Propaganda and censorship in the garden of good and evil
As we move through January 2023, and additional details about the lies our governments have told us are revealed daily, I keep getting questioned about how it feels to be vindicated. I wrote about this last year, at a time when the approved narrative appeared to be failing, and my deep ambivalence remains. To my surprise, governments, the World Health Organization (WHO), and various non-governmental organizations (WEF, BMGF etc.) have managed to keep the COVIDcrisis alive and weaponized to justify policies which do not advance public health objectives, but which they use to advance their own political and financial interests. Like tossing offal over the transom, “Never let a good crisis go to waste” seems to have provoked a shark feeding frenzy which humanity may require decades to recover from.
Assuming we ever do.
The apple of knowledge about the depths of what the US government, the Uniparty, the “Administrative state” will do has been well and truly bitten into now. None who are “awake” to the damage done (to individuals, families, and communities) in the name of public health will ever be able to return to what (in retrospect) seems like the Eden of our prior innocence.
Now we are finally seeing the patient council of Augustine of Hippo come to pass — ‘The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.’ Like so many others, I had naively assumed that this process would require months, not years.
Just to make the point yet again, the COVIDcrisis was never really a crisis in the way it was portrayed. It was always a house of cards built upon (USA and CCP) government propaganda as well as grossly overstated risk modeling and projections from the Imperial College, London developed by the Neil Ferguson research group.
Layers and layers of propaganda. Deep, harmonized, simultaneous collusion, enticement, censorship, malicious defamation and gaslighting across all western political organizations and their paid toadies in corporate and social media- propagated and coordinated by the UN, WHO, EU, USA, former “British Empire” governments and the new wannabe corporatist world government body known as the “World Economic Forum” (WEF).
A comprehensive, global “shock and awe” fifth generation warfare action the likes of which the world has never seen before. All justified as necessary to protect us from a pathogen which was never a threat in the sense of Ebola (for example) or even the fentanyl flooding across the US southern border.
A pathogen which (current information suggests) many of these governments had a hand in creating. A pre-planned (Event 201) authoritarian totalitarian response resulting in a massive upwards transfer of wealth largely to those who funded the planning (that being the WEF and Bill Gates). Was the over-reaction and authoritarian mismanagement a psychological projection of their guilt about having created and loosed this slouching beast on all of us? Or was the virus just a strategy to enable a broader agenda? Or one of many possible strategies developed and waiting to be deployed? I suspect that Dr. Anthony Fauci would plead a failure of memory if asked to testify to the question under oath.
Or perhaps (just as internet haters are going to hate), authoritarians and monopolists when given an opportunity will enable Totalitarian states and Corporate monopolies.
Over three years now in which we have all been banished to inhabit dark crevices and cracks in the garden of good and evil. Forced into our homes and the fringes of society while psychopathic devils who normally inhabit Dante’s nine circles of hell openly danced a global bacchanal of death, destruction, and greed. And as they danced, they steadily advanced their long anticipated “Global Reset”.
Any so bold as to question the approved narrative, to alert chained fellow cave dwellers that they are only being allowed to see shadows on the wall projected by these dancing devils, have been further ostracized to the depths of their own personal hells. With swarms of paid demons unleashed to discover and exploit any crack in their own personal armor (or history). And now these devils assert that the whole sordid affair supports the need for the world to grant them more money and power?
Grasping for some frayed thread of a silver lining to their dark cloaks, I suppose that you have to at least admire their chutzpa.
As my mind seeks refuge from my deep weariness, I often recall the immortal dialog from the Dreamworks comedy “Shrek”;
Shrek: Ogres are like onions.
Donkey: They stink? Shrek: Yes. No. Donkey: Oh, they make you cry. Shrek: No. Donkey: Oh, you leave em out in the sun, they get all brown, start sproutin’ little white hairs. Shrek: No. Layers.
Onions have layers. Ogres have layers.
Innocence also has layers. And as I have journeyed along the broad road of corrupt propaganda, censorship and defamation hell over the last three years, each turn and twist has forced me to peel away yet another.
Belief in the universal acceptance of bioethical truths. Truths which had been so painstakingly developed since the end of World War II, and then augmented after the CDC-sponsored Tuskegee study. Faith in the integrity of international regulatory and clinical research norms, and the absolute firewall around informed consent and avoidance of compulsion, coercion as well as mandated medical and surgical procedures. Faith in the NIH, previously damaged by decades of personal experience, shattered into a thousand fragments by Robert F Kennedy Jr.s meticulously documented inditement titled “The Real Anthony Fauci”. Faith in the integrity of the FDA and CDC, and their commitment to stand as bulwarks to insure public safety under the pressure of a rapacious pharmaceutical industry. Faith in the integrity and commitment of my fellow scientists and physicians to the Hippocratic oath.
And now I confront a complete loss of faith in the commitment of the United States Government and its officials to protect and defend the US Constitution. Earlier in this twisting journey, this broad road to hell, I had taken risks to openly discuss the growing threat of totalitarianism. I received a call from a decades-long colleague employed at a senior level (GS-15) at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) darkly warning me to not discuss Dr. Michael Callahan or his activities in China during 2019-2020, or there would be consequences. I was warned by a well known broadcaster to “stay in my lane” and not discuss the World Economic Forum, its plans and activities. In a world where the term “Fascism” had been twisted and distorted beyond recognition, early on I insisted on returning to the original definition (attributed to Benito Mussolini) that the proper name for Fascism was Corporatism, and discussing the widespread acceptance of globalist corporatism as the new model for replacing the autonomous nation state as the dominant political structure.
And then there were the more mundane, transparent lies and propaganda regarding the lack of repurposed early treatment medical interventions and the safety and efficacy of the genetic “vaccine” products which all have come to clearly see (in our daily lives!) do not protect against infection, replication or spread of this cluster of novel coronavirus variants which we call SARS-CoV-2. Hour after hour spent on innumerable radio, television, and podcast interviews trying to break through the wall of propaganda erected by governments colluding with big tech and corporate press/TV.
I wish to acknowledge and thank Joe Rogan for allowing his Spotify platform to break through that firewall, and allow me to speak my truths to the world. Although I have not been welcomed back since, I suspect what happened over the subsequent days, weeks, and months was the clearest tolling of the bell for current corporate media (and 60s rock and rollers) that has ever been heard.
Yesterday, I was asked to participate in a “Twitter Spaces” discussion regarding the censorship which has been experienced by so many who have tried to break through the propaganda firewall of the last three years. Asked to discuss my own experiences, I went on and on. The words poured out.
This was a question no-one had ever really asked me before, and I have been asked so many questions over the last three years that I feel like someone who has been subjected to a strip search by the Transportation Security Agency. No body cavity left unprobed. Except for this one.
So much to cover. Amazon deleting Jill’s book in March 2020 for irreconcilable (but undefined) “violation of community standards”. My 2020 manuscripts warning about risks encountered in prior coronavirus vax development. The original Famotidine/Mast cell hypothesis paper that got rejected again and again. The repeated rejection of high-quality clinical studies demonstrating the effectiveness of early treatment using celecoxib, famotidine +/- ivermectin. Repeated inexplicable intransigence of FDA to allow DoD funded clinical trials to proceed. The Nobel Prize marketing campaign to promote the false valor of Kariko and Weissman as having originated of the mRNA platform technology which necessitated belittling, defaming, and gaslighting my own much earlier contributions. The systematic evisceration of my Wikipedia page. The reactions of Spanish and Israeli governments to my “hostage” video warning parents about the risks of the vaccines. The YouTube demonitization of Dr. Bret Weinstein after the infamous “save the world” podcast with Steve Kirsh and myself. The backlash after Joe Rogan podcast #1757. The relentless unqualified “factchecker” attacks (justified by Facebook in court as narrative reinforcement activities, not “fact” checks). The Atlantic Monthly, Rolling Stone, New York Times, Washington Post, and even Santa Barbara News Press (my home town) malicious defamation and slander. It all continues unabated to this day, now augmented by professional infiltrator/disruptors who carefully troll for tidbits in my CV that can be weaponized while continually shouting “controlled opposition” and “deep state” as a chorus to the usual lyrics of mis- dis- and mal- information accusations coming from mainstream government-sponsored press outlets.
But caught like a deer in the headlights, unprepared for this inquiry into what censorship I have experienced over the last three years, I completely forgot to cover the outcome of the huge amount of time I (together with other colleagues) had invested in establishing a special edition of “Frontiers in Pharmacology” dedicated to publishing academic manuscripts concerning repurposed drugs and protocols effective against COVID. We had invested more than six months of effort in getting the necessary permissions, soliciting and reviewing manuscripts, and building a solution to address the unwillingness of journals all of the world to publish information about life saving treatments. And then during December 2020, Pierre Kory testified in the US Senate about the potential of Ivermectin. The DoD-funded group I was working with to identify and test repurposed drugs was very aware of the potential of the repurposed agent, and when Dr. Kory and colleagues posted a summary of their findings on the web, I reached out (as an editor of this special “Frontiers” volume) and encouraged him to reformat and submit as an academic review for consideration by Frontiers in Pharmacology for our special volume. The rest is history. A somewhat biased account of what then took place can now be found published in “The Scientist”. The subsequent cascade of events are summarized in the following resignation letter (redacted below, full text available here):
23rd April 2021
Dear Dr. Fenter, Ms. Sorokowska-Yammin, Dr. Vicario, Prof. Montuschi, Topic Authors,
It is with sincere regret that we write at this time to resign from our roles as founding topic editors for the Frontiers in Pharmacology Research Topic “Treating COVID-19 With Currently Available Drugs”. Since developing this topic and associated justification documents and applying to and receiving permission to proceed with this special topic volume from “Frontiers in Pharmacology“ for publication under the “Frontiers in Pharmacology (Respiratory Pharmacology)” we have invested many hundreds of volunteer hours in soliciting manuscript submissions, identifying reviewers for submitted manuscripts, and managing the peer review process. We took this action not for any commercial gain, but rather to address an unmet need. This has been done in full and careful compliance with all “Frontiers” criteria, and with approval by “Frontiers”.
The Topic had been created with the aim to contribute to identification of better and more effective pharmacological treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic by suggesting repurposed drugs. Our goal has been to reduce the barriers to publishing earlier stage clinical research regarding repurposed drugs, and in this way help reduce the terrible burden of global death due to COVID-19. While awaiting development of herd immunity (during vaccination), we wanted to contribute in COVID-19 therapy. In proposing the guest topic, we noted that Frontiers purports to provide rapid review, and explicitly allows publication of earlier stage clinical research findings including case series reports. CVs of each guest editor and the Topic proposal were accepted after evaluation and Mr. Nathan Watkins was assigned by the Frontiers organization to support the guest editors.
The recent extraordinary and unprecedented actions by Frontiers in the rejection of the review manuscript “REVIEW OF THE EMERGING EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE EFFICACY OF IVERMECTIN IN THE PROPHYLAXIS AND TREATMENT OF COVID-19” and the original research manuscript “HOSPITALIZED COVID-19 PATIENTS TREATED WITH CELECOXIB AND HIGH DOSE FAMOTIDINE ADJUVANT THERAPY SHOW SIGNIFICANT CLINICAL RESPONSES” after review and acceptance of each manuscript by four/five well qualified peer reviewers (during final validation) is what has prompted our collective resignation.
To place this into context of the Frontiers review process, the papers have been rejected during the final validation phase, having previously passed the evaluation (peer review) phase. In general, the Frontiers review process consists of the following steps: initial validation, editorial assignment, independent review, interactive review, review finalized (acceptance/rejection), final validation (this last step is the final editorial review decision prior to invoicing and finalizing manuscript proofs before actual publication). The initial validation step performed by Frontiers is independent of the Guest Editors’ evaluation and is performed prior to editorial assignment to Guest Editors. Guest Editors are then asked to look for reviewers for independent review and manage interactive review. Review is finalized by guest Editors but the final validation depends on Frontiers decision.
Redacted …… (see full letter text for details)
Upon reviewing these events, some might conclude that the journal is practicing extraordinary and unprecedented censorship of fully peer reviewed manuscripts. The rationale for doing so is speculative, and the journal has communicated that these actions are justified by the following considerations:
1) “The papers considered for publication in this Research Topic will require more specific oversight, as the subject and aim of the collection has an important involvement with the ongoing public health crisis. Frontiers aims for editorial independence while also being ultimately responsible for all article publications. We need to anticipate potential impact on the population and maintain standards of rigour for our Journals and the scientific record overall.”
2) “Moving forward, the Editorial Office will continue to monitor submissions to this topic. Articles will be screened at submission, with the support of our Specialty Chief Editor, to ensure that all articles submitted are valid, and fulfil our acceptance criteria. We ask that, as you continue to act as Handling Editors for articles, you remain vigilant and ensure that any serious recommendations for rejection are addressed swiftly. These steps, combined with increased awareness and participation from all parties involved, will help ensure the recent situation around the ivermectin paper is not repeated. We hope that you understand the rationale behind these additional measures, which are in place in the interest of maintaining scientific integrity, both for your collection, and Frontiers in Pharmacology as a journal.”
The Guest editors reject any assertion that scientific integrity was compromised or breached during the review process for either of these submissions, or that this special edition has not been managed with full integrity, except in the case of the unethical breach of the journal itself and its senior management in performing an extraordinary, arbitrary and capricious post-peer review process.
At this point, based on these many actions, we are unable to assure scientific integrity of the peer review process on the part of the journal for this special topic. Our time and that of the peer reviewers has been donated to the journal, and our reputations used without compensation. We ask to be removed from association with this special topic area, that an apology be issued to ourselves and our respective institutions for the actions of the journal in this matter, and that the special topic (which we had developed with full approval by the journal) be discontinued effective immediately. Having communicated to Frontiers that this would be our collective action if corrections were not made to this extraordinary re-review process, Frontiers has elected to expel each of the guest editors from any ongoing or future role as editors, and to close down and wipe all electronic evidence that the special topic had ever even been approved or had manuscripts submitted under the topic approved. This decision was disclosed in email communications with all corresponding authors of published, approved, or pending manuscripts, but not with the guest editors who had created the topic and solicited and managed review of the manuscripts.
The scientific process requires fair, open, and transparent peer review to proceed effectively and efficiently – particularly at this time and for this topic. The actions of “Frontiers” in this matter clearly violate well established norms and processes for peer review and publication of scientific works and intellectual contributions, and instead have substituted a unilateral, arbitrary, and capricious process. On behalf of our peers, our institutions, and our scientific and medical colleagues we cannot allow this precedent to remain unchallenged. In our opinion, these unfortunate events constitute gross editorial misconduct by “Frontiers”.
How many lives could have been saved if publication this volume had been allowed to proceed in a normal fashion?
An unanswerable hypothetical. But as we watch the daily drip of information concerning the role of governments, non-governmental, and transnational organizations and cabals in actively suppressing information which clearly could have saved lives, colluding with corporate media and big tech to deploy a massive military-grade fifth generation propaganda and psy-ops campaign on their own citizens, enforcing medical treatment with protocols which clearly lead to widespread slaughter of elderly and other vulnerable populations, and working to destroy the reputations and livelihood of anyone so bold as to question their ‘Scientism” based on substitution of hope for data, please keep the silent dead and silenced vaccine injured in your mind.
These are the people that have paid the ultimate price for the mismanagement. These are the true victims. The hurt and widespread destruction of reputation and professional standards consequent to what has been done to myself and my colleagues will be tempered with the passage of time.
Innocence has been peeled away to the point where we may never be able to trust governments, our peers in the medical and scientific professions, or the corporate “press” again.
But who will be left to stand up and speak for the dead and the damaged?