I look at you all, see the love there that's sleeping
I don't know why nobody told you
How to unfold your love
I don't know how someone controlled you
They bought and sold you
I look at the world and I notice it's turning
With every mistake we must surely be learning
I don't know how you were diverted
You were perverted too
I don't know how you were inverted
No one alerted you
I look at you all, see the love there that’s sleeping
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
 - George Harrison, 1968

1. Introduction

In his book The Real Anthony Fauci, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK) presents his approach to his subject with the warning given by President Eisenhower in his farewell address in January 1961:

[Eisenhower] warned our country about the emergence of a Military Industrial Complex that would obliterate our democracy. In that speech, Eisenhower made an equally urgent—although less celebrated—warning against the emergence of a federal bureaucracy, which, he believed, posed an equally dire threat to America’s Constitution and her values. Eisenhower emphasized that he was talking about much more than the corrupting influence of military spending, [saying], “In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded… [We] must… be alert to the danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system—ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”[1]

RFK likens Anthony Fauci’s half-century as a public servant to the notorious long reign of J. Edgar Hoover as head of the FBI. Both men became untouchable little emperors within the federal government bureaucracies that they commanded, and elected officials who could have fired them were too intimidated to do so. Unlike most public servants who serve in such high positions for only a few years, at the pleasure of elected leaders, they gained an unaccountable power over the system of checks and balances that is supposed to exist. RFK accuses the US government of utterly failing to reign in Dr. Fauci and failing to achieve the task set out by Eisenhower: to ensure that the scientific bureaucracy is subordinate to the principles of democracy. RFK alleges that Anthony Fauci:

… has used his control of billions of dollars to manipulate and control scientific research to promote his own, and NIAID’s, institutional self-interest and private profits for his pharma partners to the detriment of America’s values, her health, and her liberties. Of late, he has played a central role in undermining public health and subverting democracy and constitutional governance around the globe and in transitioning our civil governance toward medical totalitarianism. Just as President Eisenhower warned, Dr. Fauci’s COVID-19 response has steadily deconstructed our democracy and elevated the powers of a tyrannical medical technocracy.[2]

RFK also accuses Fauci of failing to reduce chronic illnesses—the ultimate causes of the allergies (auto-immune disorders) and infectious diseases his institution is supposed to be concerned with. Instead, there has been a constant obsession with the proximate causes of diseases (emphasis on germ theory as opposed to terrain theory). The strategy is to always develop drugs and vaccines instead of strategies for improving access to healthcare, and eliminating pollution, unhealthy food, and the stressful conditions of life.

Eric Clapton and Peter Frampton at the Crossroads Guitar Festival, September 2019, performing While My Guitar Gently Weeps. At this time Eric Clapton was much admired for the millions of dollars the Crossroads festivals had raised for addiction treatment. Eric’s good deeds were quickly forgotten and his character was assassinated when he spoke publicly about being injured by a vaccine.

2. Nuclear Complex / Pharmaceutical Complex: Some analogies

In the present political climate, some activists tend to be focused on their particular fields of concern and thus lose sight of the bigger picture, and this can leave them vulnerable to being blindsided by a crisis that emerges from some field that they were not paying attention to. We expected “the big one” to drop on New York one day, but then we discovered how much damage a viral pandemic panic could do to the social fabric. We did nazi that coming.

When the panic came, some people with deep knowledge of the nuclear industry, and decades of commitment to protesting it, suddenly fell into line with everything dictated by the globally coordinated official response to Covid-19. If they have some doubts about the global response, they might be keeping quiet because they know the topic is radioactive (so to speak) in this climate of fear and social division. Why sabotage all the good work done one issue by sticking one’s neck out to question the official narrative on vaccines and effective treatments? It is tempting to make this mistake, but everything is connected. Nuclear hazards are public health hazards, and the nuclear and pharmaceutical industries are both a part of the massive publicly and privately regulated monster squid in which, as Eisenhower warned, policy has itself become “the captive of a scientific technological elite.”

It shouldn’t be necessary to spell out the similarities in the two industries, but I will do it here. Keep in mind also that other sectors of the economy are involved, which could all be added to the original concept of the military-industrial complex in order to speak now of an “executive-legislative-juridical-bureaucratic-United Nations-philanthropic-mining-petro-chemical-nuclear-digital-security-agriculture-food-chemical-pharmacological-finance-real estate-insurance-transport-education-media-military-industrial complex.” 

Consider the analogies below:

Chernobyl : AZT for AIDS treatment :: Fukushima : Gain of function research on corona viruses

Silkwood : The Constant Gardener :: The China Syndrome : Dallas Buyers’ Club

Fusion Energy : HIV Vaccine

Nuclear energy : mRNA vaccines…  too cheap to meter?

Duck and cover : masking, partitioning and social distancing

Nuclear indemnity : vaccine indemnity

Nuclear power plant exports / vaccine exports: solidifying economic and strategic blocs in international relations

The lines above use the format of the analogy question type that used to be on the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) for American college applicants. They show succinctly the analogous nature of catastrophes that were caused by failures in the nuclear and pharmaceutical industries, two in the late 20th century and two in the early 21st century. Observers of both will note that whenever they must face up to catastrophic mistakes, they will utter the famous line that “lessons have been learned,” no harm was intended and now the show must go on.

In the 1980s, Chernobyl and the response to it were analogous to the AIDS pandemic and the disastrous promotion of AZT as a treatment, and this pair is analogous to the events that have happened in the 21st century: the Fukushima Dai-ichi meltdowns and the gain of function research on corona viruses. The hydrogen bomb was a horrific weapon, but the excuse was that we had to develop it to deter our enemy and to understand what our enemy might use against us. In the same way, chimeric pathogens are developed under the excuse that we need to understand what an enemy might use and to develop countermeasures against it.

Popular films covered both industries in analogous ways. Silkwood (1983) was a story of corruption in the nuclear weapons complex while The Constant Gardener (2005) covered corruption in drug trials carried out in Africa. The film was based on John Le Carré’s novel, which was inspired by the true-life tale of Pfizer’s trial of its new drug trovafloxacin in Kano, Nigeria, during an epidemic of meningococcal meningitis. The China Syndrome (1979) can be paired with the film Dallas Buyers’ Club (2013). The latter is a relatively recent film in this list, but everyone seems to have forgotten the fact that America’s friendly Covid doctor, Anthony Fauci, was the villain in the story of who was blocking access to effective AIDS drugs in order to maintain a focus on the toxic AZT and an elusive vaccine.

Fusion energy is analogous to an HIV vaccine. Both are savior technologies that have been promised for decades but are forever receding further over the horizon. All the money spent on them can be seen in retrospect as colossal diversions of resources away from solutions aimed at systemic and fundamental change.

The new mRNA technology is being touted as a miraculous innovation that is going to lead to many more vaccines and therapies for cancers and other chronic diseases. There is here something reminiscent of the early days of nuclear energy when its promoters promised that its energy would be too cheap to meter. The long-term consequences were not yet understood. In the same way, vaccines now and always have been shortcut solutions to the systemic problems of poverty, lack of sanitation, and malnutrition.

The propaganda of seventy years ago is also similar to the propaganda of today. The images of masked schoolchildren sitting at partitioned desks two meters apart from their classmates are reminiscent of schoolchildren doing the duck-and-cover drills in the 1950s. The propaganda also naturalized the new technology. In the 1950s, nuclear preparation became a civic duty, with the father of the nuclear family put in charge of preparing the family’s fallout shelter. The civilian citizen, adult or child, became a soldier in the totalizing conflict. Posters of the time showed a boy and his dog, or a cowboy and his horse, observing a mushroom cloud rising in the distance. Throughout 2020 and 2021, the modern version of such imagery has appeared on social media and in marketing campaigns, with coupons for fries and donuts for upstanding citizens who did the right thing.

There is the notable repeat of indemnity for the new technology that is being deployed on a mass scale. The US Price-Anderson Act of 1957 partially indemnified civilian nuclear facilities against damages arising from nuclear accidents. Many nuclear states have similar laws because the compensation required after a serious nuclear accident is far beyond the ability of any corporation to pay. In the case of the recent vaccines, no pharmaceutical company had to wait for a debate over new legislation. The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) had been passed in 2005, and it was invoked in the 2020 pandemic to indemnify both the vaccine manufacturers and the government. Other countries followed with similar policies.

Finally, we see the way both nuclear exports and vaccine exports have become major sectors of national economies. They have also become ways for rival nation states to solidify their strategic relations through economic dependencies. If India buys a nuclear power plant from Russia, it is going to depend on Russia for decades to handle maintenance, refurbishment and nuclear waste management. The same thing has happened in 2021 with vaccines. There has been no global free trade in vaccines. The vaccine economic blocs were established along the same lines as military alliances. Japan, for example, committed itself to the American mRNA vaccines and never considered importing Russian, Chinese or Cuban vaccines, even though they were based on a manufacturing method that had a longer safety record than the mRNA biotechnology.

3. Subversion of the World Health Organization (WHO), Regulatory Capture

The most obvious place to look for the similarities between the nuclear and pharmaceutical industries is the WHO. The WHO should be independent of industry and financial interests, but it was subjugated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is captive of the nuclear industry, and in all other matters the WHO has become dependent on Bill Gates (also a nuclear advocate) for a major portion of its funding—an amount that exceeds the individual and total contributions of many nations that are supposed to have an equal vote in matters concerning global health.

The IAEA and the WHO signed an agreement in 1959 in which both agencies agreed to consult each other in matters of mutual concern. The organization IndependentWHO has always argued that this ambiguous agreement led to the WHO consistently failing to defend citizens of the world from radiation hazards. They claim that the IAEA has improper influence on the WHO, which is supposed to be bound by this stipulation requiring independence:

In the performance of their duties the Director-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any authority external to the Organization.[3]

The arrangement would not be a problem if the IAEA always had public health as its main priority, but its mission has always been to promote the development of atomic energy and to reduce the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation. Its roles as promoter of the industry and protector of public health are contradictory.

The IAEA has no enforcement powers, and not enough staff or funds to properly supervise all the nuclear hazards in the world. At the time of the Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe, its leaders lamented the emphasis on non-proliferation and the lack of resources for watching how various nations operate their nuclear reactors. The people who hold top positions at the IAEA are always those who have risen through industry—engineers and scientists, not physicians, lawyers, or sociologists from outside the industry who could be objective enforcers. In order to regulate the industry, apparently one must have thorough understanding of nuclear physics and the way that nuclear engineers work throughout their careers.

This demonstrates the paradox of government regulation in general. A competent regulator has to know what she is regulating, yet a person with such experience will share the same world view, biases, and values as the colleagues she has known for decades and is now supposed to “regulate.”

Think of what this word “regulate” really means. The American DEA is the Drug Enforcement Agency (there is enforcement for illegal drugs), but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is not the NEC. “R” stands for “regulate.” There is no “E” for enforcement. In engineering and mechanics, a regulator is an object that functions to maintain a designated characteristic. A thermostat maintains a temperature, or a voltage regulator sets the speed of a toy train going down a track. In this sense, as it is likely to be understood by nuclear engineers, a human regulator is not supposed to find errors, punish offenders, or disrupt operations. The regulator is supposed to just tweak the dials and maintain the status quo. A regulator who develops the strange idea that he is an enforcer will soon be stonewalled or excommunicated.

A famous example of this is Gregory Jaczko, a physicist who became the chairman of NRC in 2009 in spite of being an outsider in the nuclear industry. After the meltdowns of American-made reactors in Fukushima in March 2011, he began to see that reactors of the same design in the United States should be shut down permanently. The other commissioners sensed his changing views and edged him out by fomenting allegations from staff that he had been abusive and impossible to work with. After being expelled in 2012, he became a more vocal opponent of the industry and wrote a book, Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator, that included condemnations much stronger than any he could have uttered while heading the commission between 2009 and 2012.[4],[5]

In the dissenting studies of the Chernobyl catastrophe, researchers revealed that the IAEA and WHO studies concealed the true nature of the disaster’s health effects because of various institutional biases. The alarming declines in health and longevity were dismissed in their studies as a result of the economic collapse that occurred when the former Soviet Republics became independent. The Western media focused on the secrecy of the Soviet government and the governments of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia before and after the Soviet era. This set up a notion that the Western scientists and UN agencies, once allowed to study the situation, would be the honest outside forces that would shine a light and end the secrecy and denial.

However, the UN agencies and nuclear industries in the UK, US, France and elsewhere had much to lose if Chernobyl led to new assessments of the effects of radiation and nuclear accidents on public health. Lawsuits filed by nuclear veterans, downwinders and nuclear complex workers were pending in these countries in the 1990s. Any negative findings from Chernobyl studies could be disastrous for these defendants and for the future of the nuclear industry.

In an interview, historian Kate Brown stated that after years of study in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia she concluded:

… much of what we are told about the Chernobyl accident is incomplete or incorrect. People were far sicker, and far more people died than we are led to believe. Chernobyl contaminants were not safely enclosed within the Chernobyl Zone. Nor has the chapter been closed. We are still ingesting Chernobyl fallout from 33 years ago.[6]

In her book Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future, she explained why the UN agencies and the international nuclear industry had to design studies that would minimize the health effects of Chernobyl:

By 1986, there was no longer a “natural” level of radioactivity to use as background. With the Cold War in remission, officials had a hard time using “national security” as a reason to keep secrets about emissions from nuclear tests. Citizens learned the extent of their exposures and their governments’ denials of it. Lawsuits mounted, so did resistance to nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. Chernobyl was nothing short of a catastrophe for the nuclear defense establishment. But, if someone could show that Chernobyl, billed as “mankind’s greatest nuclear disaster,” caused only the death of a few score firemen and no other health effects, then all those lawsuits, uncomfortable investigations, and recriminations could go away.[7]

This view of Chernobyl studies is well known within the antinuclear movement. Another large, thorough study of it that contradicted the minimizing UN reports was edited by three Russian scientists and published in English in 2009 by the New York Academy of Sciences. [8] That study concluded that Chernobyl caused not a few thousand but a million premature deaths and untold health damage throughout the world. The NYAS came under sudden and heavy pressure to retract the publication, but it remains on the Academy’s website with a disclaimer that the volume “summarized the information about the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster from several hundreds of papers previously published in Slavic language publications.” It states that the Academy did not “validate the claims made in the original Slavic language publications cited in the translated papers” and that it has “not been formally peer-reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences or by anyone else … some projects, such as the Chernobyl translation, were developed and accepted solely to fulfill the Academy’s broad mandate of providing an open forum for discussion of scientific questions.”

Herein can be seen a fundamental problem in the “international” scientific community, whether it concerns the nuclear, the pharmaceutical or any other field. The quality of work done outside the sphere of English language publications cannot be affirmed. In this case it was, according to the NYAS a matter of “several hundreds of papers previously published in Slavic language publications.” All of that knowledge is just shoved aside. Sorry, no way to evaluate all of this wisdom written in the local vernacular.  

One argument I have heard explaining why now (during the coronavirus pandemic) is not the time to focus on corruption and scandals in Big Pharma is this: We all know there are problems. It’s capitalism. Corporations corrupt politics. We all know it. But the airlines are corporations just like pharmaceutical companies, and they are both regulated in flawed ways by government agencies. Nonetheless, we still use airplanes to get to where we want to go. Thus we should still follow the advice of the health authorities and take the remedies they offer to be done with the pandemic. Historically, there are examples of vaccines that work. This would be a reasonable argument if it held up when each recommended therapy is judged on its own merits and if the differences between vaccines and viruses were well understood by the public, but the systemic rot in health regulation and scientific research—at the international and national level—is serious enough to warrant extreme skepticism of corporations, government institutions, universities, and scientific journals. Rather than saying “now is not the time” we should be saying “no, now is precisely the time.” Much more is at stake now in this instance of a global pandemic and hundreds of millions of people being vaccinated with a novel treatment.

To go back to the flying analogy, we could say there may be problems in the regulation of the aviation industry, but we can at least know that Boeing and Airbus don’t take their new models to orphanages or foreign countries with lax oversight to recruit “volunteer” passengers to test aircraft that would not be approved for flights in the United States or Europe.[9] Yet such experiments have been done repeatedly by both the nuclear and the pharmaceutical industries.

The two industries are both alike in that there are numerous instances of new technologies being rushed to deployment before their impacts on health were understood. Radium and X-rays were used carelessly until their deadly effects became widely known. Nuclear reactors were built before even the structure of DNA was known, much less all its functions. Vaccines were deployed in some cases to positive effect, but in other cases with a tragic lack of understanding about their effects on the development and functioning of the immune system.[10] The mRNA biotechnology has been injected into hundreds of millions of people without any knowledge of its long-term effects. Though the testing of it was purported to be “gold standard,” there has been a rush to mandate the control group out of existence.

Nuclear weapons were tested in remote locations upon people who had been colonized, marginalized, and made virtually invisible to the metropole of the nations detonating the bombs.[11] In the same way, people of Africa and Asia have been targeted for drug and vaccine trials that were substandard and rushed compared to what was permissible in the metropole. Yet there are also the colonized people within the geographical metropole who were victimized by nuclear technology and drug trials—groups such as rural communities, indigenous nations, terminal patients, orphans, prisoners, women, pregnant women, and racial minorities.[12]

In contrast with other industries, there are some ways in which the pharmaceutical industry and its overseers are far ahead of any other in terms of corruption and public endangerment. The NRC, as far as we know, is still financed by the US government. It doesn’t hold patents on and finance itself on new reactor designs that it permits to be built. The NRC doesn’t have a network of thousands of academic, corporate, and government researchers that it funnels money to as a way of putting the head of the NRC at the nexus of power of the entire government-industry complex, nationally and internationally. It doesn’t give individual researchers and research institutes patent rights on the products they evaluate for safety. The NRC does not fund itself further with billions of dollars in contributions from “charitable” foundations. The head of the NRC has not been in his post for four decades and is not described pejoratively as “the J. Edgar Hoover of our times.” All of these characteristics not attributed to the nuclear industry are features of the empire that Anthony Fauci has built around the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since the 1980s, with the help of Bill Gates and many others. This is the central theme of RFK’s book, and it is a stunning wake-up call to all those who have been taken by surprise by how life changed after March 2020.

It is time for anti-nuclear activists to make the obvious connections. Nuclear technology has always been a public health issue, so it has to be seen as an integral part of Big Pharma, the pandemic response and the multi-headed complex described above and alluded to by Eisenhower in his farewell address. One of the few organizations that has covered this connection is Ratical, a site that covers all issues related to accelerated “koyaanisqatsi” life in the age of technology. With its simple 1990s-era website design, it doesn’t get much attention, but it is a treasure that has been around since long before the days of social media.

Anti-nuclear activists have to get over the hesitation to wade into the controversy over RFK’s book The Real Anthony Fauci and brace themselves for all the hatred and abuse that will surely come at them in the present social derangement. Anti-nuclear types should be well accustomed to being called flakes and conspiracy theorists. After all, we are the crazies who deny all the official UN reports that claim only a few thousand deaths occurred because of Chernobyl. We screamed that it was an outrageous lie when the government of Japan said the drastic increase in childhood thyroid cancer was due to “increased testing” and not to the Fukushima Dai-ichi meltdowns. Why should we turn a blind eye now to the big lies being told during the pandemic of the last two years? Vaccine injuries are being under-reported just like the health consequences of Chernobyl were hidden.[13] Effective, safe, inexpensive, and off-patent treatments have been suppressed, along with the common medical sense that these treatments have to be given early in the course of infection.[14] This suppression is akin to the suppression of alternatives to nuclear energy. It is a deception driven by financial interests.

4. From Nuclear Security to Biosecurity

We should have seen it coming. The pandemic and its associated management of disorder (as opposed to a restoration of order) were planned for a long time.[15] Many journalists and scholars described how the nuclear era gave birth to the security state which later grew to encompass the additional dread of terrorism, bioterrorism, and pandemics. The anthropologist Joseph Masco covered this history thoroughly in two books, Nuclear Borderlands (2006) [16] and The Theater of Operations (2014) [17]. In the latter, he describes how after the anthrax attacks 2001, the various federal agencies responsible for public health were given larger budgets and more power as they merged their traditional missions with those of the military, the CIA and the defense industry, which were also transitioning away from their “cold war” nuclear dread focus. The nuclear laboratories in New Mexico repurposed themselves to encompass any aspect of scientific research that could be conceived of as important for national security. The policy of confinement during a pandemic was apparently hatched innocently in 2006 by the teenage daughter of a researcher at Sandia Laboratories.[18]

In contrast with the narrative that pandemic policies were at first a hard sell and a fringe idea, RFK describes how a long series of rehearsals over twenty years brought together the security state, the public health agencies, billionaire “philanthropists” and representatives from all levels of government from the United States and various other countries. This is why the pandemic response rolled out worldwide as if by the turn of a key. The program was in place. The switch just had to be turned on. Here is how RFK describes one of these exercises:

Both the 1999 HHS smallpox simulation and the June 2001 Dark Winter smallpox simulation focused, ominously, not on public health, but on the quandary of how to impose control over US and global populations during public health emergencies, how to sweep away civil rights and impose mass obedience to military and medical technocrats. Atlantic Storm further probed these sinister disquisitions. High-level government figures, including Madeleine Albright playing the president of the United States and WHO Director-General Gro Harlem Brundtland playing herself, hosted a summit of transatlantic military and intelligence agency planners coordinating responses after a radical terrorist band unleashes smallpox. According to the After-Action Report, the key issues for summit principals were “coping with scarcity of critical medical resources such as vaccines” and assuring a uniform coordinated response among all governments in the world. The simulation stressed the inadequacy of current multilateral frameworks like NATO and the EU to cope with social, economic, and political disruption from an international epidemic, “be it natural or the result of a bioterrorist attack,” and emphasized the importance of developing systems to coordinate global lockstep security protocols that went beyond “just stockpiling vaccines or training more doctors.” Characteristically, the assembled eminences bypassed any discussion of bolstering people’s immune system response or testing and distributing off-label therapeutics and went directly to recommending militarized strategies including police state controls, mass propaganda and censorship, and the suspension of civil rights and due process rulemaking in favor of diktats by health authorities, all aimed at coercive vaccination of the population. These scenarios, which health officials and spooks conceived of and gamed back in 2005, became our collective reality in 2020 and 2021.[19]

Conclusion

I hope that what I’ve written above persuades anti-nuclear activists, and others who are sure they are fighting the good fight, that they have essential common cause with those who oppose the medical-industrial complex at this time. If the general population continues its slow death spiral caused by environmental toxins, bad food and drug side-effects, nuclear weapons and nuclear waste may be irrelevant concerns. The bombs will be rusting in their silos long after we are gone.

If you took the vaccine because your risk-benefit assessment made that the right choice for you, that is fine, but keep in mind that if you made that choice knowing that pharmaceutical companies are guilty of atrocities among the wretched of the earth, you are essentially saying to yourself, “Yeah, they would do that to them, but they wouldn’t dare do it to us,” and that is a fatal error. All empires in history have ended by eating their own.

All of the following aspects of the pandemic reaction must be interrogated:

  1. Corruption in the medical-industrial complex and all related institutions.
  2. The massive funding poured into both mainstream and edgy, fake left “alternative” media to suppress dissenting voices.
  3. The coordinated suppression of off-patent, inexpensive, safe treatments.
  4. The failure to treat patients in the early stages of infection.
  5. The abandonment of established public health policies for dealing with pandemics.
  6. The denial and coverup of adverse reactions to the vaccines.
  7. The use of coercion and public shaming to force people to take a medical treatment. Contrary to what has been stated in numerous smarmy editorials, the vaccines are in an experimental stage, and enforced medical treatment is not comparable to being required to wear a seatbelt. Seatbelts don’t provoke adverse health effects and death. The Nuremberg trials did not produce any new international norms and laws regarding the imposition of traffic laws and social norms. They specifically addressed the necessity of informed consent for medical treatment.
  8. The illegal and unconstitutional enforcement of digital passes to regulate access to public spaces, goods, and services. Today it’s vaccination status, tomorrow it’s another aspect of your health choices, or whether you were at a blockade in front of a nuclear installation.
  9. The abuse of children with regulations on masking, social distancing, partitioning, remote learning, and closures of schools and recreational opportunities and vaccination—the risks to children, and the risks posed by infected children never justified these measures.
  10. The dishonest promotion of the idea that a corona virus and the vaccine for it were analogous to smallpox—a slow-evolving molecule that doesn’t infect other animals—and the vaccine for smallpox. This was a deliberate deception to mislead the public into thinking that we could eradicate a corona virus—a fast-evolving molecule that infects other animals—through mass vaccination. 

Courage needs to come back everywhere, especially to the so-called “land of the free and the home of the brave.” One of the many ironic moments for me this year was the image of masked people flashing “health passes” to enter a cinema where they watched the science fiction film Dune. In that film, a famous line warns us that “fear is the mind-killer.” Here a little counter-narrative spilled out to the masses. The vaccines were leaky, and so was the great spectacle of media encirclement. There is a crack, a crack in everything—nuclear reactor containment vessels and steam generating pipes, software code, official narratives. That’s how the light gets in.

Appendix

How scientific research is bent to fit an agenda

Throughout the pandemic, many people who consider themselves intelligent and sound voices of reason have pleaded to their perceived lessers that they should shut up and “listen to the science.” You are not an expert, so don’t try to figure things out for yourself, they say. How could you possibly know more than a virologist or a veteran “health journalist” working for a Pfizer-sponsored media platform? While these types punch down on the working class with witless memes and false “seatbelt” analogies that imply their targets suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, it is these critics themselves who don’t know how ignorant they are of the ways scientific research can be captured by private interests and made to produce desired outcomes. These methods are evident in nuclear and pharmaceutical research. The list below describes the methods employed. Matthew Crawford stated in an essay on Unherd:

… pharmaceutical companies have, on a significant scale, paid physicians to praise, recommend and prescribe their products, and recruited researchers to put their names to articles ghost-written by the firms which are then placed in scientific and professional journals. Worse, the clinical trials whose results are relied upon by federal agencies in deciding whether to approve drugs as safe and effective are generally conducted or commissioned by the pharmaceutical companies themselves.[20]

  1. If a research team comes back with an undesirable result, hire a new team and do it all over again. Be sure the new team is on board with the project and understands implicitly why the research is being repeated.
  2. Limit the parameters of research. Don’t ask questions that might give the undesired answers (a strategy known by trial lawyers: don’t ask a witness a question if you don’t know what the answer is going to be).
  3. Create an emergency, or claim that there is an emergency, so the research must be done as quickly as possible. Normal rules don’t apply, so corners can be cut. Gold standard randomized, double blind trials are no longer necessary, except for researchers who have a hypothesis that threatens the agenda. For them, the gold standard trials are necessary, and they will take years to provide any conclusive data, at which point the emergency will have ended.
  4. When things are looking bad, or a competing, safer, cheaper solution is on the horizon, finish a study before the planned deadline—claim that the evidence in favor is overwhelming, that it’s cruel to withhold this wonderful drug/technology from the world.
  5. Get rid of the control group. Declare the study over and give the vaccine or drug to the control group too so that there will be no untreated or unvaccinated group to refer to in future lawsuits for damages.
  6. Falsely classify an observational study as a double-blind controlled study. Make sure the control group is taking an alternative therapy that is known to produce some undesirable effects. This technique will equalize undesirable effects in the treated and untreated groups.
  7. Don’t provide enough funding or time for a thorough study of hypotheses that might lead to undesirable results.
  8. Dismiss local experience and expertise as “unpublished,” not sufficiently established in the international community. State that it is impossible to evaluate because it wasn’t published in English.
  9. Don’t gather data on non-experts’ experiences and observations. Dismiss such evidence pejoratively as “qualitative,” “indigenous” or “anecdotal.” Claim that these people engage in magical thinking, that it is impossible find a place for such worldviews in “the science.”
  10. Excommunicate dissenting scientists, put fear of dissent into others to make them stay in the fold. Get researchers fired and defunded and maligned in the press.
  11. Keep control of the research with the bureaucratic elite, those at the top who are entrenched, untouchable and in control of funding and career advancement of subordinates.
  12. Use national security, privacy rights, and corporate secrets as excuses to not release information or pursue certain lines of inquiry.
  13. Destroy primary data and notes. Write up the research “from memory.”
  14. Keep dissenting scientists out of the peer review process—it’s a big club and they ain’t in it.
  15. Gaslight, deflect. Do not reply to questions asked. Resort to ad hominem attacks.
  16. Deploy assets in the media to run propaganda against dissenters.

Further Reading

The most alarming information in RFK Jr.’s book may be in the chapter that covers the drug trials that were carried out for AIDS treatments. A few of his sources are listed here. Note that the issue was covered in mainstream platforms such as the BBC and the Los Angeles Times, but these articles date from before the present era when Bill Gates has given hundreds of millions of dollars to media platforms that are also beholden to pharmaceutical industry advertising revenue.

Website for Guinea Pig Kids, a BBC documentary on New York City’s abuse of HIV-positive children under its supervision as human test subjects for experimental AIDS drug trials (November 30, 2004).

John Lauritsen, The AIDS War: Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex (Asklepios, 1993).

Vera Sharav, “Complaint: Phase I AIDS Drug/Vaccine Experiment on Foster Children,” Alliance for Human Research Protection (March 10, 2004).

Vera Sharav, “NYS Hearing—AIDS Drug /Vaccine Experiments on Foster Children,” Alliance for Human Research Protection, September 8, 2005.

Tim Schwab, “Journalism’s Gates Keepers,” Columbia Journalism Review, August 21, 2020.

Elinor Burkett, “HIV: Not Guilty?Miami Herald (Dec 23, 1990), 12: “The minute someone suggests that the orthodoxy might be wrong, the establishment starts to call him crazy or a quack… One week you’re a great scientist; the next week, you’re a jerk. Science has become the new church of America and is closing off all room for creative, productive dissent.” [quote in the article of Dr. Harry Rubin, specialist in retrovirology].

Notes


[1]. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (Skyhorse, 2021), 543.

[2]. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 544.

[3]The Agreement WHA 12-40 between WHO and IAEA,” IndependentWHO, Accessed December 22, 2021.

[4]. Gregory B. Jaczko, Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator (Simon & Schuster, 2019).

[5]. Gordon Edwards, “Ex-NRC regulator argues against nuclear energy as a tactic to fight climate change,” Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, January 11, 2019.

[6]. Kate Brown, “Chernobyl horror has nuclear lessons for SA,” Business Day, South Africa, June 4, 2019.

[7]. Kate Brown, Manual for Survival: A Chernobyl Guide to the Future (W. W. Norton & Company, 2019), 248.

[8]. Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, Alexey V. Nesterenko, Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Editors), “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, December 2009, Volume 1181.

[9]. I say this knowing that some people have wondered why the two crashes of Boeing’s new 737 Max occurred in Ethiopia and Indonesia (October 2018 and March 2019) before the aircraft had been deployed widely elsewhere.

[10]. Christine Stabell Benn, “How Vaccines Train the Immune System in Ways No One Expected,” TEDx Aarhus, October 2018.

[11]. Robert A. Jacobs, Nuclear Bodies: The Global Hibakusha (Yale University Press, 2022). From the publisher: “Robert A. Jacobs re‑envisions the history of the Cold War as a slow nuclear war, fought on remote battlegrounds against populations powerless to prevent the contamination of their lands and bodies. His comprehensive account necessitates a profound rethinking of the meaning, costs, and legacies of our embrace of nuclear weapons and technologies.”

[12]. Eileen Welsome, The Plutonium Files: America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War (Dell Publishing, 1999). This book is out of print, with extant copies of it in high demand ($168 on Amazon.com as of December 2021), but the digital version of it which I bought in 2012 is no longer available. How does an ebook sell out and go out of print?

[13]. Joseph Mercola, “CDC, FDA Say No Deaths from COVID Vaccines. VAERS Data Tell Different Story,” Children’s Health Defense, December 21, 2021. “The FDA and CDC are also ignoring standard data analyses that can shed light on causation… One of the most important of these criteria is temporality, because one thing has to come before the other, and the shorter the duration between two events, the higher the likelihood of a causative effect. ‘So, when you’re talking about percentages of people who died within 24 hours of one of these jabs, let’s say you’re talking 50%,’ Rose says… ‘That’s kind of suspicious to me. [Yet] they completely deny the causal effect. It’s just because of coincidence?’ There’s also a strong safety signal for female reproductive issues. Preliminary post-marketing data showed women who got the jab in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy had a miscarriage rate of 82%.”

[14]. Steven J. Hatfill, M.D., “The Intentional Destruction of the National Pandemic Plan,” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 26 Number 3 Fall 2021.

[15]. Giorgio Agamben, “A Philosophical Portrait of Giorgio Agamben,” Medium, December 2021 (interviewed in 2013). “It is important to understand that today the government does not want to maintain order but to manage disorder. And the disorder is always there. We see it in the crisis, the riots, the emergency, the state of necessity… they are evoked at any moment. But then it’s a matter of intervening.”

[16]. Joseph Masco, Nuclear Borderlands: The Manhattan Project in Post-Cold War New Mexico (Princeton University Press, 2006).

[17]. Joseph Masco, The Theater of Operations: National Security Affect from the Cold War to the War on Terror (Duke University Press, 2014).

[18]. Eric Lipton and Jennifer Steinhauer, “The Untold Story of the Birth of Social Distancing,” New York Times, April 22, 2020. “The idea [of lockdown] has been around for centuries. But it took a high school science fair, George W. Bush, history lessons and some determined researchers to overcome skepticism and make it federal policy.”

[19]. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., 835-836.

[20]. Matthew Crawford, “How science has been corrupted: The pandemic has revealed a darkly authoritarian side to expertise,” Unherd, May 3, 2021.