What Jessica Rose and Kevin McKernan explain in this podcast will be startlingly new to many. For those who have read along on virusvaria in recent years, it is more of a déjà vu. It is what we saw in countless incidents: the reckless and denied Gain of Function research in Wuhan, the highly unlikely label leak according to experts, the safe & effective scam, the Deltavax soap, the apathetic response to myocarditis and thrombosis, the deterioration of science, the academic and editorial watchtowers for those who dared to think outside the narrative - to name a few. We have been seeing and describing it for about four years. But the podcast is enjoyable. From the atmosphere, the enthusiasm, the substantiation and the humor. The podcaster himself hardly speaks1The channel is called TFTC: “A media company focused on #Bitcoin, Freedom and Truth in the Digital Age. Truth for the Commoner” and has 88,000 followers..
Jessica Rose asks for wide distribution of this podcast. I would like to contribute. It lasts 1 hour and 45 minutes. If you just want an impression of what passes by, you can be done here in 10 minutes. Give the video on youtube Anyway, like and share!
What the podcast2From podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYMUx6XDbLQ What makes it so special is that this time the sound does not come from an insignificant blogger, but from within the biological/pharmaceutical complex. McKernan3Kevin MacKernan is an American molecular biologist and genetic analyst, known as a former research leader at the Human Genome Project and as founder of Medicinal Genomics. He gained international fame through independent genetic research into the purity of mRNA vaccines, in which he demonstrated the presence of DNA contaminants and other production residues. MacKernan advocates full transparency in biotechnological research and independent supervision of pharmaceutical quality control. zat in de biotech‑industrie (Illumina, Harvard/MIT, Long Read sequencing labs). Rose4Dr. Jessica Rose is a Canadian biostatistician and computational biologist with expertise in immunology, virology and data analytics. She became known for her analyzes of vaccine safety data (including VAERS) and her publications on signaling side effects in large-scale datasets. Rose combines scientific rigor with activism for open data, peer review integrity, and free academic discussion of public health. was in the academy/government world (university research network, authorized data sources).
That makes it uncomfortable for the established order. You would say that this could no longer be covered up with good decency. Their findings trigger the same reflex as when Lareb, EMA and CDC nonchalantly first laughed away the thrombosis risks in 2021 and later myocarditis in young people and much more later. With the following repeat: “no causal relationship has been established”, “correlations interpreted cautiously”, “the figures are still too small”, “it is only in vitro”, “the unsafety has never been scientifically proven”. The good formulas with which science now protects itself against what conscience dictates.
Just as draconian measures and vaccination blackmail had polarization as a side effect, the effects of the vaccination campaigns appear to reveal another side effect: institutional self-preservation.
Stability or truth-finding?
For the government, stability takes precedence over truth-finding. There is something to be said for that because a collapse of society is of no use to anyone, you could say.
At the same time, neglecting reality also encourages corruption, errors, data manipulation, malleable science, censorship - which only increases the chance of a failure such as the corona response being repeated. It is either that, or it disqualifies the pillars on which our society is built: reliability of governments, independence of institutions, data-driven science, critical and vigilant media, fair and just judges, an O.M. that does not chase verbal opponents as if they were criminals and doctors who are well versed in their profession and put the doctor-patient relationship above protocols.
Do we really want to conclude that this was just a beautiful fairy tale? And was that only after 2020?
Or was there also the scientist before that who refuses to see what his own data says, because that data threatens his career? The journal editor who places a paper under “investigation” because otherwise the financier will call. The politics that classifies datasets as “internal deliberation”, so that nothing can be calculated. And the court that bureaucratically supports everything that comes from above with legal mantras, so that doctors who are hounded by the inspection do not have to count on leniency, let alone justice. Truth seekers and honest scientists who are canceled and prosecuted - just to keep the peace.
How do you measure that peace, that stability, that trust, that gullibility? A good barometer for this is the willingness to vaccinate. So it has to increase, whether that is healthy or not.
“It's strange to do something normal – research – and then suddenly be a pariah.”
Jessica Rose
Virus pariah. That word connects everything from Claire Craig's data prosecution in London to the prosecuted doctors and the Biomedical Audit Chamber here in the Netherlands, which finds that even anonymous figures on mortality after vaccination are treated as a state secret.
Denial, fragmentation, legalization, blackening, amending laws. And when all that stops working (and it will, thanks to data from abroad), they will try to hide behind: “It's easy for you to talk with today's knowledge.”
Despite all the timely warnings, studies and blogs on all those platforms, with publication dates verifiable on the various internet archive pages, and despite the WOO documents proving otherwise, they will still say: “We really didn't know that at the time”.
The echo of previous files
The podcast resonates with this blog. To name a few things: you will recognize the “Hidden Argument Salad” surrounding the Deltavax data: the fallacies that prevent data transparency. The “useful idiots” of the academic complex who passed by here: scientists who think they are defending science while exchanging it for reputation management. The courage of academics such as (in addition to countless non-academics, with apologies to whom I am forgetting here): Bram Bakker, Theo Schetters, Willem, Ronald Meester and Jona Walk, who broke open the taboo on vaccine criticism within the medical circuit. The HART letter about child mortality, which fell on deaf ears. And of course the Gain-of-Function experiments in under-secure BSL-2 labs, a leak of which was later widely dismissed as “unlikely” and “Ron did it – hahaha”.
What is always missing is not the evidence - there is plenty of it - but the mechanism that ensures that the evidence gains meaning in society. The scientific infrastructure that should achieve exactly this is now used for delay, obfuscation and framing. Those who want to publish factual findings are accused of disinformation by the same groups that control the journals with their funds.
Peer review is used as a weapon. “Scientific integrity” and “trust in science” have come to mean the opposite of what they stood for. Integrity then means: not getting in anyone's way. Trust means: don't ask questions.
The forgotten crucial component: the media
Jessica and Kevin discuss defense and attack tactics within science journals, but in my opinion they forget the distribution channels that should 'popularize' scientific knowledge: journalism, the media. I also notice this in conversations with academics: scientists really think that data will automatically reveal the truth and thus influence public opinion. Unfortunately, this really requires the large, public 'quality' media and of course the talk shows that succeed in bringing established top experts to the table: the Ab Osterhauzen of this country. After all, they know the most about it. It will be clear: if alert, critical journalists do not pick up the innovative data themselves, the disruptive message will never reach the general public.
Now that science journalists are stooping to lies, deceit and hit pieces to ward off unwelcome knowledge, we are even further from home. We already saw examples of this in NRC in 2020 and 20215Search by tag: NRC, Fidelity6Fidelity over aerosols and especially the Volkskrant7About some of the many lies and gaslighting in De Volkskrant. And that actually includes all newspapers of the DPG group, which is supported with millions by the EU. The EU is very committed to “supporting democratic quality journalism”, “digital transition”, “support for audiovisual innovation”. Established media conglomerates can partly consolidate their influence as a result.
The public is thus primed at an early stage to recognize all narrative-undermining data as 'disinformation' or 'Russian': that is everything that does not come with the stamp of the large, reliable media, including quality newspapers. Quality newspapers that are based on “peer reviewed” studies from the major journals – and then the circle is complete again.
If public opinion has been massaged into that position, there is no reason for the average career politician to cut corners among his own supporters. And don't forget: doctors, the bar and the magistracy also consume quality media.
Without media conformity, the entire “scientific consensus” would never have been credible.
We also thank the US for that
From the moment the Pfizer logos appeared between news items in America, the basic journalistic rule of thumb disappeared - follow the money – completely out of the picture. New “discoveries” such as the Marschalek paper on thrombosis only became newsworthy if they were politically useful: then it was suddenly called “breakthrough research” because it could serve as a lightning rod for much larger problems. But as soon as the opposite – insecurity, immune disruption, or mortality rates – came into focus, equally valid evidence was repackaged under the label “not supported by sufficient evidence.”
The media became instrumental in the propaganda chain as facilitating parties.
Information, government communication and journalistic reporting were strikingly parallel. News editors often literally copied the wording from EMA or RIVM press releases without looking at the data, while the same platforms also received advertising revenue from ministerial and pharmaceutical campaigns. They called statistical excesses “incidents” and moralized the doubts. In this way, support was created for policy without there ever having to be a substantive democratic debate. People were already primed8Read Jan Bennink about it reclaiming an already occupied “brain position”.
It's the old trick of power systems: Prepare opinion, prepare the way, ensure that criticism can only exist within the channels you control.
Ursula von der Leyen is now paving the way for psyops with her new term “pre-bunking” with the population who she says completely agree with her9The beautiful appearance of de Eurobarometer. Goebbels was actually seen that way fucking cool, to speak with Nick Fuentes.
Untying the Gordian Knot
In the podcast they say it between the lines: the narrative can no longer be maintained. New structures must be created – on Nostr, on Bitcoin, whatever – to take science out of the hands of authorities again. This is about more than just technology.
It is the necessary reintroduction of truth-finding.
Outside the Netherlands, the first cracks will become evident. NL is too compact, too small, too neat, too sealed, vacuumed and sealed, with an incompetent and lame parliament. Us knows us, in those few square kilometers. The scientific reserve is impenetrably fenced. So the truth will again come from outside, as has always been the case until now.
It's no longer the question of one knew what one was doing, but how one will find the courage to admit that one knew it. How the media will be expelled if they don't admit guilt.
And then people will still say: “yes, with the knowledge of that time.” But that knowledge was there – just not for those who didn't want to see it.
Read what they Jessica and Kevin discuss in the summary10Summary: a overall timeline of the conversation, and what explanations and solutions they propose or view podcast.
References
- 1The channel is called TFTC: “A media company focused on #Bitcoin, Freedom and Truth in the Digital Age. Truth for the Commoner” and has 88,000 followers.
- 2From podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYMUx6XDbLQ
- 3Kevin MacKernan is an American molecular biologist and genetic analyst, known as a former research leader at the Human Genome Project and as founder of Medicinal Genomics. He gained international fame through independent genetic research into the purity of mRNA vaccines, in which he demonstrated the presence of DNA contaminants and other production residues. MacKernan advocates full transparency in biotechnological research and independent supervision of pharmaceutical quality control.
- 4Dr. Jessica Rose is a Canadian biostatistician and computational biologist with expertise in immunology, virology and data analytics. She became known for her analyzes of vaccine safety data (including VAERS) and her publications on signaling side effects in large-scale datasets. Rose combines scientific rigor with activism for open data, peer review integrity, and free academic discussion of public health.
- 5Search by tag: NRC
- 6
- 7About some of the many lies and gaslighting in De Volkskrant
- 8Read Jan Bennink about it reclaiming an already occupied “brain position”
- 9The beautiful appearance of de Eurobarometer
- 10
Nice piece Anton!
"It's the old trick of power systems: Prepare opinion, prepare the way, ensure that criticism can only exist within the channels you control."
The Overton window, beautifully described by Cees van den Bos in:
https://bomenenbos.substack.com/p/regeringsbeleid-gestuurd-door-het
The “courageous academic” Willem has shown that some of the Covid deaths must be attributed to something else and no longer even believes in the “Covid spaghetti monster.” We don't have to worry too much about a virus that only kills fat diabetic octogenarians.
Just like for the coronavirus, there is a zoonotic theory for HIV (from African monkeys to gays in San Francisco and New York: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS), a lab leak theory (spread via a hepatitis B vaccine: https://rense.com/general61/outof.htm) and a virus fabrication theory (hepatitis B vaccinees test positive on meaningless HIV test: https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/mcinterviewsl.htm).
The official theory is, at first glance, the most implausible. What have those gays done with African monkeys, you might wonder? The last theory is currently the most likely of the three. After all, the predicted slaughter among heterosexuals has not materialized. Very few of them will worry about HIV anymore.
The virus fabrication theory is also the only one that has the great advantage that even promiscuous gays and fat diabetic octogenarians no longer have to worry about possible infection.
Not a hair better actually than in Russia or China...
All this reminds me of Swift who (if I remember correctly) also lived in a society (18th century England) where a lot depended on socially accepted truths, and which he mocked in his trip to LaPuta (what's in a name): island where science was so highly exalted that the island floated, the population lived in miserable conditions thanks to that science, and the only form of social interaction took place through so-called 'flappers' = media, flappers that the main character did not need, or did not think he needed, which led to serious misunderstandings.
Human behavior… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p0mRIhK9se