So, I had a long conversation with Jay Bhattacharya recently, about my prosecution for thoughtcrime Tweets, and the roll-out of the new global censorship apparatus, and all that kind of stuff. I went into some of the details of how the system works in Germany, and we talked about the role corporations like Twitter/X, Facebook, Google, YouTube, etc., play in that system. (Please note the “advisory” that YouTube has pasted onto the video in the image above.)
I’ll watch this when I have time, but are you aware of the fact that JB praised the Covid vaxx at least as late as Fall, 2021, well after VAERS data, and for those of us awake enough to watch our vaxxed friends and relatives began becoming sick or dying in serious numbers, had made it clear that the vaxx was a serious bioweapon? JB stated, in an interview with someone from the Hoover Institute, that the vaxx was very safe and that vaxxes in general were a fantastic step forward for humankind. No mention of the deleterious effects of vaxxes that is being hidden and suppressed by the parasites that be! I was prepared to fully support this “rebel Stanford professor”, until I realized he was just playing his role, whether assigned or whether he understood intuitively what was wanted of him if he wanted to continue his job, after the study he published showing that large numbers of people in Santa Clara county had, by April, 2020, been sick with “Covid”, whatever that was. Some time after that brought him to the dissident public’s attention, he swung around and helped get the vaxx into every arm. I don’t claim to be the final authority on Covid, but I do have the benefit of an MD background. You are wrong on your appraisal of JB, CJ!
Tom - I couldn't agree more. "JB stated, in an interview with someone from the Hoover Institute, that the vaxx was very safe and that vaxxes in general were a fantastic step forward for humankind." As a mother of four severely vaccine-injured adult children - one autistic, one who died, one with severe RA and one neurologically impaired - I can attest that NO vaccine is very safe for humankind!
JB not calling the poison shots "vaccines-in-name-only" showed he didn't want to step too far out of line from his Stanford paymasters. Poison will injure and kill the elderly, the middle aged and the young. Before 2020, I never gave vaccines in general a second thought. Now, after the total shitshow of Covid and reading "Turtles All The Way Down" I'm fiercely anti-vax.
Love your handle! I agree with you in entirety. I did my internship in pediatrics in the 70's and I can tell you at that time no doctors to speak of were taught anything about vaxx injections. And I seriously doubt that that has changed. I would be shocked if 1 in a 100 doctors know what you just stated, and yet, they happily recommended, and often mandated them, for their patients. Cowardice and ignorance allows totalitarianism to envelope us all.
My father was a pharmacist for 40 years before retiring 2008 and his father before him for a similar period. My parents were wise enough to avoid the childhood vax schedule back in the 80's for my siblings and I, and that abomination only ballooned from the 90's and after. ADHD, food allergies, asthma, autism, obesity all increased in tandem with the vax schedule.
You were lucky to have wise parents. Our children were vaxxed and it may have affected their health as there are a couple of chronic problems among the three of them now as adults. One daughter was force vaxxed upon admission to one of the Ivy's and thinks that her irritable bowel, now diagnosed as ulcerative colitis, was a result of the large number of vaxxes forced upon her at the time. She has a son who developed intractable diarrhea after a vaxx at a year and a half of age. It was an allergy to bovine milk and he only recovered thanks to my daughter's breast feeding him for two years, during which she could not ingest any bovine milk or milk products at all without him becoming sick immediately. It was that episode that woke me out of my vaxx ignorance as I read Handley's How to End the Autism Epidemic before the Covid Op was thrust on us. Dissolving Illusions and Turtles All the Way Down were helpful, as well.
Right. I remember far to well the Grest Barrington Declaration. In that declaration they stated the need of an personal approach for the 'elderly'. As I was and am approaching 65, and this number in many countries marks the 'red line' for 'vaxxines' to become mandatory, I withdraw my name from the declaration and wrote to them. I didn't get answers, and I didn't expect, but I was alerted. Seems that the Nuremberg Code 'dilutes' with age, but neither JB nor the other ever had a look at individual rights. Instead they preferred to look like frightened rabbits at the 'preparedness for the big, big deadly new pandemic'.
Arturo, Thank you for your keen comment. I have a couple of questions, if I may. Which countries are considering, or have already, instituted mandated vaxx for those over 65? That would be a very ominous development with seriously dark implications.
Secondly, you wrote that TGBD called for a “personal approach to the elder”. Do you know what was meant by that? Were they advocating vaxx for the elderly? If so, I may have to reread it and withdraw my name. I was one of the first 10,000 to sign. Of the three authors the only one who really impressed me was Kulldorf, as he publicly made the important point that the policies used were most harmful to the blue collar workers.
I agree with you about their lack of concern for individual rights, which, to all of our dismay, has been a common trait for the vast majority of “professionals.” Especially mine, being a retired MD.
Just re-read the gbd. Gives me cold shivers. No, they don't mention an age limit. They call their proposal 'focused' and basically repeat governmental orders in a softened version with high ambiguity, until there is a vaccine. They never question if sarscov2 really is 'new' (it is not) for our actual immune response, they never question the real mortality rate (we already had the data from 'Pacific Princess' and Ioannidis' work) and the necessity of any drastic meassures, and they never distinguish between treatment for those people who really are sick, and those who are healthy: they rely on 'testing': fully in accordance with the asymptomatic nonsense! They never question the pandemic as such and that the WHO had changed the definition of a pandemic shortly before.
Italy required (requires) vaccination for over 65 year old. I don't know how strongly they implement it.
Not that I have seen. Funny how that coincides with culling the old, expensive, useless eaters first. I listened to McCullough in person give a talk in Fall 2021. He had the same position: OK for those over 65. Knowing what I know now about Dr. McC it makes perfect sense, unfortunately.
Thanks. The reason I ask is that I recall him saying he counseled patients to wait and see how this new platform works out before deciding whether to get the shot. My recollection is that was in the spring of 2021.
My memory fades and I wasn't taking notes on what McCullough was saying at the time. He definitely has vast knowledge and much of what he said was helpful during Spring 2021 I think you are probably correct in your recollection. I actually attended a presentation by him to a room of about 200 people in the Fall of 2021. At that time he endorsed the jab for those over 65. Definitely not for younger people. However, given that he was by that time drilling the narrative that the spike protein was toxic, and given the statistics (undoubtedly greatly flawed but favoring the vaxx) we had at that time as to morbidity and mortality of Covid in those over 65, simple cost benefit ratio analysis made no sense to be promoting what was clearly a bioweapon into anybody's body, regardless of age or health. The only thing that made sense, from the patient's point of view, was to absolutely not allow a bioweapon to be injected into one's body. This was quite aside from all the other totalitarian measures that were being instituted simutaneously which should have alerted people like McCullough and Bhattacharya that great evil was afoot and should be absolutely resisted. They failed the public, and they continue to fail the public. The only question to ponder is whether they were/are duped, or if they are doing the duping. To me it is clear that it is the latter.
Read Jeffrey Tucker’s new conspiracy theory. They are so obvious..Time to fling some more poo at the hoomans to see if it will stick. They are like tin soldiers, NEXT!!
I haven’t read the whole article by Tucker yet but this guy seems to be about the same as VNN and Time-predictive…You can see the snippet within this piece. The word elegant is used. Where have I heard that before?🤔
Totalitarian regimes cannot be initiated without censorship and propaganda. This is why free speech has always been seen as fundamental to a free society, so that anyone can hold government policies and actions up to public scrutiny and condemnation: a check on government power.
Notice that I posited a causal condition for totalitarianism: censorship and its cousin, propaganda. Also note that within the medical freedom movement there are a great many who subscribe to the notion that the real cause of totalitarianism is the "mechanistic thinking" of the people themselves. But, I don't think people who believe that know that they believe that, because they've been hoodwinked by the doublespeak of a certain confused psychologist whose theory-- laid out in quite mechanistic terms, by the way, if anyone cares to read his book-- serves to cloak what's really happening, even as we all know it's happening.
I mention this because I wonder why the central cause of totalitarianism is being ignored and is instead blamed on the thinking processes of the people who just want to get on with their lives without undue government interference and dictates. That's a weird bit of propaganda, and it's easily seen through, so then, why ...?
RE: I wonder why the central cause of totalitarianism is being ignored and is instead blamed on the thinking processes of the people who just want to get on with their lives without undue government interference and dictates. That's a weird bit of propaganda, and it's easily seen through, so then, why ...?
It is an important question. It much easier to accept the mainstream Pandemic Narrative TM or the mainstream Pandemic Counter-Narrative TM, than it is to think for one's self and do your own research. That's part of it. The other part is that "get on with their lives without undue government interference " is not so simple and if you start digging find out that government interference has been going on for generations and what you thought was true is in fact another illusion. THAT, is a very disorienting, but necessary and never-ending search for truth.
Very interesting and imo correct comment. I never bothered to read Desmet’s stuff, but judging from the little I did see your comment makes sense. If the totalitarian leaders elimination is to no avail, simply because they are utterly replaceable, it would be worth finding out. The world’s masses could use a respite from the attacks, and if justice were widely served, as it should be, it may take a while before the next set of totalitarians pick up the torch. In the meantime perhaps we could find better methods of relationships to the means of production and all that that entails. It would be wonderful to give it a try!
“In this review of Desmet’s book, The Psychology of Totalitarianism, we argue that it manifests the psychology of atrocity – and that “Mass Formation” paradoxically serves to legitimize the mass atrocity perpetrated during the Covid-19 era.
“The Psychology of Totalitarianism works to normalize key aspects of totalitarianism. Desmet announces early on that totalitarianism represents “the defining feature of the Enlightenment tradition”. Not liberation from the Divine Right of Kings. Not the birth of modern republicanism. Not the spirit of free and independent scientific inquiry. But totalitarianism, a politically and intellectually backwards phenomenon that did not emerge until the 1930s…
Desmet reads history backwards to make the technocratic totalitarianism currently seeking to install itself seem inevitable…
All societies, he argues, are at risk of succumbing to that ideology, for “There is an ever-present, totalitarian undercurrent that consists of a fanatical attempt to steer and control life in far-reaching ways on the basis of technical, scientific knowledge” (p. 176). The “mechanistic ideology” — and not a vampiric transnational ruling class apparently waging undeclared covert war against the people — is the enemy for Desmet. Blaming the ideology is the rhetorical move that divorces the responsibility of bad actors from their bad intent.[Emphasis mine]
It is entirely unclear why violence is the “inevitable” outcome of a line of reasoning that pins blame for Covid mass atrocity, not on the victimized and abused masses, but rather on a proportionately tiny ruling class responsible for worldwide crimes against humanity. The numerical odds are overwhelmingly in favor of humanity. Violence is not a prerequisite for emancipation: it simply takes a critical mass to see what is happening and to refuse to comply with its own enslavement. Note Desmet’s claim that “harsh repression” and “destruction of the opposition” by the “elite” is “justifie[d]” in case of insurrection. This sounds fascistic on its face. Extreme violence is permitted to the ruling class to defend itself, but Heaven forbid that the people, repeatedly subjected to the devices of mass atrocity, should entertain similar ideas about their own self-defense.
Solutions to totalitarianism do not lie in the philosophy of science. They lie in the outcome of class conflict. Desmet himself recognizes that, should leaders not be able to sustain the levels of manufactured “anxiety and aggression” necessary for Mass Formation, “the masses will wake up and become aware of the damage they have suffered, whereupon they will turn against the leaders in lethal fashion” (p. 116). Predictably, however, he leaps to the defense of the system:
The problem cannot be solved by the violent elimination of an evil elite. The essence of the problem of totalitarianism lies in enormous mass dynamics. This means the elimination of totalitarian leaders will be to no avail; they are utterly replaceable (p. 139).
Basically not new. The early anarchist movement already knew that political assassinations did not work with the replaceable puppets of power. On the other side it works: murdering the leaders of popular uprising has worked for the powers of the 'elite'.
We are now in a time of strongly asymmetric violence - states and governments are using laws, justice and executive forces against citizens. Without a class conscience - and thus the ability to collectively say 'No!' - we won't succeed to win against Goliath.
Jay Bhattacharya was one of the first to publicly call out the Sham-demic. Saw him on Tucker Carlson early on into that bullshit, and it was quite clear during that interview, on FOX, that he was just trying to figure out what was goin on. Which is all you can do. He reaped the "reward" of being censored immediately, even though he knew more than anyone else "running the Show." Haven't watched the interview yet; need to take a brief break from the Almighty Computer. Pretty awesome that you got Bhattacharya for an interview!
The next interview may well be with McCullough? Preparedness without fear porn but with masks? (Perhaps I missed it, but the same way the masks signal submission, the pcr-test was key to be allowed (or not) to live and work: did CJ ask Bhattacharya why he insisted as much as he did in testing, testing, testing? Not that it makes a big difference now (as the masquerading still does), but it did over then and will again with McC's and vanden Bossche's next pandemic ...
CJ, use of plandemics and vaxx bioweapons appears to be a large part of how the Global Fascists intend to usher in the New World Order. I think you agree with that? I could only watch about the first 20 minutes of this unbelievably boring interview and discussion between you and JB, before turning it off as I would any other television program. The only thing missing was an advertisement for the Covid Vaxx, though as I understand it they did advertise for weed. At the risk of being called a Puritan or some such name, I consider cannabis a terrible way for a society to deal with stress, so I suppose it is fitting that JB would have that ad on his podcast. I hope that later on during the show you attacked JB supporting the vaxx in anybody, young, old, on their deathbed, or whatever. Can you direct me to the minute marker when you did that? If not, why not?
I can't provide you with the minute marker of the point in the interview when I suddenly flipped out and started attacking Jay about things that had nothing to do with what we were discussing, but if you'd like to try to suck it (i.e., the marker) out of my ass, feel free.
Did somebody tap you on the shoulder, CJ? Threaten you? Or were you just concealing some pretty important predilections, like your Assymetric essay where you warn your readers that commenters like Lena are their real danger, not the globo-cops that you used to talk about. And then going on to have this nice, polite conversation with a Stanford professor who has been elevated to international thought leader who recommends that all the useless eaters over 65 get vaxxed. You are over 65, right? Did you follow his advice? Are you three times “boosted” by now, as your buddy Jay thinks you ought to be? If not, why not? If so, why? Inquiring minds want to know.
Makes me wonder about the “reporting” of Hopkins book being banned. Seems like a good way to get a fresh dissident to cover the captured “fighters of medical freedom” that are ushering us into government control of all independent research and “science”. You know, the ones who actually report on unbiased, true scientific research, whichever way it leads, but almost always exposing the false science of the medical establishment whores. He should have a get together with Dr. Paulie next, seems fitting.
Jay B, not to be confused with JayZ:
He is the director of Stanford's Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. His research focuses on the *****economics of health care*****
It seems like a different era but I used to read Ron Unz quite a bit. Super long-winded but he did bring forth a lot of new (for me, at least) information, particularly about Jews, Israel, Zionism, etc. Then along came Covid and he suddenly did this 180 about-face where he was quoting inflated government statistics on Covid deaths and recommending the vaxx. I think I see a pattern here.
I very much enjoyed your conversation with Jay Bhattacharya - even though I already knew what happened after having to witness the European Covid experience for some time, listening to foreigners discuss it always opens a different perspective.
Though I always get a bit skeptical when the video is interrupted by someone who wants me to buy a bag of herbs... But ok, if it is what makes this all possible, so be it.
At least, he himself does not sell, he is 'just sponsored' (man, I'd need a sponsor, too!) by the herbs, McC DOES sell himself and he fearmongers you to buy. He must have noticed it himself, cause he now says its no fearmongering asking people for 'preparedness' for coming events!
Red alert goes on every time I see MDs making a living from co-vid, co-climate, co-birdflu, co-whatsoever.
Yeah, in this case it was merely an observation. But I remember three personalities from the top of my head who started publishing videos criticizing the so-called Covid response in 2020 and later tried to make money from it in weird ways. One is now also selling magic powder and what have you in his videos. I mean who knows, maybe it is some great powder, but even if they're just trying to sell Vitamin C, I wouldn't buy from them if they're advertising like that.
On the other hand, Jay Bhattacharya has been one of the honest voices for good which I appreciate a lot.
Bhattacharya is outside the ropes in the Stanford community which, as Matt Taibbi in particular has documented, is an Intelligence Agency mouthpiece. He was one of the first people to challenge the "Covid Narrative" that I came across. How he still has a job at Stanford is a wonder; Harvard bounced his colleague Martin Kuldorff over the Covid issue.
Yeah, he's a bit of a "Media Hound." I would have to talk to him personally to make a more precise determination. There is always the "Stanford stigma" around Bhattachayra...
I was so surprised to hear both of you perpetuating the mythology that 80 year olds would "benefit" from being transfected, which is incorrect: the elderly were MORE at risk from being transfected. https://palexander.substack.com/p/excess-deaths-australias-elderly There are still lies that need dismantling, and the "elderly were more susceptible" was the lie that blackmailed the young people to line up "for grandma". And Rancourt's group have found no evidence of a spreading pathogen. So many "Covid" deaths need to be accounted for.
Thanks. Still not eighty myself, but I want to reach that far, and in good health! Can't afford to have 'celebrities' perpetuating long cherished myths - always about others, sending us into quarantines, 'sickbay', 'nursing' homes or directly into Soylent Inc..
Great interview CJ. I enjoyed how succinctly you both summed up the situation. I would love to hear you talk more about who’s behind it. You call it the system. Who is the system? How can it happen that it is so coordinated, that all across the world we had the same messaging, the same slander, right down to the same words and the same bills being passed. Anyway, would love to read more on your explorations re this. Thanks
I first saw Bhattacharya early in the "pandemic" in an interview with Tucker Carlson, where he was sounding the alarm (he'd conducted some study about Covid in Santa Clara County, if memory serves) that the Government response to Covid was totally flawed. CJ and Jay were both "Covid dissidents," so quite interesting that they hooked up for an interview...
Wish I could read this without a paid subscription. So many great Substack writers. Just can’t pay for all of them. Wish they would lower their subscription prices.
Most of SageHana's posts are free and available, I'm pretty sure. I read him for a long time before I started to subscribe. I agree about the cost. Bill Rice is an ex-journalist now substack writer trying to make a living at it and it is difficult. He discusses the difficulties. I suggested to him that he charge less and see if the volume of subscribers goes up enough to increase his revenue. I'm not sure why more don't try. Perhaps it is a Substack policy that gets in the way.
Bhattachyra is not who you seem to think he is. He is cut of the same cloth as Malhotra and Tulsi. Good looking, charismatic, full of lies and omissions. Working for the enemy.
I have to disagree with you. Jay Battacharya has integrity and follows the science.
I had the honour of meeting him in the Autumn of 2021 in a meeting room upstairs in a pub in North London. There were about 60 of us, discussing the Covid debacle, including some of the vaccine issues.
I have enormous admiration for him, using his voice to highlight the issues, always in a measured way.
Did he acknowledge then, that 'covid' has a fatality rate of 0,09% for my age group? Why should I take a injection if there is a 99% probability to survive if I catch it at all?
Just watch the video with Robinson of the Hoover Institute that is embedded in the post by Sage Hana that I posted above. Bhattacharya wasn’t/isn’t making any mistakes. He’s consciously part of the op.
People disagree all the time, no problem with that. JB is a public person supporting vaxxes in general, and the Covid vaxx specifically, which is clearly a bioweapon designed to murder and injure people. Regardless of what he may have said or didn’t say at your meeting, please read the above Sage Hana substack and watch the Hoover Institute video interview with Bhattacharya. If you still think he has integrity and is worthy of believing, please explain why you think so. Then it will be possible to agree or disagree over actual issues.
So are you saying that JB should be against all vaccines to show integrity?
Do you think all vaccines are useless? That is an opinion, ofcourse, but I don’t think holding a different opinion on this necessarily means you lack integrity? Especially if you don’t have a vested interest.
Relevant conversation is at about 49:30 mark. You are welcome. I’m quite interested to hear if you still feel he has integrity after viewing this, and if so, why?
I have watched it and cannot understand why you question his integrity. See my previous reply with my views.
He mentions the use of vaccines in the elderly, more vulnerable. He is against coercion and mandates. He thinks that the vaccines protect against severe disease, but does not prevent transmission.
Jay Bhattacharya: Yeah, so COVID vaccines in particular are extremely effective at protecting against severe disease.
Peter Robinson: All right, so briefly, what would you say to someone who's still... Honestly, there may be viewers who won't take it from Anthony Fauci, but might take it from Jay Bhattacharya. What would you say to someone who still hasn't gotten vaccinated?
Jay Bhattacharya: I mean, you think that for someone who's older, especially, the vaccine is incredibly important. COVID is very deadly disease as we talked about for people who's older. And the vaccine, while we haven't... It's only been in human use for 10 months, right? So we don't know all of the side effects, but we've seen enough to know it's pretty safe.
This is the copy and paste of the relevant part of that video as Sage posted it. I’m going to try to get you a url of a video that contains this gem so that you can see for yourself. Paywalls are a problem, agreed. I pay for Sage Hana’s thoughts. They are well worth it.
Thats rather harsh: most people are allowed to make mistakes as long as they repent. Sure, I'm a former Public Health Manager, and I know enough to take any claim by any doctor, professor, scientist or drugs company with a huge pinch of salt. Which is why I didn't take the stoopid jab.
I’ll watch this when I have time, but are you aware of the fact that JB praised the Covid vaxx at least as late as Fall, 2021, well after VAERS data, and for those of us awake enough to watch our vaxxed friends and relatives began becoming sick or dying in serious numbers, had made it clear that the vaxx was a serious bioweapon? JB stated, in an interview with someone from the Hoover Institute, that the vaxx was very safe and that vaxxes in general were a fantastic step forward for humankind. No mention of the deleterious effects of vaxxes that is being hidden and suppressed by the parasites that be! I was prepared to fully support this “rebel Stanford professor”, until I realized he was just playing his role, whether assigned or whether he understood intuitively what was wanted of him if he wanted to continue his job, after the study he published showing that large numbers of people in Santa Clara county had, by April, 2020, been sick with “Covid”, whatever that was. Some time after that brought him to the dissident public’s attention, he swung around and helped get the vaxx into every arm. I don’t claim to be the final authority on Covid, but I do have the benefit of an MD background. You are wrong on your appraisal of JB, CJ!
Tom - I couldn't agree more. "JB stated, in an interview with someone from the Hoover Institute, that the vaxx was very safe and that vaxxes in general were a fantastic step forward for humankind." As a mother of four severely vaccine-injured adult children - one autistic, one who died, one with severe RA and one neurologically impaired - I can attest that NO vaccine is very safe for humankind!
Eloquently summed up by medical freedom activist Laura Hayes, Mother of Vaccine-Injured Children, On a mission to end the Vaccine Holocaust Weston A Price Foundation Conference, 11-13-16. "Vaccines - What is there to be 'Pro' About" https://www.ageofautism.com/2016/12/vaccines-what-is-there-to-be-pro-about-laura-hayes-to-weston-a-price-foundation-conference.html
The video in the link replaces the one that YouTube Censored and Removed.
As i can not 'like', I write it: thanks, I agree.
so suddenly I find I also cannot "like" - is this new? am I missing something?
He is the director of Stanford's Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging.
*****His research focuses on the economics of health care*****
His solution is covert elimination of the Medicare benefit payouts by reducing the number of recipients. Just doing his part to help the economy.
Agreed
JB not calling the poison shots "vaccines-in-name-only" showed he didn't want to step too far out of line from his Stanford paymasters. Poison will injure and kill the elderly, the middle aged and the young. Before 2020, I never gave vaccines in general a second thought. Now, after the total shitshow of Covid and reading "Turtles All The Way Down" I'm fiercely anti-vax.
Love your handle! I agree with you in entirety. I did my internship in pediatrics in the 70's and I can tell you at that time no doctors to speak of were taught anything about vaxx injections. And I seriously doubt that that has changed. I would be shocked if 1 in a 100 doctors know what you just stated, and yet, they happily recommended, and often mandated them, for their patients. Cowardice and ignorance allows totalitarianism to envelope us all.
My father was a pharmacist for 40 years before retiring 2008 and his father before him for a similar period. My parents were wise enough to avoid the childhood vax schedule back in the 80's for my siblings and I, and that abomination only ballooned from the 90's and after. ADHD, food allergies, asthma, autism, obesity all increased in tandem with the vax schedule.
You were lucky to have wise parents. Our children were vaxxed and it may have affected their health as there are a couple of chronic problems among the three of them now as adults. One daughter was force vaxxed upon admission to one of the Ivy's and thinks that her irritable bowel, now diagnosed as ulcerative colitis, was a result of the large number of vaxxes forced upon her at the time. She has a son who developed intractable diarrhea after a vaxx at a year and a half of age. It was an allergy to bovine milk and he only recovered thanks to my daughter's breast feeding him for two years, during which she could not ingest any bovine milk or milk products at all without him becoming sick immediately. It was that episode that woke me out of my vaxx ignorance as I read Handley's How to End the Autism Epidemic before the Covid Op was thrust on us. Dissolving Illusions and Turtles All the Way Down were helpful, as well.
Right. I remember far to well the Grest Barrington Declaration. In that declaration they stated the need of an personal approach for the 'elderly'. As I was and am approaching 65, and this number in many countries marks the 'red line' for 'vaxxines' to become mandatory, I withdraw my name from the declaration and wrote to them. I didn't get answers, and I didn't expect, but I was alerted. Seems that the Nuremberg Code 'dilutes' with age, but neither JB nor the other ever had a look at individual rights. Instead they preferred to look like frightened rabbits at the 'preparedness for the big, big deadly new pandemic'.
No. Not in my name, not with me.
Arturo, Thank you for your keen comment. I have a couple of questions, if I may. Which countries are considering, or have already, instituted mandated vaxx for those over 65? That would be a very ominous development with seriously dark implications.
Secondly, you wrote that TGBD called for a “personal approach to the elder”. Do you know what was meant by that? Were they advocating vaxx for the elderly? If so, I may have to reread it and withdraw my name. I was one of the first 10,000 to sign. Of the three authors the only one who really impressed me was Kulldorf, as he publicly made the important point that the policies used were most harmful to the blue collar workers.
I agree with you about their lack of concern for individual rights, which, to all of our dismay, has been a common trait for the vast majority of “professionals.” Especially mine, being a retired MD.
Just re-read the gbd. Gives me cold shivers. No, they don't mention an age limit. They call their proposal 'focused' and basically repeat governmental orders in a softened version with high ambiguity, until there is a vaccine. They never question if sarscov2 really is 'new' (it is not) for our actual immune response, they never question the real mortality rate (we already had the data from 'Pacific Princess' and Ioannidis' work) and the necessity of any drastic meassures, and they never distinguish between treatment for those people who really are sick, and those who are healthy: they rely on 'testing': fully in accordance with the asymptomatic nonsense! They never question the pandemic as such and that the WHO had changed the definition of a pandemic shortly before.
Italy required (requires) vaccination for over 65 year old. I don't know how strongly they implement it.
I re-read it as well. You are spot on in your description.
I hope it’s like Italians and taxes. Little compliance and less enforcement. “Sound and fury signifying nothing!”
The fact that he is still, in 2024, saying that transfection is a good benefit/cost for the elderly tells me he either hasn't kept up with his field, or he's deliberately deceiving people. https://jessicar.substack.com/p/denis-rancourt-and-teams-new-report; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371342838_Simpson's_Paradox_in_the_correlations_between_excess_mortality_and_COVID-19_injections_a_case_study_of_iatrogenic_pandemic_for_elderly_Australians
I believe he still says the “vaccines” are useful for those over 65. Please correct me if he has retracted that statement.
Not that I have seen. Funny how that coincides with culling the old, expensive, useless eaters first. I listened to McCullough in person give a talk in Fall 2021. He had the same position: OK for those over 65. Knowing what I know now about Dr. McC it makes perfect sense, unfortunately.
Right. And adding those at “high risk,” i. e., the rest of the “useless eaters.” So completely evil.
When did McCullough say that?
Fall,2021.
Thanks. The reason I ask is that I recall him saying he counseled patients to wait and see how this new platform works out before deciding whether to get the shot. My recollection is that was in the spring of 2021.
My memory fades and I wasn't taking notes on what McCullough was saying at the time. He definitely has vast knowledge and much of what he said was helpful during Spring 2021 I think you are probably correct in your recollection. I actually attended a presentation by him to a room of about 200 people in the Fall of 2021. At that time he endorsed the jab for those over 65. Definitely not for younger people. However, given that he was by that time drilling the narrative that the spike protein was toxic, and given the statistics (undoubtedly greatly flawed but favoring the vaxx) we had at that time as to morbidity and mortality of Covid in those over 65, simple cost benefit ratio analysis made no sense to be promoting what was clearly a bioweapon into anybody's body, regardless of age or health. The only thing that made sense, from the patient's point of view, was to absolutely not allow a bioweapon to be injected into one's body. This was quite aside from all the other totalitarian measures that were being instituted simutaneously which should have alerted people like McCullough and Bhattacharya that great evil was afoot and should be absolutely resisted. They failed the public, and they continue to fail the public. The only question to ponder is whether they were/are duped, or if they are doing the duping. To me it is clear that it is the latter.
Read Jeffrey Tucker’s new conspiracy theory. They are so obvious..Time to fling some more poo at the hoomans to see if it will stick. They are like tin soldiers, NEXT!!
Link, please?
https://open.substack.com/pub/coffeeandcovid/p/kick-back-thursday-may-23-2024-c?r=1rnii3&utm_medium=ios
I haven’t read the whole article by Tucker yet but this guy seems to be about the same as VNN and Time-predictive…You can see the snippet within this piece. The word elegant is used. Where have I heard that before?🤔
Thanks. Will read later!
"... that global censorship apparatus..."
Totalitarian regimes cannot be initiated without censorship and propaganda. This is why free speech has always been seen as fundamental to a free society, so that anyone can hold government policies and actions up to public scrutiny and condemnation: a check on government power.
Notice that I posited a causal condition for totalitarianism: censorship and its cousin, propaganda. Also note that within the medical freedom movement there are a great many who subscribe to the notion that the real cause of totalitarianism is the "mechanistic thinking" of the people themselves. But, I don't think people who believe that know that they believe that, because they've been hoodwinked by the doublespeak of a certain confused psychologist whose theory-- laid out in quite mechanistic terms, by the way, if anyone cares to read his book-- serves to cloak what's really happening, even as we all know it's happening.
I mention this because I wonder why the central cause of totalitarianism is being ignored and is instead blamed on the thinking processes of the people who just want to get on with their lives without undue government interference and dictates. That's a weird bit of propaganda, and it's easily seen through, so then, why ...?
RE: I wonder why the central cause of totalitarianism is being ignored and is instead blamed on the thinking processes of the people who just want to get on with their lives without undue government interference and dictates. That's a weird bit of propaganda, and it's easily seen through, so then, why ...?
It is an important question. It much easier to accept the mainstream Pandemic Narrative TM or the mainstream Pandemic Counter-Narrative TM, than it is to think for one's self and do your own research. That's part of it. The other part is that "get on with their lives without undue government interference " is not so simple and if you start digging find out that government interference has been going on for generations and what you thought was true is in fact another illusion. THAT, is a very disorienting, but necessary and never-ending search for truth.
I think he’s refeering to Mattias Desmet’s theory of mass formation?
Very interesting and imo correct comment. I never bothered to read Desmet’s stuff, but judging from the little I did see your comment makes sense. If the totalitarian leaders elimination is to no avail, simply because they are utterly replaceable, it would be worth finding out. The world’s masses could use a respite from the attacks, and if justice were widely served, as it should be, it may take a while before the next set of totalitarians pick up the torch. In the meantime perhaps we could find better methods of relationships to the means of production and all that that entails. It would be wonderful to give it a try!
Desmet's another illusion, a blind alley.
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2022/11/investigative-reports/covid-19-mass-formation-or-mass-atrocity/
Here's a couple excerpts:
“In this review of Desmet’s book, The Psychology of Totalitarianism, we argue that it manifests the psychology of atrocity – and that “Mass Formation” paradoxically serves to legitimize the mass atrocity perpetrated during the Covid-19 era.
“The Psychology of Totalitarianism works to normalize key aspects of totalitarianism. Desmet announces early on that totalitarianism represents “the defining feature of the Enlightenment tradition”. Not liberation from the Divine Right of Kings. Not the birth of modern republicanism. Not the spirit of free and independent scientific inquiry. But totalitarianism, a politically and intellectually backwards phenomenon that did not emerge until the 1930s…
Desmet reads history backwards to make the technocratic totalitarianism currently seeking to install itself seem inevitable…
All societies, he argues, are at risk of succumbing to that ideology, for “There is an ever-present, totalitarian undercurrent that consists of a fanatical attempt to steer and control life in far-reaching ways on the basis of technical, scientific knowledge” (p. 176). The “mechanistic ideology” — and not a vampiric transnational ruling class apparently waging undeclared covert war against the people — is the enemy for Desmet. Blaming the ideology is the rhetorical move that divorces the responsibility of bad actors from their bad intent.[Emphasis mine]
It is entirely unclear why violence is the “inevitable” outcome of a line of reasoning that pins blame for Covid mass atrocity, not on the victimized and abused masses, but rather on a proportionately tiny ruling class responsible for worldwide crimes against humanity. The numerical odds are overwhelmingly in favor of humanity. Violence is not a prerequisite for emancipation: it simply takes a critical mass to see what is happening and to refuse to comply with its own enslavement. Note Desmet’s claim that “harsh repression” and “destruction of the opposition” by the “elite” is “justifie[d]” in case of insurrection. This sounds fascistic on its face. Extreme violence is permitted to the ruling class to defend itself, but Heaven forbid that the people, repeatedly subjected to the devices of mass atrocity, should entertain similar ideas about their own self-defense.
Solutions to totalitarianism do not lie in the philosophy of science. They lie in the outcome of class conflict. Desmet himself recognizes that, should leaders not be able to sustain the levels of manufactured “anxiety and aggression” necessary for Mass Formation, “the masses will wake up and become aware of the damage they have suffered, whereupon they will turn against the leaders in lethal fashion” (p. 116). Predictably, however, he leaps to the defense of the system:
The problem cannot be solved by the violent elimination of an evil elite. The essence of the problem of totalitarianism lies in enormous mass dynamics. This means the elimination of totalitarian leaders will be to no avail; they are utterly replaceable (p. 139).
Basically not new. The early anarchist movement already knew that political assassinations did not work with the replaceable puppets of power. On the other side it works: murdering the leaders of popular uprising has worked for the powers of the 'elite'.
We are now in a time of strongly asymmetric violence - states and governments are using laws, justice and executive forces against citizens. Without a class conscience - and thus the ability to collectively say 'No!' - we won't succeed to win against Goliath.
RE: Without a class conscience - and thus the ability to collectively say 'No!' - we won't succeed to win against Goliath.
I agree and also "not new."
Liked!
Jay Bhattacharya was one of the first to publicly call out the Sham-demic. Saw him on Tucker Carlson early on into that bullshit, and it was quite clear during that interview, on FOX, that he was just trying to figure out what was goin on. Which is all you can do. He reaped the "reward" of being censored immediately, even though he knew more than anyone else "running the Show." Haven't watched the interview yet; need to take a brief break from the Almighty Computer. Pretty awesome that you got Bhattacharya for an interview!
The next interview may well be with McCullough? Preparedness without fear porn but with masks? (Perhaps I missed it, but the same way the masks signal submission, the pcr-test was key to be allowed (or not) to live and work: did CJ ask Bhattacharya why he insisted as much as he did in testing, testing, testing? Not that it makes a big difference now (as the masquerading still does), but it did over then and will again with McC's and vanden Bossche's next pandemic ...
CJ, use of plandemics and vaxx bioweapons appears to be a large part of how the Global Fascists intend to usher in the New World Order. I think you agree with that? I could only watch about the first 20 minutes of this unbelievably boring interview and discussion between you and JB, before turning it off as I would any other television program. The only thing missing was an advertisement for the Covid Vaxx, though as I understand it they did advertise for weed. At the risk of being called a Puritan or some such name, I consider cannabis a terrible way for a society to deal with stress, so I suppose it is fitting that JB would have that ad on his podcast. I hope that later on during the show you attacked JB supporting the vaxx in anybody, young, old, on their deathbed, or whatever. Can you direct me to the minute marker when you did that? If not, why not?
I can't provide you with the minute marker of the point in the interview when I suddenly flipped out and started attacking Jay about things that had nothing to do with what we were discussing, but if you'd like to try to suck it (i.e., the marker) out of my ass, feel free.
Did somebody tap you on the shoulder, CJ? Threaten you? Or were you just concealing some pretty important predilections, like your Assymetric essay where you warn your readers that commenters like Lena are their real danger, not the globo-cops that you used to talk about. And then going on to have this nice, polite conversation with a Stanford professor who has been elevated to international thought leader who recommends that all the useless eaters over 65 get vaxxed. You are over 65, right? Did you follow his advice? Are you three times “boosted” by now, as your buddy Jay thinks you ought to be? If not, why not? If so, why? Inquiring minds want to know.
Why? I concede that the first part of the interview was reciprocally and disgustingly slimy, but that is their 'problem', not ours, TT.
You’re right, and I agree. Hopkins’ crude comment caught me off balance, so now I’ve just deleted mine. It was pointless. Thanks.
Makes me wonder about the “reporting” of Hopkins book being banned. Seems like a good way to get a fresh dissident to cover the captured “fighters of medical freedom” that are ushering us into government control of all independent research and “science”. You know, the ones who actually report on unbiased, true scientific research, whichever way it leads, but almost always exposing the false science of the medical establishment whores. He should have a get together with Dr. Paulie next, seems fitting.
Jay B, not to be confused with JayZ:
He is the director of Stanford's Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. His research focuses on the *****economics of health care*****
It seems like a different era but I used to read Ron Unz quite a bit. Super long-winded but he did bring forth a lot of new (for me, at least) information, particularly about Jews, Israel, Zionism, etc. Then along came Covid and he suddenly did this 180 about-face where he was quoting inflated government statistics on Covid deaths and recommending the vaxx. I think I see a pattern here.
I very much enjoyed your conversation with Jay Bhattacharya - even though I already knew what happened after having to witness the European Covid experience for some time, listening to foreigners discuss it always opens a different perspective.
Though I always get a bit skeptical when the video is interrupted by someone who wants me to buy a bag of herbs... But ok, if it is what makes this all possible, so be it.
At least, he himself does not sell, he is 'just sponsored' (man, I'd need a sponsor, too!) by the herbs, McC DOES sell himself and he fearmongers you to buy. He must have noticed it himself, cause he now says its no fearmongering asking people for 'preparedness' for coming events!
Red alert goes on every time I see MDs making a living from co-vid, co-climate, co-birdflu, co-whatsoever.
Yeah, in this case it was merely an observation. But I remember three personalities from the top of my head who started publishing videos criticizing the so-called Covid response in 2020 and later tried to make money from it in weird ways. One is now also selling magic powder and what have you in his videos. I mean who knows, maybe it is some great powder, but even if they're just trying to sell Vitamin C, I wouldn't buy from them if they're advertising like that.
On the other hand, Jay Bhattacharya has been one of the honest voices for good which I appreciate a lot.
Bhattacharya is outside the ropes in the Stanford community which, as Matt Taibbi in particular has documented, is an Intelligence Agency mouthpiece. He was one of the first people to challenge the "Covid Narrative" that I came across. How he still has a job at Stanford is a wonder; Harvard bounced his colleague Martin Kuldorff over the Covid issue.
Yeah, think about that second to last statement…🤔
Yeah, he's a bit of a "Media Hound." I would have to talk to him personally to make a more precise determination. There is always the "Stanford stigma" around Bhattachayra...
I was so surprised to hear both of you perpetuating the mythology that 80 year olds would "benefit" from being transfected, which is incorrect: the elderly were MORE at risk from being transfected. https://palexander.substack.com/p/excess-deaths-australias-elderly There are still lies that need dismantling, and the "elderly were more susceptible" was the lie that blackmailed the young people to line up "for grandma". And Rancourt's group have found no evidence of a spreading pathogen. So many "Covid" deaths need to be accounted for.
Thanks. Still not eighty myself, but I want to reach that far, and in good health! Can't afford to have 'celebrities' perpetuating long cherished myths - always about others, sending us into quarantines, 'sickbay', 'nursing' homes or directly into Soylent Inc..
Stay free!
Free Palestina!
No impunity for Israel.
Great interview CJ. I enjoyed how succinctly you both summed up the situation. I would love to hear you talk more about who’s behind it. You call it the system. Who is the system? How can it happen that it is so coordinated, that all across the world we had the same messaging, the same slander, right down to the same words and the same bills being passed. Anyway, would love to read more on your explorations re this. Thanks
I first saw Bhattacharya early in the "pandemic" in an interview with Tucker Carlson, where he was sounding the alarm (he'd conducted some study about Covid in Santa Clara County, if memory serves) that the Government response to Covid was totally flawed. CJ and Jay were both "Covid dissidents," so quite interesting that they hooked up for an interview...
Mr Bhattacharya is no 'covid dissident'. Nor is he a 'test-dissident'. He isn't even a 'vaccine dissident'.
As far as I can tell, he, at least, is no 'covid-opportunist', selling his own brand.
Thank you both for a great interview! Too many people in the U.S. don’t realize the global scope of what’s happening.
thank you so much for this.
Excellent discussion - gosh, George Orwell saw this coming. 1984 is almost like an instruction manual for the modern corporate state.
CJ, Please read and comment on this: https://open.substack.com/pub/sagehana/p/i-think-i-understand-why-bhattacharya?r=12w4ze&utm_medium=ios
Wish I could read this without a paid subscription. So many great Substack writers. Just can’t pay for all of them. Wish they would lower their subscription prices.
Most of SageHana's posts are free and available, I'm pretty sure. I read him for a long time before I started to subscribe. I agree about the cost. Bill Rice is an ex-journalist now substack writer trying to make a living at it and it is difficult. He discusses the difficulties. I suggested to him that he charge less and see if the volume of subscribers goes up enough to increase his revenue. I'm not sure why more don't try. Perhaps it is a Substack policy that gets in the way.
Bhattachyra is not who you seem to think he is. He is cut of the same cloth as Malhotra and Tulsi. Good looking, charismatic, full of lies and omissions. Working for the enemy.
I have to disagree with you. Jay Battacharya has integrity and follows the science.
I had the honour of meeting him in the Autumn of 2021 in a meeting room upstairs in a pub in North London. There were about 60 of us, discussing the Covid debacle, including some of the vaccine issues.
I have enormous admiration for him, using his voice to highlight the issues, always in a measured way.
Does he still support childhood and other shots? Last I heard him speak, he did. He should be questioning all shots by now.
I don’t know. We concentrated on Covid. Ask him!
Did he acknowledge then, that 'covid' has a fatality rate of 0,09% for my age group? Why should I take a injection if there is a 99% probability to survive if I catch it at all?
He states there is a risk/benefit for any medical intervention. He is against coercion and mandates.
So basically, decide for yourself is the mantra.
Just watch the video with Robinson of the Hoover Institute that is embedded in the post by Sage Hana that I posted above. Bhattacharya wasn’t/isn’t making any mistakes. He’s consciously part of the op.
Totally agree. Professors from Standford, Harvard and Oxford? No coinkidoinki there.
I would ask him if I had the opportunity to speak to him.
People disagree all the time, no problem with that. JB is a public person supporting vaxxes in general, and the Covid vaxx specifically, which is clearly a bioweapon designed to murder and injure people. Regardless of what he may have said or didn’t say at your meeting, please read the above Sage Hana substack and watch the Hoover Institute video interview with Bhattacharya. If you still think he has integrity and is worthy of believing, please explain why you think so. Then it will be possible to agree or disagree over actual issues.
Is behind a paywall.
So are you saying that JB should be against all vaccines to show integrity?
Do you think all vaccines are useless? That is an opinion, ofcourse, but I don’t think holding a different opinion on this necessarily means you lack integrity? Especially if you don’t have a vested interest.
Here is the video itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG7XZ2JXZqY
Relevant conversation is at about 49:30 mark. You are welcome. I’m quite interested to hear if you still feel he has integrity after viewing this, and if so, why?
Ah, yes. I saw this when it was first out. I was not happy with JB in this interview.
I have watched it and cannot understand why you question his integrity. See my previous reply with my views.
He mentions the use of vaccines in the elderly, more vulnerable. He is against coercion and mandates. He thinks that the vaccines protect against severe disease, but does not prevent transmission.
These are his points of view.
Read:
-Turtles All the Way Down
-Dissolving Illusions
-Vaxed vs. Unvaxxed
and more books out there
Jay Bhattacharya: Yeah, so COVID vaccines in particular are extremely effective at protecting against severe disease.
Peter Robinson: All right, so briefly, what would you say to someone who's still... Honestly, there may be viewers who won't take it from Anthony Fauci, but might take it from Jay Bhattacharya. What would you say to someone who still hasn't gotten vaccinated?
Jay Bhattacharya: I mean, you think that for someone who's older, especially, the vaccine is incredibly important. COVID is very deadly disease as we talked about for people who's older. And the vaccine, while we haven't... It's only been in human use for 10 months, right? So we don't know all of the side effects, but we've seen enough to know it's pretty safe.
This is the copy and paste of the relevant part of that video as Sage posted it. I’m going to try to get you a url of a video that contains this gem so that you can see for yourself. Paywalls are a problem, agreed. I pay for Sage Hana’s thoughts. They are well worth it.
Thats rather harsh: most people are allowed to make mistakes as long as they repent. Sure, I'm a former Public Health Manager, and I know enough to take any claim by any doctor, professor, scientist or drugs company with a huge pinch of salt. Which is why I didn't take the stoopid jab.
Mistakes Were Not Made
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueUXNL-A3Zg
Outstanding. Looking forward to listening.
Awesome CJ - FWIW if it does come your way, I'd take "shilling for Jordan Peterson" as a compliment.
As someone who greatly respects the both of you, you have far more in common than most would realize.
I certainly understand if you have issues with him on certain subjects, of course.