Michigan USPS Whistleblower Claims Late Ballots Received Backdated Postmarks

ORIGINAL LINK
Michigan USPS Whistleblower Claims Late Ballots Received Backdated Postmarks Tyler Durden Wed, 11/04/2020 - 22:00

A US Postal Service employee from Michigan has reportedly turned whistleblower, telling Project Veritas that his supervisor instructed mail carriers to collect and segregate new ballot envelopes received after the election cutoff so that they could be fraudulently back-dated with a Nov. 3 postmark.

Poll workers count absentee ballots for the city of Detroit

Whistleblower: "We were told to collect any ballots that we find in mailboxes, collection boxes, et cetera, for outgoing mail, at the end of the day, we are supposed to separate them from the standard letter mail, so they can hand-stamp them with yesterday’s date—and put them through the Express Mail system—to get wherever they need to go," said the whistleblower, adding "For clarification, today is the fourth of November."

James O'Keefe: "Hand-stamp them with Nov. 3’s date?"

Whistleblower: "Yes

James O'Keefe: "That seems wrong--"

Whistleblower: "Yeah, that’s why I am coming forward with this information. That is a very shady—in addition to, as far as I am aware, we’re not supposed to be counting ballots that are postmarked after the third of November here in the state of Michigan."

The Insider said he was shocked when Barlow Branch morning supervisor Jonathan Clarke told a group of mail carriers how late ballots would be handled.

...

The Insider said there was a process set up for the post office workers involved in the bogus postmark scheme. -Project Veritas

Listen: 

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Time magazine features The Great Reset slimeball edition for your edification

ORIGINAL LINK

And a few words about Trump, who does not happen to be the messiah

by Jon Rappoport

November 4, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

On the eve of the election, burning pots of snake powder and chanting spells, hoping for a Biden victory, Time magazine published a monster feature, called The Great Reset.

The fabrication features bloviations from “leading thinkers,” all pointing to the need for a complete revamping of our world, because…pandemic.

Well, actually, because: the economic devastation and consequent ruination of untold numbers of lives.

In other words, “We crashed the world economy and stilled the engine of the planet’s production, using the pretext of a fake pandemic; so now we must remake all economies and governments.”

That’s Time’s unspoken version of logic.

Their number-one go-to reset thinker is Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum. His chunk of hot air is titled, “A Better Economy Is Possible. But We Need to Reimagine Capitalism to Do It”:

Sustainable future; more inclusive corporate hiring practices; reduce greenhouse gases. It could have been written in 1999.

But that doesn’t matter. What matters is, the whole world must be changed. This is the mantra.

The world must be changed by Globalists.

My edition of The Great Reset takes a slightly different position:

Globalism must be changed by the world.

By separate nations, all of whom reject Globalism.

All of whom reject Medical Dictatorship.

All of whom rebuild individual freedom.

As opposed to free-everything for everybody.

As opposed to cosmic cheese glob collectivism, in which the independent thoughts and desires of the individual are measured against the ruling force of every other empty and dependent thought of every individual who has surrendered to the Glob.

The Time magazine version of reality is, we need a plan, we need a plan, we need a plan. This means organizing the planet down to the last dotted i and crossed t. It’s the wet dream of technocrats.

A defined slot for every person, a person for every defined slot.

Humanity as a machine.

So you get cosmic cheese glob plus machine. That’s the future we’re supposed to enlist in.

After months of research, consultations, and preliminary reports, I believe the appropriate, measured, and technical response is: SCREW YOU

This response can be printed in various fonts, in caps, italics, or bold. It can be voiced. It can be announced through a bullhorn. It can be printed on masks, shirts, shower curtains, bedsheets, blouses, dresses, windbreakers, trench coats. It can be stamped in day-glo on the backs of pet cats and dogs…

Persons in technical fields, who believe language more agile than instructions on building computer chips must be considered “a rant,” can have their tailor stitch the response in tiny letters just below their shirt pockets.

More ambitious folk could secure the use of an eighteen-wheeler. A poster would cover one side of the truck. Two lines of text: THE GREAT RESET, and below it, the response. SCREW YOU.

Each letter would be three feet high. Roman bold caps. Going along with the current trend, white letters against a black background. Or maybe just the traditional red, white, and blue.

I’ve watched, for 50 years, “dissent on the Left” undergo transformations, until it became “centrist Marxism.”

That dissent has been swallowed up and is now the unthinking status quo for millions of people, including politicians and the mainstream press. It’s an instrument of attack against all basic freedoms, one of which is the freedom to express dissent.

That’s the way tyranny always operates. A call for freedom turns into a call against freedom.

At first, 20 years ago, I tried to make excuses for these fascists. “They don’t know what they’re doing.” I tired of that approach. It doesn’t matter whether they know or don’t know. They’re doing it. They’re out to destroy what’s left of the country.

Unalienable rights mean nothing to them. There are no rights. They only want what they want, and most of time they don’t know what that is, beyond tearing down whatever lies in their path. They’re the foot soldiers of the Elite, who are the proponents of The Great Reset.

Marxism IS a dictatorship of the Elite, in case you haven’t noticed. It’s another name for a very old con.

On the other side of the coin, we have people who have drunk the Kool-Aid and are very sure Trump is the Second Coming of the Messiah.

I’ve excoriated him a number of times for surrendering the nation to the fabrications of the medical experts and supporting the unconstitutional lockdowns and the economic devastation.

His ardent supporters gloss all that over, as if the nation is now well on its way to recovery. No harm, no foul. If only wishing would make it so.

As I write this, the outcome of the election is uncertain. If Trump is re-elected, people must be relentless in insisting he back up his campaign rhetoric and make the open US economy a FACT, not merely a proposition calculated to win a second term.

His claim of having the military take charge of deploying the COVID vaccine remains very disturbing. To strangely assume this is part of his brilliant plan to guard our freedom to refuse the vaccine is based on zero evidence.

Add to that the secrecy surrounding the federal collaboration with the Pentagon to develop a COVID vaccine, and you have a prescription for a medical nightmare.

Trump has never spoken directly to the American people and admitted the extent of the economic destruction which has occurred since the fake pandemic was declared.

He has never taken any responsibility whatsoever for permitting this horror show and tragedy in the first place.

His supporters say, “Well, he couldn’t have gone up against the medical people and rejected the lockdowns…” The job of the leader involves doing exactly that when the heat is turned up to its highest pitch. He stands firm. He takes the blows. He strikes back. He shows exceptional courage.

The truth is, when Fauci came into the White House with the absurd and insane projections of Neil Ferguson, claiming two million people could die this past summer in the US, Trump folded up in ten minutes and never questioned the source or the numbers.

Ferguson, of the Imperial College in London, bankrolled by Bill Gates, was and is a failed computer modeler, with a track record of ridiculous predictions.

For example, in 2005, he stated that 200 million people, worldwide, could die from the bird flu. The final official figure was several hundred.

But Trump never made inquiries into Ferguson. He never stopped the Fauci train in its tracks then and there and exposed him as the predatory criminal he is.

Trump climbed on board the train and rode it.

NOW he says there is too much nonsense about COVID and we are coming out of the darkness. He says this is great and that is great and everything is great.

Sorry, pal, that’s not the true story. The forces of unalloyed evil are jacking up and rigging new case numbers to extreme heights. The plan is more lockdowns.

If Trump serves a new term as president, we must apply enormous pressure to make him support, and take WHATEVER ACTION is necessary, to ensure freedom survives and the economy is OPENED ALL THE WAY. PERMANENTLY.

Forget pipe dreams and fantasies about Trump. This war is far from over.

The US, along with many other countries, has been invaded. The enemy is within the gates. Moving like locusts through a field, they’ve destroyed millions of businesses and companies and people.

If this doesn’t call for swift and decisive and remorseless executive action, nothing does.

If Biden wins the presidency, then our pushback against his “national COVID plan” must be unrelenting. His controllers are hoping to override state governments and stamp a host of repressive measures on all our heads at once. As they “adhere to the advice of the medical experts.”

---

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

---

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Twitter Double Downs On Censorship With Renewed Warnings On Trump Tweets

ORIGINAL LINK


We have been discussing the rising private censorship on the Internet demanded by Democratic leaders and meted out by companies like Twitter and Facebook. The original purpose of the Internet as a free and robust space for political and social expression is under attack as politicians demand greater levels of control to combat “disinformation.”

Indeed, Biden adviser Pete Buttigieg on Election Day demanded more penalties for companies not stopping “inciting material,” a subjective term left intentionally undefined. This drumbeat for censorship was amplified on Election Day when Twitter again hit tweets from President Donald Trump with warnings of disinformation. The tweets were pure political speech and Twitter again showed that it is now fully committed to biased regulation of speech between users of its service.

I have criticized President Trump’s rhetoric in the election about “stealing” the election. However, that is hyperbolic political speech. Biden supporters, including leaders like House Whip James Clyburn, have been saying that Trump was stealing the election through voter suppression. They have not been hit with Twitter warnings. Yet, Trump was immediately hit when he sent a Twitter post that Democrats were trying to “steal” the election: “We are up BIG, but they are trying to STEAL the Election. We will never let them do it. Votes cannot be cast after the Polls are closed!”

I have previously objected to such regulation of speech. What is most disturbing is how liberals have embraced censorship and even declared that “China was right” on Internet controls. Many Democrats have fallen back on the false narrative that the First Amendment does not regulated private companies so this is not an attack on free speech. Free speech is a human right that is not solely based or exclusively defined by the First Amendment. Censorship by Internet companies is a “Little Brother” threat long discussed by free speech advocates. Some may willingly embrace corporate speech controls but it is still a denial of free speech.

This is why I recently described myself as an Internet Originalist:

The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.

If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.

The actions by Twitter and Facebook on Election Day were reprehensible and wrong. What is so disturbing is that so many Democrats have come enablers of such corporate speech controls by the giant tech companies.

Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

In Unprecedented Move CDC Stops Tracking Influenza for 2020-21 Flu Season

by Editor, Health Impact News I have been covering the fraud that happens every year with how the CDC tracks incidents and deaths due to the annual influenza for almost a decade now.

ORIGINAL LINK

American Presidents

ORIGINAL LINK

I have hardly blogged on the US Presidential elections for two reasons. Firstly the debate is so polarised that many people are oblivious to rational argument that moves outwith the few favoured memes of each side, and I have more than enough abuse in my life already. Secondly, it is some years since I spent any substantial length of time in the USA, and it is a country I find that I understand less and less. I prefer to blog about things where I bring not just judgement, but an extra store of knowledge.

I am very frequently chided for not posting on a subject; a number of people have approached me asking me to post on Nagorno-Karabakh, and indeed I have been offered money to post here on the subject, an offer I suspect would have turned out to be accompanied by conditions as to what I wrote. I will never accept such offers. I am not a corrupt shill like the highly respectable mainstream media journalists receiving secret UK government cash for propaganda from the Integrity Initiative. But also Nagorno-Karabakh is an ancient and tangled dispute with roots that lie deep in history, with complex modern consequences, and which would require a huge amount of reading before I was ready to take a considered view. It is part of a region of which I do in fact have a very deep knowledge, but on Nagorno-Krabakh not specific enough.

I think it is important not to become an all-purpose pundit who fires off unconsidered views on everything that occurs. Such pundits are two a penny in the mainstream media

On the US election I showed my limitations with a tweet yesterday evening predicting Biden would win fairly comfortably, and Trump would concede with good grace. I was wrong. I think Biden will win, but not comfortably and with margins in the key “rust bucket” states close enough for Trump to have every right to question in court aspects of the United States’ rickety voting practices. I still expect to see President Biden at the end of it all.

I know that many of my readers will be triumphant at the departure of Trump. I can understand that. From the viewpoint of US domestic policy and particularly attitudes to social division, race and immigration, the end of Trump’s cynical manipulation of atavistic instinct among the electorate will be in itself a good thing. This has not been a healthy period in US politics.

But Trump has not been defeated by a Bernie Sanders; he has been defeated by a corrupt political hack backed to the hilt by the large majority of the billionaire owned media, financed out of Wall street and with no intention of pursuing anything other than neo-liberal economic policies. It is also the firm re-establishment of the rule of the security state and the military-industrial complex. Trump’s instinctive isolationism made him an enemy of the security state interest which spent a great deal of time in trying to undermine its President.

With Biden we will return to business as usual, and that means war and invasions. Under Trump we have had no new wars started, even if he continued old ones with little control. Without Trump, I have not the tiniest doubt that Syria would have been bombed back to the Stone Age, exactly like Libya, and millions more people would have been killed. Irrespective of the undoubted damage Trump has caused inside the United States across many fronts, Hillary would have killed a lot more people. Just not Americans.

I pause to note that the terrorist in Vienna had attempted to go as a jihadist to Syria and fight against Assad. If he had not been prevented from doing that, he would have been financed by the Saudis, fed and clothed by the Turks, armed by the CIA, trained by the SAS and given air support by the Israelis. He might even have got to be a TV star posing in a White Helmet, or employment artfully placing chlorine bottles on beds for pictures by Bellingcat. Unfortunately, having been prevented from joining the western sponsored insurgency, he ended up killing Austrians instead of Syrians and now is a “terrorist”, whereas jihadist killers of Syrians are “heroes”. A strange world. The Manchester Arena bomber was of course physically brought in to the UK by the British military after fighting for “our side” in Libya. You do indeed reap what you sow.

I hope that those who consider themselves of the left enjoy their relief when the electoral process finally puts to bed the extraordinary populism of Trumpism, and returns the USA to the smoother control of the regular media and political classes and their billionaire controllers. Because anybody who believes any more than that is happening is a fool. I said that I did not blog about the US elections because of the appalling partisan nature of debate. The truth is the system threw up, again, two truly obnoxious candidates entirely antithetical to the real interests of ordinary people in the USA. Biden will do nothing to tackle the appalling wealth and resource inequality which is the most startling problem the country faces. He will hopefully resolve social tensions in the short term. But the cause of those social tensions is a system of gross exploitation of the middle and working classes which is not sustainable in the long term, and which was the root of the Trump political eruption.

Kamala Harris was of course the most right wing possible Vice-Presidential pick. Her advance into power, despite being entirely rejected in the Democratic primaries, is in itself a huge condemnation of the system. I believe I am right in saying that Harris’s Primary campaign was so disastrous she managed to obtain zero delegates at all to the Democratic National Convention. Zero, None. Absolute bottom of the pile. Rejected by Democratic voters as the candidate in toto. Attempting to confirm this zero delegate fact, I just looked up the Wikipedia page on her primary campaign, which turns out to be the most entirely false, hagiographic and manicured Wikipedia page I have ever seen, on any subject, which is saying a lot. Apparently her Presidential Primary bid was in fact a tour de force of brilliant debating and political strategy, recounted in enormous detail, not an abject failure resulting in no delegates. The extraordinarily dishonest Wikipedia page is not perhaps in itself hugely important, but it is emblematic of the sinister manipulation behind the scenes of Kamala Harris’s rise to power.

Let us put a note in our collective diaries to look again in two years and see whether the USA has entered a period of renewed social progress, or just reinvigorated its position as a violent threat to the world. I am looking forward to the period when Biden’s mainstream cheerleaders have to find something positive to say rather than just respond “But Trump is evil”. I predict most of the responses below will say nothing much more on analysis than “But Trump is evil.” Knock yourselves out.

—————————————————–

 
 
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations

2 Pounds : £2.00 GBP – monthly5 Pounds : £5.00 GBP – monthly10 Pounds : £10.00 GBP – monthly12 Pounds : £12.00 GBP – monthly15 Pounds : £15.00 GBP – monthly20 Pounds : £20.00 GBP – monthly30 Pounds : £30.00 GBP – monthly50 Pounds : £50.00 GBP – monthly70 Pounds : £70.00 GBP – monthly100 Pounds : £100.00 GBP – monthly

 

Paypal address for one-off donations: craigmurray1710@btinternet.com

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

The post American Presidents appeared first on Craig Murray.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

The U.S. Inability To Count Votes is a National Disgrace. And Dangerous.

The richest and most powerful country on earth — whether due to ineptitude, choice or some combination of both — has no ability to perform the simple task of counting votes in a minimally efficient or confidence-inspiring manner.

ORIGINAL LINK

Hatred of Trump vs. hatred of the left

ORIGINAL LINK

One way in which today's presidential election can be summarized is this: It is a contest between those who hate Donald Trump and those who hate the left (as I always point out, I am referring to the left, not to liberals or liberalism).

This is so accurate an assessment I suspect even most Democrats would agree with it.

They know they hate President Donald Trump. And they know conservatives (and a few courageous liberals) hate the left.

When you put it this way, it shows how superficial the anti-Trump electoral argument is. We who are not on the left base our opposition to the Democratic Party on ideas, values and our love for America, not on antipathy toward an individual. And let me assure Democrats: Most Republicans had just as much contempt for former President Barack Obama and have as much contempt for Joe Biden as Democrats have for Donald Trump. But we don't obsess over personalities; we obsess over America.

Leftists – and the naive liberals who do not recognize the left as the mortal enemy of liberalism – are obsessed with the president's persona. In their endlessly repeated, hate-filled descriptions of him, he is the apotheosis of evil: a dictator, narcissist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe, anti-Semite and white supremacist. He is morally and financially corrupt. He is mentally incompetent. He's unrefined. He uses the presidency solely in order to enrich himself. His reelection will mean the end of American democracy. He has told more than 22,000 lies. He loves dictators and has contempt for America's allies. His 2016 campaign colluded with Russia to undermine and "steal" the presidential election. He said there are "very fine" Nazis. To top it all off, he is responsible for more than 200,000 American deaths due to COVID-19.

And that's just a partial list.

Virtually every charge is either wildly exaggerated or outright false. For instance, regarding Trump's alleged responsibility for the American deaths due to COVID-19: Do these people hold the leaders of Belgium, Spain, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile and Ecuador – all of whom have a higher rate of death from COVID-19 than America – responsible for all of their respective countries' deaths?

Do these people hold any other leaders in the world responsible for the COVID-19 deaths in their countries?

Do these people hold New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo responsible for the deaths in New York, the state that has had by far the highest death rate in America?

If one cared about truth, one would hold Cuomo far more responsible for New York City's virus deaths than Trump for America's virus deaths. But what is truth compared to hatred of Trump?

To those who hate Trump because they regard him as such a defective human being, there is nothing good he can do.

A particularly pathologic example is American Jewry, which is expected to vote 3 to 1 for Joe Biden. Presidential candidates since Bill Clinton have vowed to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, which would entail moving our embassy there. Israel was the only country in the world in which the United States had its embassy in a city other than the capital. Only Donald Trump kept his promise by actually moving the embassy. And he did so despite the dire warnings of "experts" – a group that is frequently wrong on almost every issue – that the Arab and Muslim worlds would erupt in violence. The opposite happened: His policies have led to peace between Israel and three Arab countries, with more likely to follow unless Biden and the Democratic appeasers of Iran and the Palestinians come to power.

But peace between Israel and Arab countries, moving the American embassy to Jerusalem, and the fact that Trump has a Jewish daughter, Jewish son-in-law and Jewish grandchildren all mean nothing to most American Jews, for whom The New York Times means far more than the Torah. (The proof, if needed, is that the Jews who believe in the Torah will vote overwhelmingly for Trump.) Meanwhile, 70% of Israel's Jews support Trump.

In addition, Trump did more for black America than any president since Abraham Lincoln – but, of course, that's only true if you think the lowest black unemployment rate ever recorded, prison reform, opportunity zones, support for school choice and second chances for those convicted of crimes matter. But none of this matters to Trump haters. Their only concern for blacks is that blacks be as angry at America as possible. Angry blacks are Democratic voters. Blacks grateful to be Americans are Republican voters.

Which brings me to the competing hatred: hatred of the left.

Those who hate the left do so not because of dislike for any individual but because everything the left touches it ruins. As I have written about this at length, I will only list examples:

Universities.

High schools.

Elementary schools.

Journalism.

Art, music, architecture.

Late-night comedy.

Mainstream Christianity and Judaism.

Sports.

Marriage and family.

Happiness – especially among women.

The police.

Crime rates.

Children's innocence.

Freedom of speech – for the first time in American history.

Law and order.

Race relations.

History.

Nothing in life is left unscathed.

In a nutshell, liberals build; conservatives build; leftists destroy.

And the Democratic Party is now the party of the left.

So, while the Democrats and their media focus on Donald Trump, the rest of us focus on the left and the list above.

That strikes me as the more moral concern. Between Donald Trump's narcissism and the left's assault on liberty; left-wing elected officials standing by as leftists smash windows and burn cities; and the left's rewrite of American history to ensure that our children have contempt for America, a vote for Trump should be an easy call to make for anyone who loves this country.

The post Hatred of Trump vs. hatred of the left appeared first on WND.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

Is It Time for Full-Time Mask Mandates?

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

ORIGINAL LINK

Anti-Lockdown Epidemiologist Intimidated, Shamed By Contagion Of Hatred And Hysteria

ORIGINAL LINK
Anti-Lockdown Epidemiologist Intimidated, Shamed By Contagion Of Hatred And Hysteria Tyler Durden Sun, 11/01/2020 - 20:00

Authored by Professor Sunetra Gupta, op-ed via The Daily Mail,

Lockdown is a blunt, indiscriminate policy that forces the poorest and most vulnerable people to bear the brunt of the fight against coronavirus. As an infectious diseases epidemiologist, I believe there has to be a better way. 

That is why, earlier this month, with two other international scientists, I co-authored a proposal for an alternative approach — one that shields those most at risk while enabling the rest of the population to resume their ordinary lives to some extent.

I expected debate and disagreement about our ideas, published as the Great Barrington Declaration.

As a scientist, I would welcome that. After all, science progresses through its ideas and counter-ideas.

But I was utterly unprepared for the onslaught of insults, personal criticism, intimidation and threats that met our proposal. The level of vitriol and hostility, not just from members of the public online but from journalists and academics, has horrified me.

I am not a politician. The hurly-burly of political life and being in the eye of the media do not appeal to me at all.

I am first and foremost a scientist; one who is far more comfortable sitting in my office or laboratory than in front of a television camera.

Of course, I do have deeply held political ideals — ones that I would describe as inherently Left-wing. I would not, it is fair to say, normally align myself with the Daily Mail.

I have strong views about the distribution of wealth, about the importance of the Welfare State, about the need for publicly owned utilities and government investment in nationalised industries.

But Covid-19 is not a political phenomenon. It is a public health issue — indeed, it is one so serious that the response to it has already led to a humanitarian crisis. So I have been aghast to see a political rift open up, with outright abuse meted out to those who, like me, question the orthodoxy.

At the heart of our proposal is the recognition that mass lockdowns cause enormous damage.

We are already seeing how current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.

The results — to name just a few — include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health.

Such pitfalls of national lockdowns must not be ignored, especially when it is the working class and younger members of society who carry the heaviest burden.

I was also deeply concerned that lockdowns only delay the inevitable spread of the virus. Indeed, we believe that a better way forward would be to target protective measures at specific vulnerable groups, such as the elderly in care homes.

Of course, there will be challenges, such as where people are being cared for in their own multi-generational family homes.

I am certainly not pretending I have all the answers, but these issues need to be discussed and thrashed out thoroughly.

That is why I have found it so frustrating how, in recent weeks, proponents of lockdown policies have seemed intent on shutting down debate rather than promoting reasoned discussion.

It is perplexing to me that so many refuse even to consider the potential benefits of allowing non-vulnerable citizens, such as the young, to go about their lives and risk infection, when in doing so they would build up herd immunity and thereby protect the lives of vulnerable citizens.

Yet rather than engage in serious, rational discussion with us, our critics have dismissed our ideas as ‘pixie dust’ and ‘wishful thinking’.

This refusal to cherish the value of the scientific method strikes at the heart of everything I, as a scientist, hold dear. To me, the reasoned exchange of ideas is the basis of civilised society.

So I was left stunned after being invited on to a mid-morning radio programme recently, only for a producer to warn me minutes before we went on air that I was not to mention the Great Barrington Declaration. The producer repeated the warning and indicated that this was an instruction from a senior broadcasting executive.

I demanded an explanation and, with seconds to go, was told that the public wouldn’t be familiar with the meaning of the phrase ‘Great Barrington Declaration’.

And this was not an isolated experience. A few days later, another national radio station approached my office to set up an interview, then withdrew the invitation. They felt, on reflection, that giving airtime to me would ‘not be in the national interest’.

But the Great Barrington Declaration represents a heartfelt attempt by a group of academics with decades of experience in this field to limit the harm of lockdown. I cannot conceive how anyone can construe this as ‘against the national interest’.

Moreover, matters certainly are not helped by outlets such as The Guardian, which has repeatedly published opinion pieces making factually incorrect and scientifically flawed statements, as well as borderline defamatory comments about me, while refusing to give our side of the debate an opportunity to present our view.

I am surprised, given the importance of the issues at stake — not least the principle of fair, balanced journalism — that The Guardian would not want to present all the evidence to its readers. After all, how else are we to encourage proper, frank debate about the science?

On social media, meanwhile, much of the discourse has lacked any decorum whatsoever.

I have all but stopped using Twitter, but I am aware that a number of academics have taken to using it to make personal attacks on my character, while my work is dismissed as ‘pseudo- science’. Depressingly, our critics have also taken to ridiculing the Great Barrington Declaration as ‘fringe’ and ‘dangerous’.

But ‘fringe’ is a ridiculous word, implying that only mainstream science matters. If that were the case, science would stagnate. And dismissing us as ‘dangerous’ is equally unhelpful, not least because it is an inflammatory, emotional term charged with implications of irresponsibility. When it is hurled around by people with influence, it becomes toxic.

But this pandemic is an international crisis. To shut down the discussion with abuse and smears — that is truly dangerous.

Yet of all the criticisms flung at us, the one I find most upsetting is the accusation that we are indulging in ‘policy-based evidence-making’ — in other words, drumming up facts to fit our ideological agenda.

And that ideology, according to some, is one of Right-wing libertarian extremism.

According to Wikipedia, for instance, the Great Barrington Declaration was funded by a Right-wing think-tank with links to climate-change deniers.

It should be obvious to anyone that writing a short proposal and posting it on a website requires no great financing. But let me spell it out, since, apparently, I have to: I did not accept payment to co-author the Great Barrington Declaration.

Money has never been the motivation in my career. It hurts me profoundly that anyone who knows me, or has even a passing professional acquaintance, could believe for a minute that I would accept a clandestine payment for anything.

I am very fortunate to have a house and garden I love, and I couldn’t ask for more material wealth than that. Far more important to me are my family and my work. Yet the abuse continues to flood in, increasingly of a personal nature.

I have been accused of not having the right expertise, of being a ‘theoretical’ epidemiologist with her head in the clouds. In fact, within my research group, we have a thriving laboratory that was one of the first to develop an antibody test for the coronavirus.

We were able to do so because we have been working for the past six years on a flu vaccine, using a combination of laboratory and theoretical techniques. Our technology has already been patented and licensed and presents a rare example of a mathematical model leading to the development of a vaccine.

Even more encouraging, however, is that there is now a groundswell of movements — Us For Them, PanData19 and The Price of Panic, to name but three — seeking to give a voice to those, like me, who believe that the collateral damage of lockdown can be worse than the virus itself.

On Thursday, a broad coalition was launched under the banner of Recovery. Drawing people from across the mainstream of political views, the movement is calling for balance and moderation in our response to Covid-19, backed by a proper public debate and a comprehensive public inquiry.

I am delighted that it has received such a level of support.

For, ultimately, lockdown is a luxury of the affluent; something that can be afforded only in wealthy countries — and even then, only by the better-off households in those countries.

One way to go about shifting our perspective would be to catalogue all the ways in which lockdowns across the world are damaging societies. At present, I am collaborating with a number of colleagues to do just this, under the banner www.collateralglobal.org.

For the simple truth is that Covid-19 will not just go away if we continue to impose enough meaningless restrictions on ourselves. And the longer we fail to recognise this, the worse will be the permanent economic damage — the brunt of which, again, will be borne by the disadvantaged and the young.

When I signed the Great Barrington Declaration on October 4, I did so with fellow scientists to express our view that national lockdowns won’t cure us of Covid.

Clearly, none of us anticipated such a vitriolic response.

The abuse that has followed has been nothing short of shameful.

But rest assured. Whatever they throw at us, it won’t do anything to sway me — or my colleagues — from the principles that sit behind what we wrote.

* * *

Professor Sunetra Gupta is an infectious disease epidemiologist and a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford.

via IFTTT
InoreaderURL: SECONDARY LINK

BREAKING: Boris Johnson announces month-long national lockdown of England

Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com. The lockdown will commence Nov. 5 and end Dec. 2, when the country will return to the tiered system based on the latest data. 

ORIGINAL LINK