What the fuck is that?? https://t.co/eO13Phb3t6
— BerningMama420🌿 (@berningmama412) January 15, 2023
Archives
All posts for the day January 15th, 2023
“You idiot” Dr. Fukushima calls the Ministry of Health
Russia’s triumph over the scourge of Nazi-infested Ukraine was certain from day one of its liberating SMO.
By Stephen LENDMAN
January 14, 2023
What hegemon USA created, Russia is systematically annihilating.
And there’s nothing that the empire of lies and its Western vassals can do to change the course of history.
In challenging Russia militarily, they bit off more than they can chew and swallow.
Russia is a preeminent military power, China heading in the same direction — while the US-dominated West is in decline.
The battle to demilitarize and NeNazify Ukraine is proceeding as planned.
Russia’s liberation of Soledar assures deNazification of Artyomovsk to follow.
These triumphs hasten the end of Nazi occupation throughout Donbass, Zaporozhye, Kherson, Kharkov and demise of the US-created Ukraine monster overall.
Yet the collective West and its MSM co-conspirators can’t bear to admit what’s indisputable.
According to NYT fake news, “Ukraine denied the claim that Soledar” was liberated from Nazified occupation.
And this from the UK’s owned and controlled disseminator of state-approved propaganda, the BBC.
Defying reality on the ground, its so-called “reality check team (sic)” falsely claimed the following, saying:
“Russia has not taken a key town or city in Ukraine for months (sic), despite intense efforts to achieve military gains (sic).”
“Ukraine’s (US-installed puppet) is adamant (in falsely claiming that Russia is) not succeeding in (its) push to capture” Soledar.
Like other Western instruments of state-approved propaganda, the beeb can’t bring itself to admit that Russia liberated Soledar from the scourge of Nazified occupation.
Nor can US-installed puppet Zelensky, falsely pretending that the battle for Soledar continues despite its liberation by Russia.
Commander of Russia’s Troy volunteer special forces unit, Vladimir Novikov, explained the following:
Zaporozhye and Dnepropetrovsk hospitals are overflowing with wounded regime troops from the battle for Soledar alone.
The regime suffered huge losses of its “most capable forces,” including its elite 46th airmobile brigade — wiped out by superior Russian firepower.
By its own admission, Ukraine lost 14 battalions of troops in its futile defense of Soledar.
How many more cannon fodder troops will be lost in the futile attempt to prevent Russian liberation of Artyomovsk and other Nazi-occupied parts of Donbass?
According to analyst Larry Johnson:
Soledar’s liberation “means that (Artyomovsk) is expected to fall under Russian control in the next few days.”
“Russian forces are moving from the South, the North and the East and are creating a potential cauldron that will leave Ukrainian soldiers in (the city) surrounded.”
Separately in its latest fake news edition, the Times, like other MSM, reported the following perversion of reality, falsely claiming:
“Russia replaced the general in charge of its trouble-plagued war against Ukraine (sic), amid signs of dissension among President Putin’s top allies (sic) — a shake-up that critics (sic) said would not address what ails the Russian military (sic).”
Reality check:
On Wednesday, Russian Defense Minister, Sergei Shoigu, announced the following:
“Chief of the General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov has been appointed as commander of the integrated group of troops (forces).”
“His deputies are: Commander-in-Chief of the Aerospace Forces Army General Sergey Surovikin, Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces Army General Oleg Salyukov, and Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Colonel-General Alexey Kim.”
“The higher level of military command in the special military operation is related to the broader scope of missions tackled in its course and need to organize closer coordination between military branches and services of the armed forces and also the increased quality of all types of logistics support and efficiency in command and control of the groups of troops.”
No change of command occurred because of Surovikin’s performance as commander of Russia’s integrated SMO forces.
It’s been exemplary.
The above-explained command restructuring likely signals a major Russian escalation ahead as part of an overarching aim to slay the made-in-the-USA Ukraine monster.
With Surovikin in charge of Russia’s Aerospace Forces, Russian airpower will likely play a greater role ahead.
Gerasimov is a brilliant strategist and tactician.
Ukraine’s military commander, Valery Zaluzhny, praised his expertise, saying:
“I read everything he wrote.”
“He is the most intelligent of men, and my expectations of him were enormous.”
He “learned from Gerasimov.”
Increased Russian naval operations may be coming.
On Wednesday, Russian warships, including submarines, left their Black Sea base — most likely toward positions to strike Ukrainian targets.
At the same time, Russia increased its military presence in Belarus.
Because of what’s going on, Gerasimov was put in charge of coordinating Russian forces ahead of a likely major escalation of war on Ukraine to follow.
Whether it’s to slay the US-created Ukraine monster more quickly or methodically continue to grind it down daily remains to be seen.
Either way, there’s no ambiguity about how things will turn out.
Russia’s triumph over the scourge of Nazi-infested Ukraine was certain from day one of its liberating SMO.
Published: January 15, 2023
In a “national consultation”, the Hungarian government asked Hungarians about the sanctions against Russia. Some 97 percent of the participants voted against the sanctions. The government regards the result as “indicative”.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is one of the harshest critics of sanctions against Russia. He saw this confirmed by the most recent survey in Hungary.
The results of the survey are “pointing the way”, said government spokeswoman Alexandra Szentkirályi on Facebook. It should also be heard in Brussels. The embassy is clearly in favor of a reassessment of the sanctions.
The Hungarian government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán repeatedly holds “national consultations” in which votes can be mailed or sent online. However, the surveys have no legally binding consequences.
Questions about sanctions with regard to energy sources, raw materials, tourism, inflation
This time, Hungarians were asked if they agree with EU sanctions against Russia on energy, raw materials and nuclear fuel rods. The referendum also dealt with the consequences of the sanctions policy for tourism and the rise in food prices due to the sanctions.
Orbán’s opponents have long considered the questions suggestive, manipulative and misleading. They claim that in practice, only answers in favor of the government were allowed. Eight million people are entitled to vote in Hungary and 1,4 million citizens took part in the vote.
Critics also pointed out that Hungary had actually agreed to all EU sanctions packages against Russia so far.
Last year, in October, the government launched a campaign against the EU’s policy: “Sanctions from Brussels are destroying us!” they warned in reference to multiple rounds of measures targeting Russia.
Orbán justified the appointment of the consultation at the end of September 2022 with sharp criticism of the sanctions: “The sanctions were not decided in a democratic manner, but Brussels bureaucrats and European elites decided on them.”
Hungary alone not strong enough to take on Brussels
In an interview with Radio Kossuth, Orbán explained: “Hungary’s strength is not enough for that, and so mine is by definition. One thing I can do is to try to stop the damage, to say that this is going to be a problem, where we feel that the Hungarian national interest is being fundamentally harmed, we veto there, we stand up for Hungary there, we don’t allow it, but we don’t know how to change, to set the sanctions policy on a different track.”
He said this would simply require a political decision to be made in Brussels. The courage to counter Brussels also exists, he added. “Here we are, for example, or me personally, only this is of no importance, because in order for this to change, for this brave opinion to have consequences, it would have to be a German or a French person who are strong enough to be able to change the position of the entire union.”
Orbán underscored that if the sanctions were to be lifted, “the price of energy would drop in no time and the general price level, i.e. inflation, would immediately be halved with it – so the rate of inflation would be reduced by at least half, but maybe even more”.
He said that unfortunately, the sanctions policy would continue in Brussels: “We will introduce sanctions, which will turn out not to work. Behind this, there is another culture shock that affects us Hungarians. It’s about the Germans. I grew up always being told at home that the German is right! The German is precise, the engineer, he calculates, he doesn’t rush, he knows what he’s doing.
“Now I’m looking at what they’re doing, the Brussels committee has a German president, these sanctions are being imposed, and they’re not fully calculated from a professional point of view. So, our belief in the crisis management ability of the Germans, stemming from German engineering precision, has decreased significantly in the past period.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/how-can-we-trust-institutions-lied
BY TYLER DURDEN
SATURDAY, JAN 14, 2023
Authored by Abir Ballan via The Brownstone Institute,
Trust the Authorities, trust the Experts, and trust the Science, we were told.
Public health messaging during the Covid-19 pandemic was only credible if it originated from government health authorities, the World Health Organization, and pharmaceutical companies, as well as scientists who parroted their lines with little critical thinking.
In the name of ‘protecting’ the public, the authorities have gone to great lengths, as described in the recently released Twitter Files (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) that document collusion between the FBI and social media platforms, to create an illusion of consensus about the appropriate response to Covid-19.
They suppressed ‘the truth,’ even when emanating from highly credible scientists, undermining scientific debate and preventing the correction of scientific errors. In fact, an entire bureaucracy of censorship has been created, ostensibly to deal with so-called MDM— misinformation (false information resulting from human error with no intention of harm); disinformation (information intended to mislead and manipulate); malinformation (accurate information intended to harm).
From fact-checkers like NewsGuard, to the European Commission’s Digital Services Act, the UK Online Safety Bill and the BBC Trusted News Initiative, as well as Big Tech and social media, all eyes are on the public to curtail their ‘mis-/dis-information.’
“Whether it’s a threat to our health or a threat to our democracy, there is a human cost to disinformation.” — Tim Davie, Director-General of the BBC
But is it possible that ‘trusted’ institutions could pose a far bigger threat to society by disseminating false information?
Although the problem of spreading false information is usually conceived of as emanating from the public, during the Covid-19 pandemic, governments, corporations, supranational organisations and even scientific journals and academic institutions have contributed to a false narrative.
Falsehoods such as ‘Lockdowns save lives’ and ‘No one is safe until everyone is safe’ have far-reaching costs in livelihoods and lives. Institutional false information during the pandemic was rampant. Below is just a sample by way of illustration.
The health authorities falsely convinced the public that the Covid-19 vaccines stop infection and transmission when the manufacturers never even tested these outcomes. The CDC changed its definition of vaccination to be more ‘inclusive’ of the novel mRNA technology vaccines. Instead of the vaccines being expected to produce immunity, now it was good enough to produce protection.
The authorities also repeated the mantra (at 16:55) of ‘safe and effective’ throughout the pandemic despite emerging evidence of vaccine harm. The FDA refused the full release of documents they had reviewed in 108 days when granting the vaccines emergency use authorisation. Then in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, it attempted to delay their release for up to 75 years. These documents presented evidence of vaccine adverse events. It’s important to note that between 50 and 96 percent of the funding of drug regulatory agencies around the world comes from Big Pharma in the form of grants or user fees. Can we disregard that it’s difficult to bite the hand that feeds you?
The vaccine manufacturers claimed high levels of vaccine efficacy in terms of relative risk reduction (between 67 and 95 percent). They failed, however, to share with the public the more reliable measure of absolute risk reduction that was only around 1 percent, thereby exaggerating the expected benefit of these vaccines.
They also claimed “no serious safety concerns observed” despite their own post-authorisation safety report revealing multiple serious adverse events, some lethal. The manufacturers also failed to publicly address the immune suppression during the two weeks post-vaccination and the rapidly waning vaccine effectiveness that turns negative at 6 months or the increased risk of infection with each additional booster. Lack of transparency about this vital information denied people their right to informed consent.
They also claimed that natural immunity is not protective enough and that hybrid immunity (a combination of natural immunity and vaccination) is required. This false information was necessary to sell remaining stocks of their products in the face of mounting breakthrough cases (infection despite vaccination).
In reality, although natural immunity may not completely prevent future infection with SARS-CoV-2, it is however effective in preventing severe symptoms and deaths. Thus vaccination post-natural infection is not needed.
The WHO also participated in falsely informing the public. It disregarded its own pre-pandemic plans, and denied that lockdowns and masks are ineffective at saving lives and have a net harm on public health. It also promoted mass vaccination in contradiction to the public health principle of ‘interventions based on individual needs.’
It also went as far as excluding natural immunity from its definition of herd immunity and claimed that only vaccines can help reach this end point. This was later reversed under pressure from the scientific community. Again, at least 20 percent of the WHO’s funding comes from Big Pharma and philanthropists invested in pharmaceuticals. Is this a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune?
The Lancet, a respectable medical journal, published a paper claiming that Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) — a repurposed drug used for the treatment of Covid-19 — was associated with a slight increased risk of death. This led the FDA to ban the use of HCQ to treat Covid-19 patients and the NIH to halt the clinical trials on HCQ as a potential Covid-19 treatment. These were drastic measures taken on the basis of a study that was later retracted due to the emergence of evidence showing that the data used was false.
In another instance, the medical journal Current Problems in Cardiology retracted —without any justification— a paper showing an increased risk of myocarditis in young people following the Covid-19 vaccines, after it was peer-reviewed and published. The authors advocated for the precautionary principle in the vaccination of young people and called for more pharmacovigilance studies to assess the safety of the vaccines. Erasing such findings from the medical literature not only prevents science from taking its natural course, but it also gatekeeps important information from the public.
A similar story took place with Ivermectin, another drug used for the treatment of Covdi-19, this time potentially implicating academia. Andrew Hill stated (at 5:15) that the conclusion of his paper on Ivermectin was influenced by Unitaid which is, coincidentally, the main funder of a new research centre at Hill’s workplace —the University of Liverpool. His meta-analysis showed that Ivermectin reduced mortality with Covid-19 by 75 percent. Instead of supporting Ivermectin use as a Covid-19 treatment, he concluded that further studies were needed.
The suppression of potentially life-saving treatments was instrumental for the emergency use authorization of the Covid-19 vaccines as the absence of a treatment for the disease is a condition for EUA (p.3).
Many media outlets are also guilty of sharing false information. This was in the form of biased reporting, or by accepting to be a platform for public relations (PR) campaigns. PR is an innocuous word for propaganda or the art of sharing information to influence public opinion in the service of special interest groups.
The danger of PR is that it passes for independent journalistic opinion to the untrained eye. PR campaigns aim to sensationalise scientific findings, possibly to increase consumer uptake of a given therapeutic, increase funding for similar research, or to increase stock prices. The pharmaceutical companies spent $6.88 billion on TV advertisements in 2021 in the US alone. Is it possible that this funding influenced media reporting during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Lack of integrity and conflicts of interest have led to an unprecedented institutional false information pandemic. It is up to the public to determine whether the above are instances of mis- or dis-information.
Public trust in the Media has seen its biggest drop over the last five years. Many are also waking up to the widespread institutional false information. The public can no longer trust ‘authoritative’ institutions that were expected to look after their interests. This lesson was learned at great cost. Many lives were lost due to the suppression of early treatment and an unsound vaccination policy; businesses ruined; jobs destroyed; educational achievement regressed; poverty aggravated; and both physical and mental health outcomes worsened. A preventable mass disaster.
We have a choice: either we continue to passively accept institutional false information or we resist. What are the checks and balances that we must put in place to reduce conflicts of interest in public health and research institutions? How can we decentralise the media and academic journals in order to reduce the influence of pharmaceutical advertising on their editorial policy?
As individuals, how can we improve our media literacy to become more critical consumers of information? There is nothing that dispels false narratives better than personal inquiry and critical thinking. So the next time conflicted institutions cry woeful wolf or vicious variant or catastrophic climate, we need to think twice.
Tales from the Conspiratum 
