A brief note before the main content for this report: since last publishing to this site I have been occupied with preparing a long and detailed series of articles which will begin to appear here within a few more weeks. Articles posted here will deal with the so-called “pandemic” from a perspective rooted in Political Anthropology. While this site appears to be quiet in the meantime, we are quite busy every single day on our Telegram Channel, which features short essays, blog-like commentaries, reports, extracts from books and journal articles, and key documentary resources—mostly devoted to the various facets of this ongoing “pandemic”.

Thursday, July 29, 2021 was Day #1 of an online international and interdisciplinary symposium organized by Doctors for Covid Ethics. The symposium is titled, “Call for Immediate Intervention: Gold Standard Covid Science in Practice” (full program PDF, flyer PDF), and the five hour period for the first day was divided into two sessions: “Session 1: The False Pandemic,” and “Session 2: The Going Direct Reset”. For those interested in watching Day 2 live, the event is livestreamed on UKColumn (for North Americans, the event starts at Noon, Eastern Standard Time). Those who missed Day 1, and would like to view the recording, it is available below and on Rumble.

This event represents some of the key science, and scientists, censored, suppressed, de-platformed, and marginalized by those dominating the authoritarian system that is currently being expanded. In other words, it was very refreshing to hear from them.

What were the shortcomings? The first day, particularly the first session, was plagued with some really awful technical disorganization, leading one speaker to apparently walk away from the event. The second session, involving speakers in the US, was considerably better and almost flawless by contrast. The natural scientists in the first session sometimes forgot that they were not speaking to disciplinary colleagues, and as a result the language, the graphs, the diagrams, and the explanations were almost impenetrable—this was made worse by their launching into extended descriptions without any opening thesis statement, nor a conclusion. It was really left to patient and attentive listeners to salvage what was best. Otherwise, the sessions were loaded with useful and important information, and many valuable insights.

Session 1: The False Pandemic

Appropriately, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi (Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology and Immunology and Former Chair of the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Johannes at Gutenberg University of Mainz) opened with sombre commentary about the current war against scientists, with many individuals losing status, reputations, incomes, possessions, and friends. Those who dare to dissent against the kind of science being sold/force-fed to an unknowing public, are up against a power that is awesome: fear. Being a basic survival mechanism, fear is a force that defies rational challenges. Dr. Bhakdi noted that Day 1 would essentially review what we have learned over the past year, focusing on “a staggering array of blatant untruths”. Indeed, there are so many of these untruths that the speakers could only scratch the surface and clearly each one had much more to say.

“The SARS-CoV-2 Genome: Evidence of its Artificial Origin” saw Dr. Michael Palmer (Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Waterloo, Canada) introducing Session 1 with some especially pointed comments: the Covid-19 virus was designed in a lab. There is a one in 24 million chance that it was the product of natural evolution. This virus was, from the very start, made to bind perfectly with human receptors. In fact the virus contains multiple mutations, not found in nature, that make it especially adept at binding with human cell receptors. The virus’ natural lineage is fictitious and is the basis for some of the fraudulent science that has come to dominate mainstream literature.

“The Laboratory Pandemic” by Professor Ulrike Kämmerer (a molecular virologist and immunologist, and an Associate Professor of Experimental Reproductive Immunology and Tumor Biology at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Germany), was one of the more empirically dense presentations. The essence of it was that for the PCR method commonly in use, there is no intact virus or complete viral genome that is analyzed, but just a segment of RNA. In other words, the “test” cannot tell us if the virus is active and can replicate. Speaking of the (infamous) Corman-Drosten paper used as the basis for PCR “testing” for Covid-19, Dr. Kämmerer explained that it was poorly designed, filled with mistakes, and would inevitably produce false positives. Early on, the majority of test results would have been false given the deeply flawed design. The PCR method, she noted, cannot be used to classify persons as infectious. In general, she found that the PCR method is not useful for testing purposes for this disease. (The CDC would seem to now be in agreement, given that it is pulling RT-PCR tests at the end of this year.)

“The False Pandemic” by Dr. Denis Rancourt (former Full Professor of Physics at the University of Ottawa and currently researcher at the Ontario Civil Liberties Association and a member scientist at Pandemics Data and Analysis [PANDA]), was perhaps one of the more memorable and penetrating presentations for the day. Before ascribing any death to Covid-19, autopsies were needed—but were not usually done. Dr. Rancourt noted that pandemics should cause between five and 50 times the normal number of deaths when compared to the kinds of viruses that are normally in circulation, but we saw no such rise in mortality during this “pandemic”. (Of course the WHO changed its definition of “pandemic” in time for the last non-pandemic pandemic, H1N1, in 2009, removing severity of illness as a key benchmark.)When looking at all-cause mortality, Denis Rancourt found that it was not exceptionally high, as would be expected once a pandemic has swept through a population. Dying with or from Covid-19 thus entered the discussion. That is why we need to examine all-cause mortality, Rancourt explained, because there has been a clear bias in attributing causes of death to Covid-19. The case of Portugal was raised, and a court finding that only 0.9% of verified cases of those dead with Covid-19 infection, actually died from the disease which dramatically dropped the Covid-19 death toll to a statistically negligible number. Rancourt noted that in some US states, there were sharp peaks in mortality (otherwise absent in about 30 US states), and the reason for that he felt was due to a “war against people”: severe restrictions, lockdowns, job losses, and increases in suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, and so forth. In socio-economic terms, the majority of workers in North America today have been reduced to the conditions that were found immediately after the end of World War II.

Speaking of the Canadian case, Dr. Rancourt argued that fear, as propagated by governments and the media, kept many nursing home workers away from their jobs. The result was an extensive range of deaths in nursing homes caused by severe neglect (with numerous cases of starvation and dehydration among very frail residents). They were denied antibiotics. Their deaths were then attributed to Covid-19. The Canadian military, called in to staff nursing homes in Quebec and Ontario, produced some scathing reports of the situations they encountered.

Finally, in line with Dr. Rancourt’s recurring theme of a “false pandemic,” he noted that a pandemic normally would respect no borders or boundaries, and yet outcomes during this past year were highly uneven geographically. This “pandemic” was very jurisdictional, with differences found between neighbouring counties, or even within counties.

In “The Power of Masks” we watched a conversation between Dr. Josef Thoma (a specialist in ear, nose and throat medicine) and Professor Martin Haditsch (a specialist in hygiene and microbiology and in microbiology, virology, epidemiology/infectious diseases and tropical medicine). Professor Haditsch performed in the role of moderator during Session 1, asking each presenter very useful and highly productive questions. In this conversation, Dr. Thoma presented research that found it was harmful to mask young children: the carbon dioxide content inhaled as a result of masks worn by young children was significantly higher than for adults. The amount of carbon dioxide was found to be clinically significant—exceedingly high after just three minutes of wearing a mask. Not surprisingly then, 68% of 25,000 children surveyed in Germany complained of regularly suffering symptoms such as recurring headaches, nausea, and anxiety. In the conversation, Dr. Thoma and Prof. Haditsch commented on how papers that went against mainstream prescriptions pushed by governments, were regularly rejected, or published and then retracted. Dr. Thoma observed that there has been a complete “breakdown in scientific discourse”. Political barriers, and the maintenance of such barriers, is what now passes for peer review. This leads us to understand that this “pandemic” is not so much a medical one, as one that is political.

“The Powerless Doctors” involved Dr. Sam White (a UK-based General Practitioner whose license was suspended by the NHS in 2021 after he spoke out about the official lies surrounding Covid-19), Dr. Thomas Binder (a Swiss specialist in cardiology and internal medicine with 32 years experience in diagnosis and treatment of acute respiratory illness), Dr. Charles Hoffe (a practising physician in British Columbia for 28 years, he faced disciplinary measures for writing a letter to the provincial public health officer detailing vaccine-related injuries he witnessed in his patients) and Prof. Martin Haditsch again. This was easily the most hair-raising part of the day’s proceedings. Listening to their personal accounts really brought the notion of a “war against scientists” to life.

Dr. White criticized the indiscriminate use of the PCR method to test people, in the absence of any clinical diagnosis—a point on which even the WHO cautioned health practitioners. White also objected to the pairing of lockdowns and vaccination—as if no other courses of action are even remotely thinkable. The implication of his argument is that as “vaccines” fail, as they are doing now, then that reopens the door to further lockdowns (and, we could add, as Covid-19 mutates into forms that evade all vaccines, then that creates the prospect of permanent forms of locking down). Dr. White also pointed out that in the UK (as in Canada), the sale of Ivermectin is actively restricted by the authorities—even if one can find a doctor with the courage to dissent from the governing norms who would be willing to write a prescription, Ivermectin is subject to “special order” and is thus very expensive. Dr. White strongly condemned the lack of informed consent in the the “vaccination” program, when informed consent is a right enshrined in law. To be able to give informed consent, one must be made aware of not just benefits, but the full range of risks (which means studies must be completed), and the range of alternatives. Otherwise, the process is an illegal one.

Dr. Thomas Binder’s case was the most alarming, involving both his arrest and being forced to undergo psychiatric treatment over public posts he wrote condemning the official narrative about Covid-19. All of his online accounts were shut down as well. He has not been silenced, however: he continues to speak out against the unscientific, and non-medical narrative that the authorities have produced around Covid-19. He was thus critical of the preeminence in the formation of this narrative of journalists, politicians, and even lab technicians—people without any experience treating patients with respiratory problems.

Dr. Charles Hoffe’s comments were particularly illuminating, especially about the repression visited on medical scientists across Canada this year. Dr. Hoffe was publicly reprimanded for expressing ethical concerns over the incidence of harm from the experimental “vaccines”. He has also advocated for natural immunity, because it is long-lasting, broad, and can meet any variant (whereas the injectables in the marketplace are made to address one primary strain, the original Covid-19). He was suspended from practising in hospitals for being “anti-vaccine,” but he still practises privately (meaning that he has suffered a 50% drop in income). He is currently under investigation by the British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, which he is fighting against with a legal team. Meanwhile, all doctors in the province have been ordered not to contradict the Public Health Office. In other words, doctors are being commanded—with the threat of severe penalties—to follow politics, and not science. The prevailing politics are anti-free speech, and anti-science. While the majority of Dr. Hoffe’s colleagues have been cowed into submission, Dr. Hoffe refuses to be silenced. He was emphatic that the Hippocratic Oath instructs medical practitioners to do no harm—and it is this oath that is being roundly violated by current Public Health directives. Under current conditions, Dr. Hoffe noted, informed consent has been made impossible.

Dr. Hoffe also pointed out that the current injectable treatments have already killed tens of thousands worldwide—according to officially released data—but that in the past even 50 deaths would have been sufficient for getting a vaccine cancelled (as happened with the US swine flu vaccine in 1976). Now it seems that no number of deaths, not to mention many more that have already been injured, is now enough to stop injections. Dr. Hoffe personally has nine patients who have been disabled by the Moderna mRNA medical product.

Dr. Hoffe also had some critically important findings to share: studies he has done with consenting patients of his found that D-dimer levels (indicating the presence of blood clots), were elevated immediately following injection, in 62% of his injected patients. Those affected had thus developed microvascular blood clotting as a result of receiving one of the dominant Covid-19 “vaccines”. He noted that most doctors in Canada are simply unaware of this, and thus do not perform their own D-dimer tests on their patients.

Hoffe condemned the media for terrifying people. He urged us not to ignore natural immunity. He specifically objected to the widespread practice of testing people for Covid-19, and sending those testing positive back home, without any treatment, to wait until they may literally turn blue. (This was precisely what happened to a relative of mine: he tested positive, was forced to isolate at home—which spread Covid-19 to his entire family—and only once his blood oxygen level had fallen below 80% was he admitted to hospital.)

Session 2: The “Going Direct” Reset

The second session focused primarily on the economic and financial pandemic. The session was smoothly and professionally chaired by Taylor Hudak, an independent journalist focusing on free speech, press freedoms, whistleblowing, and US foreign policy.

“The Going Direct Reset: The Pandemic is a Monetary Event” by John Titus (a lawyer focusing on Wall Street crime and cronyism in the financial system, and a co-producer and co-host of Money & Markets with Catherine Austin Fitts), brought to light information with which I personally was unfamiliar. My notes were not extensive, partly because I was too busy listening, and partly because I was exhausted by this point. The main thrust of his presentation was that the pandemic is being used as cover for a sweeping transformation of the financial system that aims at the complete global centralization of monetary control. The implications of such a system is that no person could buy anything, spend anything, or save any money without absolute surveillance by a central bank; in addition, taxes could be levied directly, assets could be seized with the greatest ease, and one could be stripped bare of all earnings and savings, if the authorities should so choose. In making his case, Titus pointed to an August 22, 2019, publication by the BlackRock Investment Institute, titled: “Dealing with the Next Downturn: From unconventional monetary policy to unprecedented policy coordination” (PDF also here). Titus also discussed the formation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) which would facilitate not just the distribution of retail money by a central bank such as the US Federal Reserve, but its tight control. Backing this program was the head of the Bank of International Settlements himself (BIS), Agustín Carstens (who discusses CBDCs in this video). Several BIS publications on the subject are available.

Continuing this theme, “UK Central Bankers & the Economic Drivers” was a discussion involving Professor Richard A. Werner (a professor in banking and finance), Catherine Austin Fitts (President of Solari, Inc., publisher of the Solari Report, and managing member of Solari Investment Advisory Services, LLC; she also served as managing director and member of the board of directors of the WallStreet investment bank Dillon, Read & Co. Inc., and was the Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in the Bush Administration, and was the president of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc.), and Taylor Hudak. Professor Werner’s contribution revolved around the total centralization of the monetary system, an agenda that has been accelerated during the “pandemic”. Austin Fitts said we should witness the leveraged buyout of assets as more money has poured into banks from the Federal Reserve, and a massive number of businesses have been shut down. She warned of an engineered poverty. Speakers also cautioned that “vaccine passports” would greatly expand digital centralization and control, creating a system where the authorities could seize personal assets on whatever pretext they choose.

Catherine Austin Fitts also signalled that the recession marking this past year, was strictly speaking an engineered one (it was made to happen, through active and deliberate decision-making). The point of an engineered recession would be to bring about structural reform of a system. Useful for the aims of those seeking to engineer a new system is to get millions of small and medium-sized enterprises and working people trapped in either debt, or trapped into dependency on financial relief from a state that is carving out more domains of exclusive control. Austin Fitts also made the point that governments have very little information sovereignty, and little monetary sovereignty, which means that powerful external interests have room for imposing themselves. What we have seen with this “pandemic,” Austin Fitts argued, is a coup d’état.

At this point we had seamlessly slipped into the closing panel discussions for the day, under the heading of “How to Decentralize Control”. Professor Werner, adding to Austin Fitts’ commentary, said that we are now seeing the rise of an excessive centralization, which opens the door to central planning and diminished personal freedoms. This is where Dr. Mark Skidmore entered (Skidmore is Professor of Economics at Michigan State University where he holds the Morris Chair in State and Local Government Finance and Policy). Skidmore focused on the social and economic aspects of lockdowns and related restrictions. He discussed the various types of capital that have been destroyed in the process—pausing to focus on the destruction of social capital which has been brought about by distancing, distrust, and fear.

Patrick Wood (an expert on Sustainable Development, the Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic technocracy, and author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation [2015]) provided one more scintillating presentation to the series for the day. He began by outlining the rise of technocracy as such, which he said was rooted in the Great Depression of the 1930s, with one of its key loci of conception being Columbia University. What technocracy then did was to rethink the economy as primarily and ultimately an energy-based system, thus rethinking economics in terms of resource bases. To govern and guide such an economic system, “science” was the key to controlling everything and everyone in a society. “Science” (or more accurately, scientism) is not just the calling card of technocracy, it is the basis for its theological dogma. Wood defined technocracy as “the science of social engineering”. As examples, Wood cited Christiana Figueres, chair of the UN’s Climate Change program, as calling for the world to “change the global economic model”; the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset”; G7 leaders simultaneously echoing “Build Back Better,” which was also Biden’s campaign slogan (after many others). The problem with “Build Back Better,” Wood argued, is that it has to first assume that there has been a campaign of scorched-earth destruction. It is the clearest possible expression of disaster capitalism.

Wood agreed that technocrats have staged a coup d’état under the cover of a pandemic. The primary weapon has been the calculated promotion of fear—building on global warming alarmism, and using computer models and their encoded biases to create an aura of scientific legitimacy. The end result is the formation of a “scientific dictatorship” with a plan for the inventory and control of all land, food, resources, etc.

John Titus entered the discussion again, targeting the arbitrary, capricious, and whimsical lockdowns that occurred, which only benefited the billionaire class—he too supported the argument that what has happened is a coup d’état. What we have known as the “rule of law” has been effectively abolished.

Professor Michael Palmer closed the proceedings for the day, repeating the classification of the events of the past year as constituting a false pandemic. To make the false pandemic more real, many scientists had to be censored, or punished and threatened until they were intimidated. Palmer pointed out again that, already at this stage, there have been tens of thousands of deaths from the injectables—and that is while the overwhelming majority of the world is still unvaccinated. Not only are the injectables not proven to be safe (in both the short-term and especially in the long-term), their efficacy is clearly being disproven.

Coming next: the proceedings for Day 2.