Friday, July 30, 2021 was Day #2 of an online international and interdisciplinary symposium organized by Doctors for Covid Ethics (see the report for Day #1). The symposium was titled, “Call for Immediate Intervention: Gold Standard Covid Science in Practice” (full program PDF, flyer PDF), and the five hour period for the second day was divided into two sessions: “Session 3: First Do No Harm,” and “Session 4: The Hour of Justice”. Those who missed Day 1 and would like to view the recording, it is available on Rumble. The proceedings for Day 2 are also on Rumble, and below:
The day’s sessions were fast-paced and packed with so much information and insights that it became apparent that the 10 hours spent in this two-day symposium essentially constituted a crash course. As such, it was a crash course in the science and political analysis that has been purposely marginalized during this manufactured “pandemic”. I will avoid any personal commentary on each presentation, and close with a general evaluation and an argument for having further independent symposia on this broad subject matter.
Session 3: First Do No Harm
The first panel for Session 3 was “The Propaganda Matrix: The complicit role of the media” with Taylor Hudak, Patrick Henningsen (founder and managing editor of the news website 21st Century Wire, and a UK Column writer and presenter), Dr. Michael Meyen (Professor at the Institute for Communication Studies and Media Research at the Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich) and Catherine Austin Fitts. Added to the group, though not in the published program, was Brian Gerrish.
Gerrish’s presentation focused on how Applied Behavioural Psychology is used in the UK to get the government’s message out and be able to influence both the wider public and local authorities (such as municipal councils and the police). Gerrish did not elaborate much on the history of applied behaviourism, but he tied it to the Tavistock Institute and its work in the 1930s and 1940s, and the Frankfurt School. More recently in the UK, as of 2000, this branch of psychology found a home in the Department of Environment and Rural Affairs, which worked on Foot and Mouth Disease, and it became the Behaviour Insight Team (BIT), spreading across the UK government and then to other European governments. Gerrish argued that applied behavioural psychology was brought into the “pandemic” in the form of the March 2020 paper from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) about how to use fear, stress, and anxiety in order to get people in communities to police themselves and each other. The paper he was apparently referencing was, “Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures” from March 22, 2020. Gerrish felt that most people in the UK were and are simply unaware of what is behind government strategies during this period. Gerrish also made the point that applied behavioural psychology goes beyond propaganda, and is different from it (more on this below).
Michael Meyen criticized how both state and commercial media have defined the “pandemic,” in a manner that evidences the absence of an independent fourth estate. State and corporate media, he argued, have the power to define reality—and this is what he called “Key Media Reality”. He examined Key Media Effects: that what people know, what people believe, and that to which people adapt themselves, are all tied to Key Media Reality. Meyen argued that there could have been no pandemic without the media. The key media benefited from a state of engineered dependency, such that the key media emerged as some of the biggest “winners” of the “pandemic”. Fearful, desperate, and confused people turned to the key media and to official sources for guidance—thus audiences began to return to key media. In addition, governments offered various subsidies to the key media (this is true in Canada as well). Competitors—the alternative media—saw themselves blocked, further sidelined, or completely suppressed (often, we might note, at the prodding of establishment media which then cheered any de-platforming that resulted). We have thus been witnessing a cyber-war to suppress non-hegemonic messages. What is urgently needed, Meyen argued, is for fully independent media, now and for the future.
Patrick Hennigsen spoke next, focusing on streamlined and coordinated propaganda conducted by governments and the media—very much like a war effort (this was one of several instances where speakers likened our current conflict to war). One of the recent aims of propaganda efforts has been to single out and then marginalize so-called “anti-vaxxers,” and to then accuse them of effectively being “murderers”. Governments and media work hand-in-glove in polarizing and segregating the population, fostering sectarianism. In this, they show little to no restraint. The so-called fourth estate has become a fifth column, as Hennigsen put it. The media have been weaponized against people themselves—the media have made it their job to turn on and attack members of the public. Governments working with and through the media can be seen in the fact that, as commercial advertising revenues plunged during the early stage of the “pandemic,” governments stepped in and became the biggest advertisers. Henningsen pointed to a £119 million UK government advertising deal, which then rose above £250 million. He also directed attention to the work of private foundations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in subsidizing the media—while also investing in “vaccine” development. Very important, especially in framing this as war, Henningsen observed how the rhetoric of “National Security” has purposely infected the official narrative of the “pandemic”. Indeed, he pointed out, in 2018 the G7 established a Rapid Response Mechanism that would aim at developing a unified narrative with shared rhetoric, as part of an effort of global coordination.
In the general discussion that followed, Henningsen remarked about a MIT research team that studied alternative media and found their work to be more sophisticated, with greater attention to data integrity, than establishment media (a reference would have been useful here). Gerrish later added: “We are at war. We are being attacked. We are being attacked by our own government”. Part of this war effort, he commented, is the avalanche of skewed messages, blatant untruths, and highly emotive messages emanating from official channels. He returned to his point about applied behavioural psychology (ABP): whereas propaganda can be seen, deduced, and anticipated, ABP is not so obvious. ABP works through repetition, by example, and it is absorbed into the subconscious. Gerrish continued by arguing that “we are not in a democracy any more,” adding, “we are in a dictatorship”.
Meyen suggested that one way to counter the state-media-business complex is to connect all of the independent/alternative media across countries, around the world.
“Vaccines: Emergency Authorization Abused” by Dr. Mike Yeadon was most likely one of the most anticipated presentations of the symposium. Mike Yeadon is one of the more famous critics of the “vaccines,” and his expertise is undeniable—which makes him a particularly worrisome thorn in the side of governments and allied media. Yeadon was formerly Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer for Allergy & Respiratory Disease at Pfizer Global R&D. He holds Joint Honours in Biochemistry and Toxicology and a PhD in Pharmacology. He is an Independent Consultant and Cofounder & CEO of Ziarco Pharma Ltd.
Yeadon opened his presentation by speaking of the complete suppression of those who do not share the dominant narrative. There is an obvious international plan which is at work, as evidenced by the fact that many countries simply threw away their preexisting pandemic preparedness plans, and replaced them with what he has called The Eight Covid Lies. He insists: gene-based “vaccines” are neither safe nor appropriate. Vaccines—proper vaccines—provide immunity and usually offer protection either for years, or for life. The current round of so-called “vaccines” do neither. Specifically, the mRNA treatments do two things: (1) they make our bodies manufacture spike proteins, which causes blood to clot, and this means they are toxic; (2) using a genetic code means there will be differences among individuals in how they take up the code and copy the code. What the manufacturers did was to leave essential steps out of testing, such as determining the right dosages—and in this we see the failure of state regulatory processes. The manufacturers also do not know how or where the spike proteins are distributed around the body, and for how long they are produced. They have no idea about the safety of their injections in pregnancy—adding that you should never give something new to pregnant women, especially not since the Thalidomide crisis of the 1960s. Yeadon emphasized that “emergency use authorization” (EUA) is not normal approval, because the injections have not undergone the normal process of development. All we have for now is interim analyses, performed roughly a third of the way into the development process.
Yeadon—someone with decades of high-level experience in pharmaceutical companies—a former Pfizer executive, declared: “Never have I been so ashamed of my industry”. He described his colleagues as “reckless idiots” (and not just once).
Yeadon returned to the subject of the EUA. The very concept of EUA requires an emergency—it assumes that an emergency exists. However, Yeadon argued that by the end of 2020, there no longer was any justifiable emergency: by then, the worst was already over, particularly in the countries which offered emergency use authorizations. Also, for an EUA to hold, there must be no other treatments, and that too is false. He cited Dr. Peter McCullough who has discussed several alternative treatments. Thus when regulatory bodies state that there are no other treatments, other than the authorized “vaccines,” Yeadon says this is an utter lie. In addition, risk-benefit analyses have not been properly conducted. Tests have not been reliable, and data has been kept from both researchers and regulators. The very elderly and the ill were not included in trials. Moreover, in addressing the issue of mandatory vaccination, Yeadon reminded us that complete informed consent means there can be no coercion in any form, no pressure, and no penalties for refusal. The virus itself is nowhere near as lethal as many people initially feared—it has always been a lesser threat to the working age population than a normal influenza. Yeadon also noted that, all over the UK, deaths spiked in nursing homes once again, all at the same time, all after having been vaccinated at the same time. Public data has already indicated a range of severe adverse events. He strongly urged viewers not to get “vaccinated”.
“Pharmacokinetics and Toxicity of mRNA Vaccines” by Professor Michael Palmer (introduced by Sucharit Bhakdi) followed next. As Palmer explained to those of us who are unfamiliar with his field, pharmacokinetics is about where a vaccine ends up in the body, how it is distributed (I have read others referring to this as “biodistribution”). Proper trials of the vaccines have not been done on this front. However, Pfizer was obligated to provide at least some data to Japanese authorities—and though the data were limited, Palmer finds them to be gravely troubling. Pfizer studied the pharmacokinetics of its “vaccine” on rats. What was discovered was that the “vaccine” was released into the liver, the spleen, the ovaries, the testes, and the adrenal glands—which is exactly what he was worried about.
Repeat injections suggest long-term accumulation in these sensitive organs. The distribution of mRNA itself was not traced, even though it could have been traced easily, Palmer noted. Regulatory bodies failed to raise these questions, which demonstrates that they are not protecting the public. What Palmer noted was the rapid appearance of spike proteins in organs. His research examined the spread of catiotonic lipids, used in the injectables, which are cytotoxic.
Among the effects of their spread are muscle fibre degeneration and scarring, subcutaneous inflammation, and damage to embryos. There is also toxicity spread from vaccinated mothers to breastfed infants. In other words, Pfizer’s own tests on animals presaged all of the feared risks and dangers with such injectables.
“The End of the Narrative” by Sucharit Bhakdi was among the most impressive and important presentations in this symposium, which is why the complete video clip is included below. “The vaccine narrative has ended!” Dr. Bhakdi declared. We were told that SARS-CoV-2 was new, so that everyone—young, old, pregnant, healthy—had to be vaccinated. This has been put to the test, and the narrative has failed. What Dr. Bhakdi noted from recently published research is that “recall antibodies”—those antibodies which were formed out of encounters with past exposure to infections, and which usually form part of the second wave of antibodies that appear in response to any new infection—were in fact the first wave of response from people’s immune systems. The recall antibodies—IgG and IgA—were produced faster than immunoglobulin, IgM. Those who were studied, and were infected by Covid-19, 202 out of 203 such individuals had IgG and IgA, which were immediately produced. These individuals thus had an updated immune response which prevented the virus from entering cells. This then, as he said, was “the end of the narrative”. That should be “good news” because it proves that vaccines are redundant, and that natural immune responses work. Yet, there is a “dark side,” he noted. What has been found about mRNA injections is the presence of spike proteins in blood vessels, where killer lymphocytes attack the blood vessels that become encrusted with spike proteins. The result is clot formation, which varies from individual to individual—but at least this helps to explain why blood clotting has happened often enough that the two main mRNA treatments on the market now come with warning labels about the risk of blood clotting. Bhakdi, in a statement that is bound to earn him even more persecution, emphatically pleaded: “Do not get the second shot!” The effects of a second dose will form the basis for auto-immune disease.
What followed was a Panel Discussion on Vaccinations with Mike Yeadon, Sucharit Bhakdi, Michael Palmer, and Taylor Hudak. Among the comments I noted were Yeadon’s where he explained that governments have blatantly lied about the unavailability of treatments other than “vaccines” and they have suppressed information about those treatments. Yeadon thus added the next bold statement of the symposium: “Don’t get vaccinated”. For his part, Professor Palmer argued that the injectables are simply not needed because the coronavirus is treatable. That it is not treated is something that is useful for goosing up fear. However, as he observed, the overall number of fatalities does not justify vaccines. Palmer also noted that the idea of producing a vaccine for coronaviruses is not a new one, but no approval was ever granted before. Bhakdi re-entered the discussion reaffirming that he is “horrified by repeat vaccinations”. Yeadon noted that in Sweden, with schools not closed during the “pandemic,” not a single child died from Covid. The risk of death among children is actually much higher from the “vaccines” than from the virus itself. Palmer also expressed grave concern for fertility, as thus far no grounds have been provided for ruling out such damage. Yeadon argued that the variants (or “samiants” as he called them) are being overplayed: there are only minor differences, roughly in the order of 0.3%, and that one can expect a 0.3% drift with each passing year. Yeadon said he knows that all his industry colleagues know that people do not need top-up injections, implying that the newly emerging narrative from pharmaceutical companies about the need for “booster shots” is a calculated scam.
Following this was a Debate on Vaccine Passports moderated by Patrick Henningsen. Hennigsen remarked on the acceleration of the “vaccine passport” agenda, that is, plans that some governments had previously rejected and denied would ever be instituted, are instead now being mandated in a wide range of countries. These “pass” systems involve contracts with large tech firms in order to produce what could easily become a globalized digital ID system. Henningsen very appropriately called this emerging system, “medical apartheid”. Driving the plan for passes is what seems to be a “Zero Covid” policy—of endless restrictions until not a single “case” of infection is registered. Such a pass system would produce vaccine borders that limit travel. Entering the discussion at this point was another name not in the published program, Dr. Michel Chossudovsky (a Professor Emeritus in Economics at the University of Ottawa, director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, and its associated website, GlobalResearch.ca). Chossudovsky agreed with those who argue that this is not a “public health crisis,” as much as it is a political and economic one. Under pressure from their corporate sponsors, governments have engaged in systematic lying and manipulation of political apparatuses. He argued that “vaccine passports” are the product of lobbying by powerful interest groups, hence their deployment as Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), a favourite tool of neoliberals. Chossudovsky specifically referenced the ID2020 program, and the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab and his ideas for digitalizing people. Thus Chossudovsky warned of the formation in progress of a “digital tyranny”. We live in times of unprecedented dictatorship, he argued as one who lived through dictatorships in Chile and Argentina in the 1970s. That dictatorship has engineered a process of destruction.
Yeadon also re-entered discussion, explaining that “vaccine passports” are nonsensical and illogical. The fact that such passes are meant to be digital, he commented, is to produce a global, interoperable, common format. This is a remarkable response to a single coronavirus, when right now in circulation there are at least 40 other viruses that can affect the respiratory tract. Yeadon sees the coming of vaccine passports as “humanity’s event horizon,” which is just weeks, maybe months away.
Session 4: The Hour of Justice
“Reviving the Nuremberg Codex” featured Vera Sharav (a Holocaust survivor and founder of the Alliance for Human Research Protection). Among the more memorable presentations during this symposium, this one was perhaps the most impressive—I have thus extracted the entire segment of her talk from the symposium (see below). Sharav recounts emerging from the Holocaust and wondering, “Where was everybody?” How could people have known and done nothing? Or, how could they not have known? The experience obviously left a very deep mark on her, and she says: “When I see wrong, I can’t keep quiet”. Part of her presentation focused on informed consent. She traces the legal evolution of informed consent from a US court case in 1914, which mandated informed consent for medical procedures. Moving on to the Nuremberg Code, she argued that this is the most important legal instrument in the history of medicine. The Nuremberg Code affirms the rights of individuals over the State; these rights are universal; they operate in times of war and peace; and, informed consent includes the testing of drugs and vaccines. The Nuremberg Code is a valid basis for litigation—doctors and government officials can be prosecuted under the Nuremberg Code.
Sharav agreed that what we are witnessing is a collapse of democracy, and the rise of dictatorship. States of emergency, the suspension of constitutions, the use of fear as a psychological weapon, and the magnitude of propaganda emanating from official sources and the media, are all facets of this dictatorship. The virus is merely an instrument, or a cover, which is used to subvert ethical, moral, and legal apparatuses. Vaccine passports are the product of a policy of discrimination which creates a two-tiered society. The unvaccinated are demonized as “spreaders of disease,” which is how Jews were demonized by the Nazis, she recalls. We are also witnessing minimally tested genetic technology being used on children. Agreeing with Paul Craig Roberts, she says that Covid-19 is a tool used in the profit-making agenda of corporate giants and for expanding the power of states allied to those corporations, a conspiracy against health and life.
Sharav closed by observing that most people simply do not believe that the evil that is upon us is true. She also warned that, this time, there will be no rescuers who will come to release us.
“The Hour of Justice” featured Reiner Fuellmich (an attorney at law since 1993 in Germany and since 1994 in California, with over three decades of experience as a consumer protection attorney, particularly against banks). He was joined by Vera Sharav and Patrick Henningsen. Fuellmich, in agreement with others in the symposium, argued that this “pandemic”—produced by deeply flawed PCR tests—is not about “public health”. He argued that “our government is not ours”; governments are increasingly features of public-private partnerships (PPPs, as mentioned earlier). They have set out to destroy small and medium-sized enterprises, to make room for the expansion of powerful corporations.
For Fuellmich, the most important legal issue is to attack the use of PCR testing, which has been relied upon to create a fiction or an illusion of a pandemic. In addition, lawyers can contest the constitutionality of lockdowns. Courts in Portugal, Austria, and Germany have ruled that PCR tests are not reliable and should not be used, or they have found the lockdowns to be unconstitutional. The point is that there is value in their fact-finding discoveries, which can be used in other jurisdictions. Fuellmich later added that what should be explored is the value of launching an international class action lawsuit.
Sharav joined the discussion and made several more points, including that gain-of-function research is used in developing biowarfare weapons. She commented on the recent announcement by the CDC that it would be withdrawing the use of PCR tests, suggesting that the CDC is increasingly being embarrassed by the large numbers of fully vaccinated persons testing positive. Sharav also condemned masking: masks prevent people from engaging in normal interactions, to gather, to compare notes (so to speak). Masks are a technology that creates a human-hostile atmosphere.
Henningsen closed this session by returning to the discussion of Klaus Schwab. He argued that his ideas for digitalization of humans are an expression of transhumanism, which is itself an outgrowth of the much older eugenics movement.
The Final Panel Discussion with Sucharit Bhakdi, Thomas Binder, Catherine Austin Fitts, Reiner Fuellmich, led by Michael Palmer, was a long session that ended the day with an assortment of ideas and suggestions. On the question of what we can do, Austin Fitts recommended that we visit the website of Doctors for Covid Ethics, particularly their Resources page, and make use of their consent forms.
Commenting on the variants, used to scare up more restrictions and mandates, Binder reminded us that we are essentially being told that a seasonal cold virus is undergoing aberrant mutation into more dangerous forms that only vaccines can stop—nonsense, he said. Bhakdi agreed with him, that much of the talk about variants consists of nonsensical lies. Binder explained how viruses adapt and evolve: a virus seeks ideal conditions that allow it to reproduce and spread—dead hosts are not advantageous. Viruses thus adapt to human hosts, just as we adapt to viruses. With time, mutations become less dangerous, not more. (Example: the Spanish Flu is still with us today—having lost its real virulence by the 1920s, it became less and less deadly and is now present in most of the seasonal influenzas that circulate.)
Fuellmich, returning to the issue of legal challenges, pointed to courts in India and South Africa, that are not on the radar, as possibly being the loci of some of the most striking challenges to come next. Again, the fact-finding produced in such cases will be available for the purposes of litigation in other jurisdictions around the world. The media can also be held liable, he argued.
Bhakdi argued that it is the duty of doctors to speak out and fight back. What is happening now is the effective abolition of science. Doctors no longer feel comfortable in seeing their patients as they used to, under this smothering fog of mandates, orders, and state surveillance.
Henningsen closed with a range of comments, not all of which addressed the “What can we do?” question. He remarked that public health systems are likely to collapse and then be dismantled as a result of a crushing backlog of delayed medical procedures. He referred to the oversized influence of pharmaceutical companies, and referred us back to the book, Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine, as part of his criticisms of the alliance between governments, the media, and the pharmaceutical industry. We are also seeing the creation of a digital dystopia, the opposite of what we were told life would be like with the advent of the Internet. Addressing the main question, he urged us to connect in the real world. He added that the first real challenges to this emerging order, the first key struggles, will be local.
Yeadon is the closest we have to a Julian Assange in this whole conflict, in terms of helping fellow doctors to gain the courage to come forward and speak out, and yet Yeadon is also effectively a whistleblower, a former insider who is far better acquainted with his industry, and with Pfizer in particular, than any of those who presume to “fact check” him. Yeadon’s contribution was thus invaluable. Bhakdi’s “end of the narrative” very strangely seemed to attract not a single comment from any of his colleagues in the symposium, when one would have expected it to become the focus of discussion. This made little sense to me, unless they have detected a problem with Bhakdi’s analysis and are not telling us. Sharav’s presentation had a strong impact on me.
For me personally, what was lacking was broad enough international participation, or even the participation of some equally prominent medical critics, such as Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, or Dr. Byram Bridle, and doctors from France and especially Sweden. There is no reason not to have a follow-up symposium. In addition, there ought to be more social scientists taking part as well.
What would also be very relevant right now is a similar symposium featuring doctors and medical practitioners from different parts of Africa, India, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Given the prevailing notion in the UK and North America, that “poor and Black” persons and communities are the most vulnerable to the virus—then why has Africa not occupied the centre of global attention as a zone of vast human destruction caused by the virus itself? What are doctors on the ground doing, especially since “vaccines” are very limited in supply? In the Caribbean—in fact, in all of the Americas—Haiti had no lockdowns, no effective masking nor distancing, and absolutely no “vaccines” (until the US recently sent a batch immediately after the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse, who rejected prior offers of vaccines). Yet Haiti has been far from the worst case in the Americas, despite what the dominant narrative would call “zero protection”. Haiti may have many serious problems, but Covid-19 was not one of them. A number of Haiti’s Caribbean neighbours have in fact suffered much worse, among them Cuba, the Dominican Republic (right next door), and Trinidad & Tobago. It would be especially useful to hear from Haitian medical practitioners. Of course, such a broad international symposium would pose a difficult technical challenge, of simultaneous translation into other languages.
Symposia, articles, videos—all of these are of crucial importance for raising awareness. Without them, I would probably still believe and write the kind of inadvertent rubbish I was writing in the Spring of 2020. One needs to be curious, have an open mind, and not give in to that quasi-allergic reaction one has when encountering something radically different from what you heard or read on MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, the BBC, Reuters, or rag mags like TruthDig. Being established and secure, having money, and basking in the approval of officialdom, can never be conflated with truth, accuracy, honesty, integrity, and a commitment to knowledge, health, and democracy.
Join us on the Zero Anthropology Telegram Channel for an assortment of daily briefings, videos, reports, documents, and blog posts.