” or “factual force”. His most important argument: All “findings of modern science” are subject to “the fundamental reservation that they may have to be revised in the course of future developments” (p. 14). This is a rejection of any activism in the name of science, illustrated in the book using the example of the demonstrations in Lützerath in January 2023 and a text by Scientists for Future, which suggested a scientific consensus even on detailed questions.

 

This is also a rejection of a health minister who rhetorically refers to his party ancestor Willy Brandt (“We want to dare to have more democracy”), but demands the complete opposite. For Lauterbach, the “want” becomes a “must,” and he replaces the “free decision” with the “scientificization of democracy” (p. 80). Strohschneider exposes the “authoritarian tendency of scientism” (p. 21) and also classifies it as an attack on freedom of expression because our very personal reflection is devalued by the authority and force of the chair. Why should Krethi and Plethi still be allowed to express themselves when the professors have long known what is right?

For Strohschneider, the term “scientism” stands for a “syndrome” with four “determinants”: “facticism, unified science, solutionism and normativism” (p. 69). 

 

Translated: We forget that there are no “facts” without a person, ignore any disagreement that inevitably follows, believe that there is a solution to every problem, and always know what is good and what we must do as a result. I'll shorten this a bit, but I still think it's important because Peter Strohschneider describes an understanding of science that has not only been gaining ground at my home institute in recent years, but is also determining the mainstream media reality. Scientism, says Strohschneider, “is a latent matter of course in many discourse domains of modern knowledge societies – as an enforcement program, for example in agriculture, in the education system, in corporate organizational development and elsewhere.” (p. 77)

 

This sentence is interesting because the colleague names exactly the fields in which he himself operates. This sentence is also threatening because it marks the end of liberal democracies - a form of society that relies on "legitimation through procedures" (especially the "majority principle", p. 93) and that is not only aware of the pluralism of interests and perspectives , but also values and cultivates it. The fact that even an admonisher like Peter Strohschneider considers his own claim to “validity or knowledge” (p. 92) in central controversies to be absolute and here obviously any “discursive consultation” (p. 99) to be superfluous shows how far we have come on the way to “authoritarian scientism”.

 

Peter Strohschneider, “Truths and Majorities – Criticism of Authoritarian Scientism”, C.H.Beck, 222 pages, 16 euros

 

About the author: Prof. Dr. Michael Meyen, born in 1967, studied at the journalism section and then completed all academic stages in Leipzig: diploma (1992), doctorate (1995), habilitation (2001). At the same time, he worked as a journalist (MDR info, Leipziger Volkszeitung, Freie Presse). Meyen has been a professor at the Institute for Communication Science and Media Research at LMU Munich since 2002. His research focuses on media realities, communication and technical history, and journalism. He also runs the “Free Academy for Media and Journalism”. His book “The Propaganda Matrix” (Rubikon 2021) was a Spiegel bestseller. Most recently published: “How I lost my university. 30 years of education war. Balance sheet of an East German” (Edition East 2023)

https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/kritik-am-szientismus

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE TODAY.............

nefarious science....

 

Massive US Biowar Funding Created ‘biowar / Vax Industrial Complex’ - Threatens to Swallow the West Russian evidence mirrors RFK, Tucker, Elon, Tulsi claims. Yet another 'all of society' blob with a life of its own. BY 

 

Main takeaway: I’m new to this subject, and after writing this article and letting it age for a day or two (always a good idea when you venture into something new and complicated), I realized that the best insight I’ve had since reading up on this and trying to make sense of it, is that massive US security state funding of bioweapons for decades has created a ‘blob’ which has gobbled up huge sections of society – including big pharma and our medical system. Our vaccine addiction is very much a result of this biowar funding. Here, I’m borrowing heavily from the ideas of Mike Benz who has described a similar phenomenon in the ‘censorship industrial complex’.

I am convinced that Benz’s work is a hugely important event which is still underestimated. It got major exposure due to a recent Tucker video, and people are starting to catch on. I can’t urge you enough to follow him on Twitter and understand what he is saying. His links and the Tucker video are below in the article. One of Benz’s central insights is that massive security state funding for years, and the need to bypass laws, leads to a ‘whole of society’ phenomenon, where the security state coopts entire sectors of society – media, academia, government, IT, etc. – in order to pursue their censorship goals. He calls it ‘the blob’. He dates its beginnings from 2016.

While thinking about this whole bioweapons / vaccine connection, I realized that it is very similar. In this case the massive funding has been going on for decades, and it has been much larger. The result of both is equally dangerous – to me, shutting down free speech is as bad as being poisoned by bioweapons and vaxes.

Here’s the article I originally wrote. The most important insight is the parallel with Benz’s ideas.

(Moscow, Russia.) Most would likely agree that we are witnessing a grand struggle between good and evil. The list of revealed horrors is long, some more terrifying than others. My list of some of the worst: the poisoning of our food, water, and air; wholesale election fraud, massive government programs to eliminate free speech, mass surveillance, the genocide of the Palestinians, and a very real possibility of WW3 breaking out.

It’s a pitched battle, with both sides scoring wins and losses across a wide front. When I ask, where might the good guys be vulnerable?, where might the bad guys deal a devastating blow?, one of the scariest, and sadly, entirely plausible options would be to unleash a devastating bioweapon on the world. I’ve thought that ever since Covid hit us, and before that even.

More and more indisputable evidence is coming out that, unfortunately, this is a very real possibility: it turns out that the US has an enormous, secretive, bioweapons program going back to 1947, and that over the last two decades it has exploded in size and funding. Its scale has ballooned so large and is so complex that it defies simple description, but researchers, politicians, whistleblowers, journalists, and bureaucrats around the world are slowly piecing things together – and Russia has much to add in connecting the dots.

According to RFK Jr. 13,000 scientists around the world are currently employed by it, funded by many $billions, toiling away in some 400 labs, concocting who knows what horrors, new vaccines and bioweapons in tandem, costing many $billions in direct expenses, and who knows how many hundreds of $billions or even $trillions of indirect cost to society. Some argue that this blob, if not stopped, and if it doesn’t decimate humanity with disease, could bankrupt the West (see below). Nobody knows which weapons might already be developed, waiting to be deployed, or how close deluded scientists are to some sinister breakthrough.

As a journalist living in Moscow for many years, I know that Russian media have been talking about this going back to Soviet times, and no, it’s not ‘propaganda’. There is a community of experts in Russia whose work in one way or another intersects with this subject – journalists, scientists, the Russian military, bureaucrats, etc, and they have been saying all along that US activity in this area is far more extensive and nefarious than the Western public realize.

It broke into the headlines during and around Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, with Russian claims that there were mysterious US biolabs there, most likely for military applications. The topic became hot during the current conflict in Ukraine, when Russia claimed to have seized similar labs there, along with incriminating documents. And then there is the Covid debacle, with both Russian and Chinese governments now charging that Covid was a US bioweapon released either deliberately or accidentally.

What led me to write this article (or perhaps series) is that I recently became aware that a similar narrative is gaining traction in the US. The biggest impact comes from a new book from RFK Jr. Some may recall that he recently published a book absolutely trashing Fauci, and think that’s the one. How many books can this guy write, and run for president too? But it’s not that one, the one I’m talking about came out in December of last year, after the Fauci one, and it’s called ‘The Wuhan Coverup’. The title doesn’t really convey the main gist, which is that the US has an enormous bioweapons program which threatens to swallow the whole world. It’s being ignored by blob media, but praised in honest media.

Russian evidence mirrors RFK, Tucker, Elon, Tulsi claims

But it’s not just RFK. Tucker, Elon, Tulsi, and Rand Paul are on to it.

Rand Paul recently announced new congressional hearings. Last time he did this in 2022 he absolutely mauled Fauci, exposing him as a liar and a crook.

And there are many excellent journalists drilling in, more about them below.

There is good cause to suspect that what Russia has to contribute to unraveling this story might be highly valuable. For decades under the Soviet Union, Russia had a bioweapons program which was discontinued after the collapse of the USSR, now revived (purely defensively the Russians claim), due to the US rapidly pursuing theirs. This means generations of top level scientists and spooks with substantial funding whose job it is to understand how these weapons are developed, what the US is doing, what these weapons are capable of, the evidence that they are being developed, and how to defend against them. There are very few countries in the world with the scientific and intel resources and expertise to be a force in this field, and Russia is squarely in the top 3, along with China and the US.

‘Unraveling’ is the right term here, because the emerging picture is so complex and broad that it is difficult even for experts to piece together, obscured in a morass of science gobbledegook, spanning political structures, big pharma, the media, and academia, and ‘philanthropy’, to mention a few.

In no way do I claim, or desire to be an expert. Shudder the thought. Blood sports, i.e. history and politics, were always my thing, and more recently, Christianity. When people natter on about cells and membranes, genomes and DNA helixes or whatever, honestly, I get impatient. But when I realized that these two parallel narratives were developing in Russia and the West, largely independent of each other, it occurred to me that it would likely be a public service to bridge the two, and make what the Russians are saying more accessible to Western audiences and researchers. My well credentialed incompetence in science is an advantage, forcing me to explain things in terms that a wide audience can understand.

Surely you are familiar with the phenomenon of journalists throwing $10 words around, desperately trying to hide that they have no idea what they are talking about? I’m not making that mistake. I freely admit I don’t understand the science behind all this, nor do I care to, or have the time. What I can do is connect some dots which are simple and obvious. My goal is to make this as accessible as possible to a broad public, because what we are being told is very, very important, and ranks, as I said above, as one of the worst of the worst threatening us.

More evidence that Kennedy et al are onto something is a raft of articles one quickly finds on the interwebs from the usual, blob sponsored suspects, arguing exhaustively, citing ‘experts’, that all these claims are nonsense or Russian propaganda. $10 word articles. That’s often a sure sign that something is up.

I shied away from even taking on this mess due to its complexity. The amount of time it takes to even superficially understand it is cost prohibitive. Perhaps some of you are familiar with Mike Benz’s invaluable and ground-breaking work in exposing the ‘censorship-industrial complex’. Best to follow him on Twitter.

I believe this bioweapons disaster is as big, as important, and as complicated, and bears similarities, in the way that a massive amount of government funding has fostered and co-opted entire industries and sectors, creating a blob that has a life of its own, and how it is driven by the spook state. The difference between Benz and me is that he spent 5 years unraveling it, while I’ve spent a couple of afternoons (sorry, it’s all I’ve got). I’m writing this because I think it’s important, and really don’t want my kids or yours to get zapped by a psychopath sponsored super-bug.

I’ll start with nutshelling the picture emerging from the West. The heavy lifting is in Kennedy’s book:

  1. US secret services have been obsessed with bioweapons since the end of WW2, when, in their brilliance, they embraced them as a great way to fight the USSR.
  2. A long and grisly history of the US using them against opponents over the decades, and of testing them on their own population and other countries, all kept top secret.
  3. Vaccine development is inherent in bioweapons development, because the whole idea of bioweapons is to invent one, and then come up with a vaccine for it, so that you can use it on your opponent without your side getting sick.
  4. The driver of gain-of-function research is not antidotes to diseases, rather invention of bioweapons.
  5. Deep state used 9/11 to justify massive expansion of program, fed deceptively to the public as defensive measures against ‘terrorism’.
  6. Huge amounts of your tax $ have been spent on this, many, many billions, sucking huge numbers of brains out of science that might actually help humanity. The funding is so large that it has swallowed and corrupted the whole medical, pharma, academia, publishing, public health agency panopoly, with everything now focused on weapons and vaccines and pandemic response, i.e. lockdowns, censorship, etc.. A lot of the funding has come in in true spook style, through cutouts and fake ‘foundations’.
  7. This research was done all over the world, including, counterintuitively, in collaboration with the Chinese. (the book provides a good explanation of why this actually makes sense).
  8. Covid was a US bioweapon which was released, either accidentally or deliberately.
  9. There are currently US connected 400 bioweapons labs scattered around the world, fed by this gusher of money coming from US taxpayers.
  10. This blob is demanding, among other things, Orwellian tracking, surveillance, and censorship, because it’s a ‘national security’ issue. The whole thing has morphed into one of the biggest drivers of globalism.
  11. Conclusion – shut the whole damn thing down before it destroys humanity.

I didn’t have time to read it. I got this from an excellent and more detailed description of it from Debbie Lerman’s Substack. Highly recommend reading for more eye-popping details.

I want to keep this as short and accessible as possible, so just real quick, some more good stuff. One of my favorite investigative journalists, Larry Romanoff, who for reasons I don’t fully understand is not widely followed in the West, (he’s an American living in China) just made a devastating info-drop on the subject. He used to be published on Unz, but that stopped for some reason, and he doesn’t do social media. It is basically a book, released in the form of 17 articles. It is mostly a shocking history of US bioweapons, but also covers latest developments and also concludes that Covid was a US bioweapon leak. It’s a good complement to Kennedy’s book. Also didn’t have time to read that one, but Romanoff’s previous work is gold (highly recommend checking it out), and from skimming these, it looks like they are too.

One of Romanoff’s contentions is that the CDC masquerades as a civilian health agency, but in fact is part of the US defense establishment, from which it takes its orders. Debbie Lerman reached a similar conclusion. A similar relationship was recently exposed between the RKI (Germany’s version of the CDC) and the German military.

Another valuable contribution comes from Katherine Watt (Substack), a legal researcher who explains how the legislation enforcing all this junk was craftily worked into our laws over decades. Excellent recent podcast with James Delingpole, or a short version on Rumble. Toby Rogers’ Substack also has some good insight explaining how RFK’s theses mean this bioweapons/vaccine program will likely bankrupt Western society entirely, consuming everything around it in sickness.

And of course, well worth following bioclandestine on Twitter or Telegram, thanks to whom I began to become aware of all this stuff.

Here’s a good article about the history of US bioweapons from Aaron Good.

That’s all I have time for today. If you want me to write more, let me know in the comments. The next step would be to lay out what the Russians are saying. I’ve listened to a couple of their podcasts, and talked to one leading expert. I’ve got a call in to General Igor Kirillov’s press people at the Ministry of Defense. Kirillov, who heads Russia’s bioweapons defense forces, is the heavy artillery in the Russian space on this, bombarding the West with powerpoint presentations with a lot of circles and arrows showing how different parts of the blob work together, naming names, brandishing 20,000 pages of documents purportedly seized in Ukraine allegedly providing receipts. From what I’ve found on the internet I can’t make heads or tales of it, but perhaps they can explain it to me.

His department even makes catchy videos depicting their day to day work. Looks very serious:....

A top Russian diplomat has also entered the info fray, and then there’s Vasily Nebenzya at the UN, making similar charges. And there are more Russian journalists and scientists on the job. Surely there is something there, wouldn’t you think?

From what I’ve managed to glean, they are confirming a lot of what Kennedy and others are saying, and predate them. Some of the revelations I’ve encountered are quite newsworthy. There’s some good stuff there, it’s just a matter of digging it out. Like I said, I don’t have much time, but I can easily pick up the easy stuff just sitting on the surface, and lob it into the interwebs. Maybe someone with more ability than me can make some use of it.

Let me know if you want me to follow up on all this.

Cheers

————-

PS. About this Substack. I’m in Moscow, speak fluent Russian, know a lot of people, and have some good stories to tell. There is so much going on here which doesn’t get reported because there just aren’t many people on the ground who speak Russian well enough to pick this stuff up.

I’m on Twitter and Telegram.

I would gladly write about monarchism, the phenomenon of Westerners moving to Russia for ideological and Christian reasons, the meaning of the Tsar for the world today, fascinating insights into Russian history which reflect very well what is happening today in the West, the true history of the Russian revolution, about the idea that Russia might become a refuge for millions of escapees from the darkening underway in the West, interesting places and people I have met. If this appeals to you, let me know in the comments. I work on a lot of other projects mostly related to Orthodox Christianity, so don’t have a lot of time for this, but if you’re interested, I’ll try.

Republished from Substack  https://www.unz.com/article/massive-us-biowar-funding-created-biowar-vax-industrial-complex-threatens-to-swallow-the-west/  

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/38483

 

a wonderful life.....

What is life and how does it work? - with Philip Ball

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw54LmxR21A

 

00:00 Intro - what is the secret of life?

04:09 Is the human genome a blueprint or a musical score?

7:58 Crick's central dogma of biology

12:03 What scientists got wrong about genes and proteins

18:50 Why evolution chose disordered proteins

22:27 The process of gene regulation

27:03 Why life doesn't work like clockwork

30:29 The growth of intestinal villi

32:18 Why do we have five fingers?

34:55 Causal emergence

38:09 Do all parts of us have their own agency?

42:46 How does this affect genetic approaches to medicine?

48:09 Why do organisms exist at all?

 

Philip Ball explores the new biology, revealing life to be a far richer, more ingenious affair than we had guessed. There is no unique place to look for an answer to this question: life is a system of many levels—genes, proteins, cells, tissues, and body modules such as the immune system and the nervous system—each with its own rules and principles.

 

In this talk, discover why some researchers believe that, thanks to incredible scientific advancements, we will be able to regenerate limbs and organs, and perhaps even create new life forms that evolution has never imagined.

 

Philip Ball is a freelance writer and broadcaster, and was an editor at Nature for more than twenty years. He writes regularly in the scientific and popular media and has written many books on the interactions of the sciences, the arts, and wider culture, including 'H2O: A Biography of Water', 'Bright Earth: The Invention of Colour', 'The Music Instinct', and 'Curiosity: How Science Became Interested in Everything'.

 

Philip's book 'Critical Mass' won the 2005 Aventis Prize for Science Books. He is also a presenter of Science Stories, the BBC Radio 4 series on the history of science. He trained as a chemist at the University of Oxford and as a physicist at the University of Bristol. He is the author of 'The Modern Myths' and lives in London.

 

----------------------

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

of eclipsis solis....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzpn5DCuiWk

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Struggles to Explain the Moon and the Sun, with Victor Davis Hanson

 

As the Moon came together, it was mostly or entirely molten. As this magma ocean cooled, minerals began to crystallize. Heavier minerals sank, while lighter ones floated to the top and formed the outer crust of the Moon.

 

MEANWHILE: THE ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC_dc6oK_GI

Who’s the ‘dumbest of them all’ on ‘The View’?: Gutfeld

 

LUCKY NONE OF THESE IGNORAMUSES ARE IN CHARE OF NASA, BUT ONE WONDERS SOMETIMES....

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....