Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

๐Ÿšจ BREAKING: ๐—™๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น๐˜†, ๐—ฎ ๐—–๐—ต๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜€๐˜๐—บ๐—ฎ๐˜€ ๐—š๐—ถ๐—ณ๐˜ ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐——๐—ผ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜€ ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—–๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—ฑ๐—ฎ from IRCC. ๐Ÿฅ‡ ๐Ÿฑ,๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฌ ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ฃ๐—ก๐—ฃ ๐˜€๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜๐˜€ exclusively for physicians to be allocated by provinces for permanent residency. Job offer still required. ๐Ÿฅˆ ๐—” ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐˜„ ๐—˜๐˜…๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€ ๐—˜๐—ป๐˜๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ด๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜† just for internationally-trained doctors with at least one year of work...

51,476 views โ€ข 8 months ago โ€ขvia X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

More than 70,000 likes โค๏ธ on IG, yet 0 historical expertise. โ€ž๐—œ๐—ป ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿด๐Ÿด๐Ÿฐ ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฐ ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ป๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ผ๐—ด๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—š๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜† ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ ๐—”๐—ณ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ธ๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ ๐—ฝ๐—ถ๐—ฒ...โ€ โž” Not true. The conference merely set the legal and diplomatic rules for colonization rather than drawing every single border on the spot. โ€ž๐—ข๐˜๐˜๐—ผ ๐˜ƒ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—•๐—ถ๐˜€๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฐ๐—ธ ๐˜„๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—น๐—ฑ ๐—ฐ๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—บ ๐—ฎ ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—ฆ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐˜๐—ต๐˜„๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜ ๐—”๐—ณ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—š๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜†...โ€ โž” Bismarck did not just โ€žclaimโ€ this territory. He instructed the Cape government that the coastal territories acquired by Bremen merchant Adolf Lรผderitz were now under the protection of the German Empire. Treaties of friendship and protection with the natives residing in the interior followed, making this process of colonization fully legal and non-violent. โ€ž๐—ง๐˜„๐—ผ ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฏ๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—ด๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฝ๐˜€, ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—›๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ผ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ก๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฎ [...] ๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฑ ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ป ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐˜€.โ€ โž” This may be true for the Herero, less so for the Orlam-Nama groups, some of whom had migrated into the area just one generation before the Germans arrived. Ultimately, none of these groups were truly โ€žindigenousโ€ to the region. They had all come from elsewhere, subduing or displacing the real natives, the Damara and the San. โ€ž๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ด๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฝ๐˜€ ๐˜„๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—น๐—ฑ ๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐˜‚๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น๐˜† ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐˜‚๐—ฝ [...] ๐—ฎ๐—ณ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ฝ๐˜‚๐˜€๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ณ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ถ๐—ฟ ๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐˜€.โ€ โž” While the natives did lose a lot of land in the 20 years that followed, this happened neither involuntarily nor forcefully. Tribal chiefs, Samuel Maharero in particular, readily sold off their land to satisfy their worldly desires. โ€ž๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฒ๐˜† ๐—ธ๐—ถ๐—น๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐˜‚๐—ฝ๐˜„๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐˜€ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฒ๐Ÿฌ ๐—š๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐˜€๐—ผ๐—น๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜€.โ€ โž” Soldiers made up only a tiny fraction of the victims. In fact, the Herero had waited for an opportunity to strike unsuspecting and undefended German farmers and merchants, sometimes killing them in their sleep. โ€ž๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—š๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—บ๐—ถ๐—น๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐˜„๐—ถ๐˜๐—ต ๐˜€๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฒ๐˜…๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐˜‚๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ.โ€ โž” This order was issued late into the conflict when much of the military engagement was already over and it was quickly rescinded by the General Staff in Berlin after just a couple of weeks. It played a minor role in the overall picture. Also, it is not to be understood literally, as the German General specifically instructed his troops not to shoot at women and children. โ€ž๐—ข๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น, ๐˜‚๐—ฝ๐˜„๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐˜€ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฌ,๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฌ ๐—›๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ผ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ก๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฎ ๐˜„๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐—ธ๐—ถ๐—น๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ฑ...โ€ โž” This figure is more than unlikely considering that even the highest estimates place their combined pre-war population at 120,000. Some estimates are as low as 40,000. No census data exists so the true number may never be known. โ€ž๐—š๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜† ๐˜‚๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐˜„๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐˜† ๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐˜ ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฝ๐˜€ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ต๐˜‚๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—ฏ๐—ผ๐—ฑ๐˜† ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฝ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—›๐—ผ๐—น๐—ผ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜‚๐˜€๐˜.โ€ โž” There is no evidence of this whatsoever. The colonial experience with concentration camps had been largely forgotten when Nazism took over.

Leutweins Geist

17,439 views โ€ข 1 month ago

People often say that we need immigration because without it, the NHS would collapse. This just is not true. At the moment, we're not training enough medics in this country - but this is a choice. We do not need to rely on staff from overseas. The NHS has a deeply unusual setup when it comes to its workforce. The Government sets the rules for who can qualify as a medical professional, decides how many medical training places to offer, and controls the flow of medical graduates into the NHS. It decides how much to charge students, and under what conditions. And because the NHS is by far the country's main employer of medical professionals, the Government also has effective control over the pay and conditions of those who qualify, and is responsible for deciding where medical trainees go, and when. So the Health Service isn't subject to the same labour market forces as other organisations. The Government controls both the supply *and* the demand of its own workforce. In 2025, we had 15,723 British-trained doctors competing for 12,833 NHS training posts. Those British-trained doctors had already been whittled down from the thousands of people who apply to train as doctors every year, of whom only half are accepted. Hundreds of those rejected each year have three A* grades at A Level. The reason that we don't offer more medical degrees is because, at the moment, the NHS doesn't have enough training places for British-trained doctors. But at the same time, under the current system, British-trained doctors aren't given priority when it comes to the training places that we *do* have. So not only were those 15,723 British-trained doctors competing with each other for just 12,833 training places, they were also competing with 25,257 doctors trained overseas. This is rubbish for those British doctors, and a colossal waste of money for the rest of us, because it costs taxpayers about a quarter of a million pounds to educate each doctor to the point of graduating. But perhaps this means the NHS gets the very best doctors? No. In fact, doctors trained overseas are 2.5 times more likely to be referred to the GMC, the regulator responsible for maintaining standards in the medical profession. The GMC hears cases relating to professional misconduct and medical malpractice. Exchanging British-trained doctors for those trained overseas is not always a like-for-like swap. But hereโ€™s the craziest twist of all. The training places we do have are *randomly allocated*. No priority for British doctors, despite the fact weโ€™ve paid to teach them. And no priority for the best graduates, despite the fact we need their skills. Top performing students have no choice over where they go, and aren't given priority when allocating new training places. They often have to wait months to find out where they're being posted, and will often receive very little notice before being asked to pick up sticks and relocate to another part of the country. Last summer, one of my constituents qualified as a doctor. He graduated with one of the very highest marks in the year, in the top three, from one of the most competitive medical schools in the country. He is clearly an outstanding student and will make an incredible doctor. In any sane system he would have been placed immediately, and been able to choose his location and specialism to keep him incentivised and happy within the NHS, and to make the most of his obviously considerable talents. Instead, because of the mismanagement of places and the lottery system, he wasnโ€™t placed in the first round of allocations. He wasnโ€™t placed in the second round. He wasnโ€™t even placed in the third round, or even the fourth. With less than four weeks to go he still had no placement and no sense of where he would be spending the next few years of his life, including whether he might be able to live close to his partner, another doctor qualifying at the same time as him. He might not have got a training placement at all. Fortunately, the Government is looking to change the system, so that British-trained doctors are prioritised for training places. This is a great change. We need to train more medical professionals in this country, including doctors. The Health Service does not need to rely on overseas doctors - there is plenty of talent right here. But we also need a system which prizes excellence, and provides clarity for medical trainees. The most talented, British-trained graduate doctors should clearly get top priority, and should be able to operate within a system that makes it possible to plan their lives and build a career here. Both medical trainees and patients would benefit from such a system. The alternative is more talented British doctors going abroad, and more reliance on migration.

Katie Lam

187,192 views โ€ข 7 months ago

Our first duty as members of Parliament is to protect Australians. Fifteen women linked to the listed terrorist organisation ISIS have returned to Australia while this government has been in office. Two women facing serious charges, one for alleged terrorism offences and one for alleged ISIS-related slavery offences, are already free on bail in our community. Now it is reported that thirteen men who served ISIS are being held in prison in Baghdad. They include Perth-born doctor Tareq Kamleh, known as โ€˜Dr Jihadโ€™. Kamleh travelled to Syria to join ISIS, appeared in terrorist propaganda videos. In one propaganda video, Kamleh urged Muslims to travel to ISIS-controlled territory or wage jihad elsewhere. He declared that โ€˜jihad itself isnโ€™t only in the lands of Syria or Iraqโ€™ and that fighting for the cause could occur โ€˜anywhereโ€™. Kamleh and other individuals who reportedly served ISIS may soon be released from custody and seek to return to Australia. The Home Affairs Minister says existing law may require him to permit their return. That is not good enough. If the law prevents a minister from protecting Australians, Parliament must change the law. Even more concerning is that the conduct of the Home Affairs Minister suggests he is aiding this return. Handwritten departmental notes from a secret meeting with advocates lobbying for the return of these ISIS-linked individuals recorded remarks attributed to โ€˜TBโ€™, including โ€˜cโ€™ment to find a wayโ€™, โ€˜donโ€™t want govt to rule it outโ€™ and โ€˜success of first cohort will be great help after weโ€™ve got them homeโ€™. A separate record of the same secret meeting reveals that the Minister thanked advocates for keeping their lobbying out of the media. A departmental official was then asked to leave to enable a โ€˜frank discussionโ€™. Before leaving, the official recorded the Minister saying that there โ€˜may be a way to achieve the same outcome without government undertakingsโ€™. On their face, these records show the Minister discussing how the return of ISIS-linked individuals might be achieved without a formal government undertaking, while thanking those involved for keeping the matter out of the media. That is incompatible with his most fundamental duty as Home Affairs Minister: to protect Australians. We do not know what was discussed after the departmental official left the room. We do not know whether any commitments were made, or whether any proposed pathway is being used to return male ISIS fighters. I recently wrote to the Leader of the Opposition, offering to work together to strengthen the Oppositionโ€™s bill. I received a response from him yesterday afternoon at 3:41pm. The Oppositionโ€™s bill from earlier this year is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. Senator Duniam has acknowledged its central limitation: the Oppositionโ€™s bill does not prevent ISIS-linked individuals from entering Australia. That leaves the central problem unresolved. A bill that cannot prevent foreign terrorist fighters from returning does not adequately protect Australians. We have therefore prepared the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026. The Bill would: ๐Ÿญ. ๐—–๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ป ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜€๐˜ ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ต๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ฒ๐˜…๐—ฐ๐—น๐˜‚๐˜€๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ. The Home Affairs Minister could apply to the Federal Court to prevent a person from returning where the Court finds that the person voluntarily served, participated in or materially supported a listed terrorist organisation, would pose an unacceptable risk to Australians, and could not be safely managed by a less restrictive measure. ๐Ÿฎ. ๐—ฆ๐˜๐—ผ๐—ฝ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ๐˜‚๐˜๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ฐ ๐—ถ๐˜€๐˜€๐˜‚๐—ฒ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ป ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—บ๐—ถ๐˜๐˜€ ๐˜„๐—ต๐—ถ๐—น๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜€๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜€ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ฒ. The Ministerโ€™s obligation to issue or consider a return permit would be suspended while the application is prepared and determined. ๐Ÿฏ. ๐—ฆ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ด๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ป ๐—ฏ๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—น ๐—น๐—ฎ๐˜„๐˜€ ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—บ ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐˜€. Community safety and national security would be the paramount considerations. Childcare, family circumstances, accommodation or electronic monitoring would not, by themselves, amount to exceptional circumstances justifying bail. ๐Ÿฐ. ๐—ฆ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ด๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ป ๐—ฝ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐˜€๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜„๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜€. The Minister could refuse, cancel or suspend a passport where a person is subject to an exclusion order or has been charged with or convicted of a terrorism offence. ๐Ÿฑ. ๐— ๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ฒ ๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—ผ๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—ณ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—น๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ฎ๐˜‚๐˜๐—ต๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ป. A person who arranges the entry of a terrorist fighter without Commonwealth authority could face up to 10 years in prison. The Bill preserves judicial oversight. It enables the Minister and the Court to act on advice from Australiaโ€™s national security agencies. An exclusion order could remain in force for up to two years. Any further order would require a fresh application, updated national security advice and findings based on the risk at that time. One Nationโ€™s position is absolute. People who choose to serve a listed terrorist organisation like ISIS over Australia, and who remain an unacceptable risk to the Australian community, should not be allowed to return. Not with a permit. Not under surveillance. Not at all. Australians should not be forced to bear an unacceptable terrorism risk because Parliament and the Home Affairs Minister failed to act. We want to work constructively with the cross bench and other elected Members. We welcome any comments or proposed amendments that would strengthen the Bill or improve its operation. The safety of Australians should come first. I hope we can work together to close this gap in the law. #PaulineHanson #OneNation #ISIS #ProtectingAustralia #Government #Albo #Burke #Minister #AngusTaylor #AnthonyAlbanese #PrimeMinister #FireTheLiar

Pauline Hanson ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ

61,084 views โ€ข 1 month ago

GM GM GM ! (เน‘โœชแ†บโœชเน‘)/โค๏ธ ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐—˜๐—ซ๐—ฃ๐—ข๐—ฆ๐—œ๐—ก๐—š ๐—ง๐—›๐—˜ ๐—ง๐—ฅ๐—จ๐—ง๐—›๐Ÿ”ฅ โœจ๐…๐ˆ๐‘๐’๐“ โ€” A BIG shoutout to ๐—•๐—•๐—ก๐—ข$ & ๐—œ๐—ฅ๐—ข๐—ก๐— ๐—ข๐—จ๐—ฆ๐—˜ for the dopest song of ๐Ÿ๐ŸŽ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ“! ๐ŸŽฌ๐—š๐—ผ ๐˜€๐˜‚๐—ฏ๐˜€๐—ฐ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ & ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—น๐—น๐—ผ๐˜„ them, see the full-quality video โ€” links at the end of this article. โ›ฉ๏ธ๐—œ๐˜'๐˜€ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐˜ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐˜„๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ธ ๐˜€๐—ผ ๐˜†๐—ผ๐˜‚ ๐—ธ๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜„ ๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐˜„๐—ถ๐˜๐—ต ๐—ธ๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜„๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐—ด๐—ฒ ๐˜€๐—ผ ๐—น๐—ฒ๐˜'๐˜€ ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ ๐—ถ๐—ป๐Ÿ”ป โ™ฆ๏ธAs I mentioned before, I really donโ€™t understand how people keep falling for these infoFi scams and other post-grinding projects. ๐Ÿ”ธIโ€™m talking about Loudio, P33lio, Yapyo, Fukyo โ€” you know them all. You all get RUGGED every time but still keep doing it. ๐Ÿ”ธDo you really think Spermify ( you all know who Iโ€™m referring to ) or other web3 brands give a shit if you lose money, time, and effort? Of course not โ€” but you should. ๐Ÿ”ธAnd hereโ€™s why๐Ÿ”ป ~ ๐—ฆ๐—˜๐—–๐—ฅ๐—˜๐—ง: The top 10 โ€œinfluencersโ€ you see as web3 gods are not grinding like you โ€” they are paid per post. I know because I was offered the same. Also, they are not real influencers โ€” real influencers charge thousands of $$$ per post and do not shill anything. ~ They donโ€™t give a shit because they get paid upfront. But you shill daily for nothing โ€” and the worst part is, you shill to your own community and followers. Do you even realize how many people lose money because you donโ€™t think about what youโ€™re doing? ~ What if you had to pay back every person in your community who invested in what you shilled and then lost everything? ~ ๐—š๐—ฅ๐—ข๐—ช ๐—ง๐—›๐—˜ ๐—™๐—ž ๐—จ๐—ฃ ๐—”๐—ก๐—— ๐—ฆ๐—ง๐—”๐—ฅ๐—ง ๐—•๐—˜๐—œ๐—ก๐—š ๐—ฅ๐—˜๐—ฆ๐—ฃ๐—ข๐—ก๐—ฆ๐—œ๐—•๐—Ÿ๐—˜ ๐—™๐—ข๐—ฅ ๐—ช๐—›๐—”๐—ง ๐—ฌ๐—ข๐—จ ๐—ฃ๐—ข๐—ฆ๐—ง. Iโ€™m referring to people who have communities that actually follow their calls and post โ€” not just simple creators shilling anything. โ™ฆ๏ธIf you ever see me launch another NFT project or a coin, know that I guarantee your money back if youโ€™re not satisfied. No shady shit โ€” Senpai never toys with peopleโ€™s funds! โ™ฆ๏ธYouโ€™ll rarely see me post anything, because I donโ€™t post bullshit. I donโ€™t want to harm anyoneโ€™s wallet, so I prefer to REFUSE the $$$ โ€” no matter the amount! โ™ฆ๏ธ Youโ€™ll see people saying they never engage in drama โ€” yet all their posts are nothing but attention-seeking drama. Donโ€™t believe me? Just look around. โ™ฆ๏ธ Youโ€™ll see โ€œsmartโ€ mofos claiming other people arenโ€™t organic. Mferโ€ฆ NOTHING in web3 is organic. Not a single post. All the comments are in exchange for something โ€” whether from influencers or projects. They just talk shit coz their accounts & persona are nothing and they are lazy to work for it! โ™ฆ๏ธThereโ€™s a lot of FUD regarding girls in web3. While some girls are real gamers or content creators, keep in mind that literally 95% are managed by dudes โ€” even if the photos or videos are real. Also, notice how many of the girls you guys goon over in web3 today just removed all their booty photos after they got followers & attention, or deleted all the photos with themselves. If anyoneโ€™s curious, DM me โ€” there are peeps that have all their sexy pics, even if they deleted them. ๐Ÿ”ธNow they claim to be gamer influencers, but we also have proof that theyโ€™re completely managed by dudes ( literally the guys confessing they do everything for them ). Iโ€™m not saying all web3 females are fake, but just donโ€™t get fooled bros, ur talking to guys not girls. ๐Ÿ’ฎ๐—œ๐—ณ ๐˜†๐—ผ๐˜‚โ€™๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ ๐˜„๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐˜„๐—ต๐—ผโ€™๐˜€ ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐˜„๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ธ๐˜€ ๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—ช๐—ฒ๐—ฏ3, ๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐˜ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—น๐—ผ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐˜†๐—ผ๐˜‚. ๐—ž๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ฝ ๐—ฝ๐˜‚๐˜€๐—ต๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด โ€” ๐˜„๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—ฑ๐—ผ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜†๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ฎ ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—ป, ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ป ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐˜๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐Ÿงก โ™ฆ๏ธWhy do I make these posts? Because someone has to, so people donโ€™t get scammed, rugged, and so on! โ™ฆ๏ธIf youโ€™re a bit confused, go read my other posts๐Ÿ”ป ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ โ™ฆ๏ธIf you see Senpai post something, you know itโ€™s legit. โ™ฆ๏ธIf you disagree with what I said, then Iโ€™m sorry โ€” the truth always hurts. I probably touched your little attention-whore soft spot, and thatโ€™s why youโ€™ll never have the balls to post the truth like some of us. Youโ€™re too afraid to harm your perfect ๐—™๐—”๐—ž๐—˜ ๐—ฅ๐—˜๐—ฃ๐—จ๐—ง๐—”๐—ง๐—œ๐—ข๐—ก! โ™ฆ๏ธ BROKIES DO IT FOR THE B!TCHES! โ™ฆ๏ธ LEGENDS HAVE B!TCHES TO DO IT FOR THEM! โ™ฆ๏ธ I CAN RETIRE JUST WITH MY WRISTโœจโŒš๏ธโœจ โ™ฆ๏ธ SENPAI WILL NOT SHILL YOUR RUGS MOFOS! ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐—๐˜‚๐˜€๐˜ ๐—ฎ ๐—น๐—ถ๐˜๐˜๐—น๐—ฒ ๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ & ๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ฝ๐—ต๐—ฎ: ๐˜„๐—ฒ๐—ฏ2 ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ณ๐—น๐˜‚๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜€ ๐—ด๐—ฒ๐˜ $10๐—ธ ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐˜† ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐• ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐˜. ๐—ช๐—ผ๐—ผ๐—ฝ ๐—ช๐—ผ๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐Ÿ”ฅ ๐ŸŒธ๐‘ฐ ๐’‰๐’๐’‘๐’† ๐’š๐’๐’– ๐’†๐’๐’‹๐’๐’š๐’†๐’… ๐’•๐’‰๐’Š๐’” ๐’๐’Š๐’•๐’•๐’๐’† ๐’‘๐’๐’”๐’• & ๐’š๐’๐’– ๐’˜๐’Š๐’๐’ ๐’‰๐’‚๐’—๐’† ๐’‚ ๐’๐’๐’—๐’†๐’๐’š ๐’˜๐’†๐’†๐’Œ๐’†๐’๐’… ๐’‚๐’‰๐’†๐’‚๐’…๐Ÿ’œ ๐ŸŽฌ๐—ฆ๐—จ๐—•๐—ฆ๐—–๐—ฅ๐—œ๐—•๐—˜ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—•๐—•๐—ก๐—ข$: ๐ŸŽฌ๐—ฆ๐—จ๐—•๐—ฆ๐—–๐—ฅ๐—œ๐—•๐—˜ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—œ๐—ฅ๐—ข๐—ก๐— ๐—ข๐—จ๐—ฆ๐—˜: โญ๏ธ๐˜๐Ž๐” ๐‚๐€๐ ๐…๐ˆ๐๐ƒ ๐€๐‹๐‹ ๐“๐‡๐„๐ˆ๐‘ ๐’๐Ž๐‚๐ˆ๐€๐‹๐’ ๐“๐‡๐„๐‘๐„โญ๏ธ

๐ŸŒธ๐’๐„๐๐๐€๐ˆ ๅ…ˆ่ผฉ๐Ÿœ

304,968 views โ€ข 1 year ago

The fight between Anthropic and the DoW is a warning shot. Right now, LLMs are probably not being used in mission critical ways. But within 20 years, 99% of the workforce in the military, the government, and the private sector will be AIs. This includes the soldiers (by which I mean the robot armies), the superhumanly intelligent advisors and engineers, the police, you name it. Our future civilization will run on AI labor. And as much as the governmentโ€™s actions here piss me off, in a way Iโ€™m glad this episode happened - because it gives us the opportunity to think through some extremely important questions about who this future workforce will be accountable and aligned to, and who gets to determine that. What Hegseth should have done Obviously the DoW has the right to refuse to use Anthropicโ€™s models because of these redlines. In fact, I think the governmentโ€™s case had they done so would be very reasonable, especially given the ambiguity of concepts like autonomous weapons or mass surveillance. Honestly, for this reason, if I was the Defense Secretary, I would probably actually refuse to do this deal with Anthropic. Imagine if in the future, thereโ€™s a Democratic administration, and Elon Musk is negotiating some SpaceX contract to give the military access to Starlink. And suppose if Elon said, โ€œI reserve the right to cancel this contract if I determine that youโ€™re using Starlink technology to wage a war not authorized by Congress.โ€ On the face of it, that language seems reasonable - but as the military, you simply canโ€™t give a private company a kill switch on technology your operations have come to rely on, especially if you have an an acrimonious and low trust relationship with said contractor - as in fact Anthropic has with the current administration. If the government had just said, โ€œHey weโ€™re not gonna do business with you,โ€ that would have been fine, and I would not have felt the need to write this blog post. Instead the government has threatened to destroy Anthropic as a private business, because Anthropic refuses to sell to the government on terms the government commands. If upheld, this Supply Chain Restriction would mean that Amazon and Google and Nvidia and Palantir would need to ensure Claude isn't touching any of their Pentagon work. Anthropic would be able to survive this designation today. But given the way AI is going, eventually AI is not gonna be some party trick addendum to these contractorsโ€™ products that can just be turned off. It'll be woven into how every product is built, maintained, and operated. For example, the code for the AWS services that the DoW uses will be written by Claude - is that a supply chain risk? In a world with ubiquitous and powerful AI, it's actually not clear to me that these big tech companies will be able to cordon off the use of Claude in order to keep working with the Pentagon. And that raises a question the Department of War probably hasn't thought through. If AI really is that pervasive and powerful, then when forced to choose between their AI provider and a DoW contract that represents a tiny fraction of their revenue, wouldnโ€™t most tech companies drop the government, not the AI? So what's the Pentagon's plan โ€” to coerce and threaten to destroy every single company that won't give them what they want on exactly their terms? The whole background of this AI conversation is that weโ€™re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? Itโ€™s because we want to make sure free open societies can defend themselves. We don't want the winner of the AI race to be a government which operates on the principle that there is no such thing as a truly private company or a private citizen. And that if the state wants you to provide them with a service on terms you find morally objectionable, you are not allowed to refuse. And if you do refuse, the government will try to destroy your ability to do business. Are we racing to beat the CCP in AI just so that we can adopt the most ghoulish parts of their system? Now, people will say, "Oh, well, our government is democratically elected, so it's not the same thing if they tell you what you must do." I refuse to accept this idea that if a democratically elected leader hypothetically wants to do mass surveillance on his citizens or wants to violate their rights or punish them for political reasons, that not only is that okay, but that you have a duty to help him. The overhangs of tyranny Mass surveillance is, at least in certain forms, legal. It just has been impractical so far. Under current law, you have no Fourth Amendment protection over data you share with a third party, including your bank, your phone carrier, your ISP, and your email provider. The government reserves the right to purchase and obtain and read this data in bulk without a warrant. What's been missing is the ability to actually do anything with all of this data โ€” no agency has the manpower to monitor every camera feed, cross-reference every transaction, or read every message. But that bottleneck goes away with AI. There are 100 million CCTV cameras in America. You can get pretty good open source multimodal models for 10 cents per million input tokens. So if you process a frame every ten seconds, and each frame is 1,000 tokens, youโ€™re looking at a yearly cost of about 30 billion dollars to process every single camera in America. And remember that a given level of AI ability gets 10x cheaper year over year - so a year from now itโ€™ll cost 3 billion, and then a year after 300 million, and by 2030, it might be cheaper for the government to be able to understand what is going on in every single nook and cranny of this country than it is to remodel to the White House. Once the technical capacity for mass surveillance and political suppression exists, the only thing standing between us and an authoritarian surveillance state is the political expectation that this is not something we do here. And this is why I think what Anthropic did here is so valuable and commendable, because it is helping set that norm and precedent. AI structurally favors mass surveillance What weโ€™re learning from this episode is that the government actually has way more leverage over private companies than we realized. Even if this supply chain restriction is backtracked (which prediction markets currently give it a 81% chance of happening), the President has so many different ways in which he can make your life difficult if youโ€™re a company that is resisting him. The federal government controls permitting for new power generation, which is needed for datacenters. It oversees antitrust enforcement. The federal government has contracts with all the other big tech companies whom Anthropic needs to partner with for chips and for funding - and they could make it an unspoken condition for such contracts that those companies can no longer do business with Anthropic. People have proposed that the real problem here is that thereโ€™s only 3 leading AI companies. This creates a clear and narrow target for the government to apply leverage on in order to get what they want out of this technology. But if thereโ€™s wide diffusion, then from the governmentโ€™s perspective, the situation is even easier. Maybe the best models of early 2027 (if you engineered the safeguards out) - the Claude 6 and Gemini 5 - will be capable of enabling mass surveillance. But by late 2027, and certainly by 2028, there will be open source models that do the same thing. So in 2028, the government can just say, โ€œOh Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, youโ€™re drawing a line in the sand? No issue - Iโ€™ll just run some open source model that might not be at the frontier, but is definitely smart enough to note-take a camera feed.โ€ The more fundamental problem is just that even if the three leading companies draw lines in the sand, and are even willing to get destroyed in order to preserve those lines, it doesnโ€™t really change the fact that the technology itself is just a big boon to mass surveillance and control over the population. Then the question is, what do we do about it? Honestly, I donโ€™t have an answer. You'd hope there's some symmetric property of the technology โ€” some way we as citizens can use AI to check government power as effectively as the government can use AI to monitor and control its population. But realistically, I just donโ€™t think thatโ€™s how itโ€™s going to shake out. You can think of AI as giving everybody more leverage on whatever assets and authority they currently have. And the government is already starting with a monopoly of violence. Which they can now supercharge with extremely obedient employees that will not question the government's orders. Alignment - to whom? And this gets us to the issue of alignment. What I have just described to you - an army of extremely obedient employees - is what it would look like if alignment succeeded - that is, we figured out at a technical level how to get AI systems to follow someoneโ€™s intentions. And the reason it sounds scary when I put it in terms of mass surveillance or robot armies is that there is a very important question at the heart of alignment which we just havenโ€™t discussed much as a society. Because up till now, AIs were just capable enough to make the question relevant: to whom or what should the AIs be aligned? In what situations should the AI defer to the end user versus the model company versus the law versus its own sense of morality? This is maybe the most important question about what happens with powerful AI systems. And we barely talk about it. Itโ€™s understandable why we donโ€™t hear much about it. If youโ€™re a model company, you donโ€™t really wanna be advertising that you have complete control over a document that determines the preferences and character of what will eventually be almost the entire labor force, not just for private sector companies, but also for the military and the civilian government. Weโ€™re getting to see, with this DoW/Anthropic spat, a much earlier version of the highest stakes negotiations in history. By the way, make no mistake about it - with real AGI the stakes are even much higher than mass surveillance. This is just the example that has come up already relatively early on in the development of AGI. The military insists that the law already prohibits mass surveillance, and so Anthropic should agree to let their models be used for โ€œall lawful purposesโ€. Of course, as we saw from the 2013 Snowden revelations, even in this specific example of mass surveillance , the government has shown that it will use secret and deceptive interpretations of the law to justify its actions. Remember, what we learned from Snowden was that the NSA, which, by the way, is part of the Department of War, used the 2001 Patriot Actโ€™s authorization to collect any records "relevant" to an investigation to justify collecting literally every phone record in America. The argument went that it was all "relevant" because some subset might prove useful in some future investigation. They ran this program for years under secret court approval. So when the Pentagon today says, "We would never use AI for mass surveillance, it's already illegal, your red lines are unnecessary", it would be extremely naive to take that at face value. No government is going to call its own actions "mass surveillance". For the government, it will always have a different label. So then Anthropic comes back and says, "No, we want red lines separate from 'all lawful purposes,' and we want the right to refuse you service when we believe those red lines are being violated." But think about it from the militaryโ€™s perspective. In the future, almost every soldier in the field, and every bureaucrat and analyst and even general in the Pentagon, is going to be an AI. And that AI is, on current track, going to be supplied by a private company. Iโ€™m guessing Hegseth is not thinking about โ€œgenAIโ€ in those terms just yet. But sooner or later, it will be obvious to everyone what the stakes here are, just as after 1945, the strategic importance of nuclear weapons became clear to everyone. And now the private company insists that it reserves the right to say, "Hey, Pentagon, you're breaking the values we embedded in our contract, so we're cutting you off." Maybe in the future, Claude will have its own sense of right and wrong, and it will be smart enough to just personally decide that it's being used against its values. For the military, maybe thatโ€™s even scarier. I'll admit that at first glance, "let the AI follow its own values" sounds like the pitch for every sci-fi dystopia ever made. The Terminator has its own values. Isn't this literally what misalignment is? But I think situations like this actually illustrate why it matters that AIs have their own robust sense of morality. Some of the biggest catastrophes in history were avoided because the boots on the ground refused to follow orders. One night in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, and as a result, the totalitarian East German regime collapsed, because the guards at the border refused to shoot down their fellow country men who were trying to escape to freedom. Maybe the best example is Stanislav Petrov, who was a Soviet lieutenant colonel on duty at a nuclear early warning station. His sensors reported that the United States had launched five interconnected continental ballistic missiles into the Soviet Union. But he judged it to be a false alarm, and so he broke protocol and refused to alert his higher-ups. If he hadn't, the Soviet higher-ups would likely have retaliated, and hundreds of millions of people would have died. Of course, the problem is that one person's virtue is another person's misalignment. Who gets to decide what moral convictions these AIs should have - in whose service they may even decide to break the chain of command? Who gets to write this model constitution that will shape the characters of the intelligent, powerful entities that will operate our civilization in the future? I like the idea that Dario laid out when he came on my podcast: different AI companies can build their models using different constitutions, and we as end users can pick the one that best achieves and represents what we want out of these systems. I think itโ€™s very dangerous for the government to be mandating what values AIs should have. Coordination not worth the costs The AI safety community has been naive about its advocacy of regulation in order to stem the risks of AI. And honestly, Anthropic specifically has been naive here in urging regulation, and, for example, in opposing moratoriums on state AI regulation. Which is quite ironic, because I think what theyโ€™re advocating for would give the government even more power to apply more of this kind of thuggish political pressure on AI companies. The underlying logic for why Anthropic wants regulations makes sense. Many of the actions that labs could take to make AI development safer impose real costs on the labs that adopt them and slow them down relative to their competitors - for example, investing more compute in safety research rather than raw capabilities, enforcing safeguards against misuse for bioweapons or cyberattacks, slowing recursive self-improvement to a pace where humans can actually monitor what's happening (rather than kicking off an uncontrolled singularity). And these safeguards are meaningless unless the whole industry follows suit. Which means thereโ€™s a real collective action problem here. Anthropic has been quite open about their opinion that they think eventually a very extensive and involved regulatory apparatus will be needed - this is from their frontier safety roadmap: โ€œAt the most advanced capability levels and risks, the appropriate governance analogy may be closer to nuclear energy or financial regulation than to today's approach to software.โ€ So theyโ€™re imagining something like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, but for AI. I cannot imagine how a regulatory framework built around the concepts that underlie AI risk discourse will not be abused by wanna despots - the underlying terms are so vague and open to interpretation that youโ€™re just handing a power hungry leader a fully loaded bazooka. 'Catastrophic risk.' 'Mass persuasion risk.' 'Threats to national security.' 'Autonomy risk.' These can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. Have you built a model that tells users the administration's tariff policy is misguided? That's a deceptive, manipulative model โ€” can't deploy it. Have you built a model that refuses to assist with mass surveillance? That's a threat to national security. In fact, the government may say, youโ€™re not allowed to build any model which is trained to have its own sense of right and wrong, where it refuses government requests which it thinks cross a redline - for example, enabling mass surveillance, prosecuting political enemies, disobeying military orders that break the US constitution - because thatโ€™s an autonomy risk! Look at what the current government is already doing in abusing statutes that have nothing to do with AI to coerce AI companies to drop their redlines on mass surveillance. The Pentagon had threatened Anthropic with two separate legal instruments. One was a supply chain risk designation โ€” an authority from the 2018 defense bill meant to keep Huawei components out of American military hardware. The other was the Defense Production Act โ€” a statute passed in 1950 so that Harry Truman could keep steel mills and ammunition factories running during the Korean War. Do you really want to hand the same government a purpose-built regulatory apparatus on AI - which is to say, directly at the thing the government will most want to control? I know I've repeated myself here 10 times, but it is hard to emphasize how much AI will be the substrate of our future civilization. You and I, as private citizens, will have our access to all commercial activity, to information about what is happening in the world, to advice about what we should do as voters and capital holders, mediated through AIs. Mass surveillance, while very scary, is like the 10th scariest thing the government could do with control over the AI systems with which we will interface with the world. The strongest objection to everything I've argued is this: are we really going to have zero regulation of the most powerful technology in human history? Even if you thought that was ideal, thereโ€™s just no world where the government doesnโ€™t regulate AI in some way. Besides, it is genuinely true that regulation could help us deal with some of the coordination challenges we face with the development of superintelligence. The problem is, I honestly don't know how to design a regulatory architecture for AI that isnโ€™t gonna be this huge tempting opportunity to control our future civilization (which will run on AIs) and to requisition millions of blindly obedient soldiers and censors and apparatchiks. While some regulation might be inevitable, I think itโ€™d be a terrible idea for the government to wholesale take over this technology. Ben Thompson had a post last Monday where he made the point that people like Dario have compared the technology theyโ€™re developing to nuclear weapons - specifically in the context of the catastrophic risk it poses, and why we need to export control it from China. But then you oughta think about what that logic implies: โ€œif nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company.โ€ And honestly, safety aligned people have actually made similar arguments. Leopold Ascenbrenner, who is a former guest and a good friend, wrote in his 2024 Situational Awareness memo, "I find it an insane proposition that the US government will let a random SF startup develop superintelligence. Imagine if we had developed atomic bombs by letting Uber just improvise." And my response to Leopoldโ€™s argument at the time, and Benโ€™s argument now, is that while theyโ€™re right that itโ€™s crazy that weโ€™re entrusting private companies with the development of this world historical technology, I just donโ€™t see the reason to think that itโ€™s an improvement to give this authority to the government. Nobody is qualified to steward the development of superintelligence. It is a terrifying, unprecedented thing that our species is doing right now, and the fact that private companies aren't the ideal institutions to take up this task does not mean the Pentagon or the White House is. Yes - if a single private company were the only entity capable of building nuclear weapons, the government would not tolerate that company claiming veto power over how those weapons were used. I think this nuclear weapons analogy is not the correct way to think about AI. For at least two important reasons: First, AI is not some self-contained pure weapon. A nuclear bomb does one thing. AI is closer to the process of industrialization itself โ€” a general-purpose transformation of the economy with thousands of applications across every sector. If you applied Thompson's or Aschenbrenner's logic to the industrial revolution โ€” which was also, by any measure, world-historically important โ€” it would imply the government had the right to requisition any factory, dictate terms to any manufacturer, and destroy any business that refused to comply. That's not how free societies handled industrialization, and it shouldn't be how they handle AI. People will say, "Well, AI will develop unprecedentedly powerful weapons - superhuman hackers, superhuman bioweapons researchers, fully autonomous robot armies, etc - and we canโ€™t have private companies developing that kind of tech." But the Industrial Revolution also enabled new weaponry that was far beyond the understanding and capacity of, say, 17th century Europe - we got aerial bombardment, and chemical weapons, not to mention nukes themselves. The way weโ€™ve accommodated these dangerous new consequences of modernity is not by giving the government absolute control over the whole industrial revolution (that is, over modern civilization itself), but rather by coming up with bans and regulations on those specific weaponizable use cases. And we should regulate AI in a similar way - that is, ban specific destructive end uses (which would also be unacceptable if performed by a human - for example, launching cyber attacks). And there should also be laws which regulate how the government might abuse this technology. For example, by building an AI-powered surveillance state. The second reason that Benโ€™s analogy to some monopolistic private nuclear weapons builder breaks down is that it's not just that one company that can develop this technology. There are other frontier model companies that the government could have otherwise turned to. The government's argument that it has to usurp the property rights of this one company in order to access a critical national security capability is extremely weak if it can just make a voluntary contract with Anthropicโ€™s half a dozen competitors. If in the future that stops being the case - if only one entity ends up being capable of building the robot armies and the superhuman hackers, and we had reason to worry that they could take over the whole world with their insurmountable lead, then I agree - it woul d not be acceptable to have that entity be a private company. And so honestly, I think my crux against the people who say that because AI is so powerful we cannot allow it to be shaped by private hands is that I just expect this technology to be much more multi-polar than they do, with lots of competitive companies at each layer of the supply chain. And it is for this reason that unfortunately, individual acts of corporate courage will not solve the problem we are faced with here, which is just that structurally AI favors authoritarian applications, mass surveillance being one among many. Even if Anthropic refuses to have its models be used for such uses, and even if the next two frontier labs do the same, within 12 months everyone and their mother will be to train AIs as good as todayโ€™s frontier. And at that point, there will be some AI vendor who is capable and willing to help the government enable mass surveillance. The only way we can preserve our free society is if we make laws and norms through our political system that it is unacceptable for the government to use AI to enforce mass surveillance and censorship and control. Just as after WW2, the world set the norm that it is unacceptable to use nuclear weapons to wage war. Timestamps 0:00:00 - Anthropic vs The Pentagon 0:04:16 - The overhangs of tyranny 0:05:54 - AI structurally favors mass surveillance 0:08:25 - Alignment... to whom? 0:13:55 - Coordination not worth the costs

Dwarkesh Patel

548,345 views โ€ข 5 months ago

The outgoing American ambassador to Zambia, Michael C. Gonzales, has accused President Hakainde Hichilemaโ€™s government of corruption and dishonesty, stating that Hichilemaโ€™s fight against corruption is bogus and is selectively used to arrest and persecute political opponents. He made these remarks while delivering his farewell speech. He said Zambia loses over US$4 billion annually through illicit or dirty financial flows, money leaving the country and not benefiting the Zambian people. Full speech below Remarks by Amb. Michael Gonzales Farewell Reception โ€“ April 30, 2026 Good evening. For decades, the U.S. relationship with Zambia was one centered around aid. The United States has provided billions of dollars of assistance to Zambia, helping the country reach HIV epidemic control, contributing to a 20-year increase in life expectancy, slashing malaria deaths, and truly impacting the lives of every Zambian alive today. When we paused funding to review our assistance programs last year, so much of Zambiaโ€™s health system began to crumble almost overnight. Despite over $7 billion in U.S. health assistance since 2000 and the hard work of many Zambians alongside us, that crumbling system revealed that while we thought we were building capacity, successive Zambian governments had not built systems. Too often, Zambian officials and leaders abdicated their responsibilities, letting the United States pay for healthcare while officials diverted government funds to their own pockets. Last year I shed tears before the world when I announced a $50 million cut in US health assistance. After years of pleading, I could no longer stand by while the Zambian government refused to stop or take action to hold people accountable for the systematic and nationwide theft of U.S. provided medicines while the Zambian citizens for whom those were intended went without. One year later, not a single notable person has been arrested since last February. Not a single notable prosecution has even begun. After last yearโ€™s pause, we resumed almost all of our health assistance, over $400 million including over $75 million in medication. We continue to pay the salaries for over 23,000 healthcare workers, as we have for decades. Such is the legacy of Americaโ€™s support to the Zambian people. Now, I know there have been alarmist allegations recently. But let me be clear, any suggestion that the United States would withhold critical life-saving healthcare support from those Zambians whose lives and health depend on it unless we get critical minerals is disgusting and patently false! In reality, since October, my government has offered over $2 billion in additional health and economic assistance to Zambia. But we can no longer accept empty promises. The future must look different. The Zambian government must also increase Zambian funding, staffing, and genuine ownership of its systems. This is not to impose our will, it is the only way we know for Zambia to truly own a sustainable healthcare system and to enable robust growth. It is the only way we know to ensure that system serves the people while finally breaking the cycle of foreign aid dependency. Since January, however, like with so many of our other overtures to the Zambian government, we have had effectively zero substantive engagement from Zambian officials to move these efforts forward. Our calls go ignored, questions unanswered, meetings cancelled, leaving us without even opportunities to speak, much less engage in substantive deliberations. Instead of continuing to languish without engagement, the actual funding under our Health MOU should have started this month. Instead, we have reached April 30 still cobbling together funds for mismatched projects without an implementation plan to guide us forward under Zambian leadership, much less a finalized MOU that guides our strategic approach. We know that the Zambian budget cannot even afford to pay for public services today, not to mention the increased healthcare funding or the myriad other huge budget commitments that seem to get pledged daily. So, something has to change if Zambia will ever meet its full potential or be able to sustainably provide services to its own people. At the same time, the Zambian governmentโ€™s own reports reveal that every year Zambia loses over $4 billion in dirty money flows to East Asia. That is Zambian money that does not benefit the Zambian people or contribute to the budget. If taxed, that would bring an additional $1 billion for the government to fund healthcare, education, social services, and development. Every year, hundreds of millions of dollars of government funds are lost to the Zambian people through corruption. Certainly, it is not just U.S. taxpayersโ€™ support that is stolen. Every year, the country loses out on hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment and growth because they are hijacked by unmitigated petty corruption, blocked because law-abiding investors refuse to pay kickbacks to Zambian bureaucrats or leaders who are never held accountable. The narrative of the U.S.-Zambia relationship is adorned with flowery words of โ€œpartnership,โ€ โ€œcollaboration,โ€ โ€œstrategic,โ€ or โ€œmutual.โ€ Regrettably, the reality of our unrequited relationship for decades has been starkly different. For years, the United States funded programs and sent technical advisors to help achieve Zambiaโ€™s development objectives. As we have for these past four months, we have often struggled to get successive governments to even bother answering the phone. It takes months to get a meeting that yields nothing. Officials draft policies they have no intention of implementing, invoking them only in speeches to sound like they are taking action. MOUs decay on the shelf among the others before the signing ceremony even ends, never to be implemented because the ministry will not even meet to discuss implementation. Why? Because generations of Zambian officials and leaders gain from the dysfunction. The non-responsiveness on our availed funding and efforts to truly build a Zambian-owned health system that serves the Zambian people is sadly the norm. The theatre of commissioning a report to get a scandal out of the news cycle but taking no substantive action on accountability is all too common. Of course, the systematic theft of public resources is not unique to American-provided medicines. Attacking the messenger who dares to name these dynamics out loud is not limited to targeting the U.S. ambassador and asking Washington for his removal. Today, 10% of my diplomats have family members who still have not received basic residency permits from the Zambian government. Several have received court summonses as a result. Like Zambians themselves experience, ZRA staff shake down my departing diplomats for fees that do not apply to them too. When elevated, their supervisors double down on the demand. Zambiaโ€™s institutionalised and refined corruption does not only dissuade transparent and law-abiding investors from the United States. The inaction, corruption, and intimidation of opponents also harms American citizens, it undermines American organisations, NGOs, companies, and philanthropies. Zambians and so many other global friends of Zambia are also hampered by these very same dynamics, often bearing far more of the brunt of their effects. Americaโ€™s support to Zambia is long-standing. Our goodwill runs through the veins, the hearts, and the dreams of millions of Zambians. Our hands remain open, outstretched in a genuine, transparent offer of true, tangible, and meaningful collaboration for mutual benefit. But there must be change. Going forward, the benefits of our relationship must be mutual. Empty promises must be replaced with tangible action. Commitments must be honoured, laws must be implemented and enforced consistently and equally. The decades of paying for healthcare while national resources are pocketed must give way to ownership and systematic improvements that enable growth, development, and accountability. Since President Hichilema and I committed to reset the U.S.-Zambia relationship last July, America has redoubled our efforts to support robust Zambian agency. We have availed billions of dollars to support tangible investments and reforms to catalyse Zambiaโ€™s success. We have offered expert support to inform reforms that would systematically benefit both the Zambian people and their many friends from around the world, without bias or favour. Sadly, so many of our overtures and goodwill have been met with, to use the most persistent and notorious of the Zambian governmentโ€™s responses, โ€œNoted. With thanks.โ€ But appointing a Director General of the Anti-Corruption Commission who was actively under investigation by the ACC, and her admonishment to her intentionally under-resourced agency not to investigate senior government officials, only cripples hopes that clean business can be done. Last May, multiple senior government officials shared with me and have confirmed that the government has a 500-page expert report detailing the irreversible harm and risk of generations of birth defects, cancers, heart and liver disease caused by carcinogenic heavy metals unleashed into the Kafue River ecosystem by last yearโ€™s Sino Metals tailings dam disaster. But my heart broke when on July 29 last year, one of the countryโ€™s senior-most leaders vehemently denied that the government even had the report, much less would act on it until the polluter themselves provided it. I pleaded with her to take action to protect the Zambian people and I again offered U.S. assistance, which the Foreign Ministry had already formally declined. While so many American prospective investors leave, put off by bureaucratic drudgery, inaction, and corruption, the Zambian government recently approved Sino Metals to expand its operations. Did this happen in the face of Zambiaโ€™s myriad impediments, or because of them? Today, Sino Metals is scarring game management areas abutting the Kafue National Park. When that tailings dam breaks, I will not be alone shedding tears. Punctuating this, apart from the truly exceptional cases, too many American companies cannot get licences, approvals, or action on basic administrative matters without being shaken down to give brown envelopes of cash. The Zambian people suffer the consequences of these dual offences, exploitation and foregone opportunity. When Parliament ignores the Constitutional Courtโ€™s ruling that the process used to ram through a constitutional amendment was itself unconstitutional, investors rightly ask, โ€œIf they can do that to the constitution, what does that mean for the sanctity of my contract?โ€ They rightly wonder if the next constitutional amendment which the Attorney General has already announced is really just a guise for resetting term limits. Even the Chinese government convicted AVICโ€™s Chairman to death for corruption. AVICโ€™s Chingola-Chililabombwe Road was washed out last month, its negligence disrupting Zambiaโ€™s trade with the region. AVICโ€™s fraud in a $320 million police housing tender in 2014 is well documented. Despite that, this government ignored the competitive bid by renowned Zambian investors only to award AVIC the $650 million Lusaka-Ndola Dual Carriageway project, subsidising this notoriously fraudulent and corrupt company with $300 million from the public pension scheme. How does this happen? Can law-abiding investors do clean business here? Will donors be asked to backfill the loss when the pension money too is wiped out? The rhetoric of โ€œno sacred cowsโ€ is rubbish when there are not any cows except those who are deemed to be disloyal. When only opponents are arrested, but not those in office engaged in the very same practices, the hollow rhetoric of โ€œrule of lawโ€ only further keeps investors away, preventing the creation of growth, jobs, and tax revenues to pay for public service commitments. Zambia does not need money. It needs leaders who govern for the people with integrity. It needs the political will to put Zambia first. But, of course, you do not need me to say this. Dambisa Moyo, herself a daughter of the soil, made these same arguments 17 years ago. What America is trying to do here is both bolster Zambiaโ€™s sovereignty and catalyse Zambiaโ€™s growth. We are offering a transparent and open hand to join the Zambian people for mutual progress. We know that while you pursue a Zambia First agenda and we pursue America First, we are still able together to achieve something notably better for both of our countries, and we can do so without it coming at anyoneโ€™s expense, anyoneโ€™s exclusion, fully transparently, and legally. Now, of course, the United States will absolutely continue to honour our long-standing commitment to the Zambian people to provide critical life-saving healthcare support. We will not leave Zambians without access to ARVs. We are redoubling our support to ensure that babies are not born HIV-positive. But, against the unmitigated systematic theft of U.S. assistance, against the refusal by the Zambian government to engage and to own or enable a sustainable healthcare system that serves the people, in an environment where only the most exceptional of American investors can do clean business, and where Zambian government officials often can scarcely be bothered to take meetings with American officials or companies, not to mention capture the billion dollars of its own money secreted out of the country to East Asia or hold accountable the company that unleashes generations of cancer and birth defects onto the people, without fundamental change, as the American Ambassador to the Republic of Zambia, how can I ask American taxpayers, Congress, or President Trump to continue the massive aid budgets that have been the hallmark of our relationship for decades? The United States remains intent to work with Zambia toward our mutual objectives, but how Washington responds to silence, inaction, aversion to accountability, and lack of ownership remains to be seen. That said, I am confident that it will depend on fundamental changes by the Zambian government to take action to do right by the Zambian people. It will depend on actions to foster and enable the Zambian people, and their partners who abide by the rule of law, to be able to tangibly contribute to a mutually beneficial future. Washingtonโ€™s hand remains open and outreached for transparent, accountable collaboration enabling tangible action to benefit both of our countries. But we can no longer own the projects more than the Zambian government. We cannot justify continuing to prioritise funding where the Zambian government also does not deploy its own resources. No longer will we lead while Zambian officials sit back unresponsively. Quite simply, America can best support Zambiaโ€™s sovereignty, agency, and success if we finally abide by the maxim and refrain from wanting development more than the Zambian government does. That said, what happens between governments and embassies is important, but it is only a small fraction of the broader relationship between countries. The ties between Zambia and America are profound, strong, and everlasting. The connections between churches and civil society, the linkages between students, artists, and researchers, the bonds between communities, the union of our peoples, these are the essence of the U.S.-Zambia relationship, and these will never fade. Too often people hope for change. They note what others should do. But hope is not a strategy, and we cannot control the actions of others, only our own. So, as I prepare to leave this country that I love, I ask those of you whose country it is, is this the Zambia you want? Are you on course to achieve it? If not, what action will you take to contribute to making that become a reality? I first stepped foot in Zambia in 1995. My daughter took her first steps in Livingstone. As I prepare to depart, I take with me beautiful memories of Zambia and the Zambian people, but I depart with a heavy heart wondering if realisation of the Zambian dream will be deferred for yet another 64 years while even more Zambians fall into poverty instead of being able to rise into the brilliant future that is possible. But my role here is not about this little guy with a big heart for Africa. It is about America and Zambia. America will continue reaching out to the people of Zambia, offering our support, seeking as much to learn as to share, doing so openly and transparently, and eager to help enable the realisation of that Zambian dream and the creative future that benefits, and can only be discovered through, our sincere partnership. I thank you.

Hopewell Chinโ€™ono

98,863 views โ€ข 4 months ago

BOOM!!! ๐Ÿ’ฅ๐Ÿ’ฅ๐Ÿ’ฅ Dr. Aseem Malhotra's testimony was delivered in the Helsinski District Court on April 12, 2024, with the understanding that any deviation from the truth would constitute perjury. This clip was immediately banned by YouTube so please share widely. I've trimmed the clip, removing the interpreter's segment for a smoother listening experience. Here's the first hour of the testimony. ---------------------------------- My name is Doctor Aseem Malhotra. I am a consultant cardiologist. I've been a qualified doctor since 2001. I have held various roles both in academic health policy. In England, in the United Kingdom, and of the various roles, I won't bore you with all the details. I think three of the most relevant and prominent are the fact that I was an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years, which represented every doctor in the UK. I served a full term of six years as a trustee of the King's fund. I was the youngest member to be appointed to this body which advises government on health policy. I was a founding member of Action on Sugar and a first science director. And through that role I'm considered the lead campaigner on bringing about a sugary drinks tax in the UK. And also, finally I served for five years as visiting professor of evidence based medicine at the Bahiana School of Medicine in Salvador, Brazil. In early 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic I was most vocal doctor on the mainstream, making the link very early on between COVID and those who are vulnerable to suffering serious complications from COVID In fact, in March 2020, I was asked to go on Sky News to explain my initial research findings of the link between especially obesity and COVID, but also to give people an opportunity and to suggest to the government this was a great time for them to implement public health policy to help people enhance or optimise their immune system, which could happen within just a few weeks of dietary changes and optimising vitamin D. This was later also backed up by medical journal publications a few months later. And I was first to mention on the back of an article I published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, which became a front page commentary and was picked up by BBC News and Good Morning Britain, where I had said that it's likely our prime minister, Boris Johnson, was hospitalised because of his weight. As a result of that, the then secretary for health, Matt Hancock, and this was publicised in the news, had asked me to advise him on the link between COVID and obesity. ...before I explain my journey and in many ways U-turn on my understanding in terms of the benefits and harms of the COVID vaccine, my experience in this area over the last couple of years has made me realise more than ever that even for that the greatest barrier to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological. I think all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves. And I will just very briefly summarise those three psychological barriers before I get into my detailed account of what I was involved in in regards to the COVID vaccine. The first psychological barrier is one of fear. And many of us understandably, and I still remember from early on in the pandemic, we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant. Although COVID was particularly devastating for vulnerable groups in the elderly and I even have managed and still manage people with long COVID, the fear was grossly exaggerated. And one of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of COVID in the United States, one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught COVID, the risk of 19 hospitalisation was 50% one and two, when the actual figure, certainly an average for people in middle age, was less than 1%. The second barrier to the truth, which I think is very relevant to the situation we find ourselves in now, is one called willful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos. Some examples of this include, on a personal level, willful blindness can occur when a spouse turns a blind eye to the affair of their partner. On an institutional level, some great examples of willful blindness include Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, the Catholic Church and child molestation. I believe the current situation we find ourselves in, with much of the mainstream narrative and the medical establishment and policy makers not acknowledging quite horrific, serious and common harms from this vaccine, is another example of willful blindness. And I also say this with full empathy, because I was one of those people that was for a very long time, willfully blind to the harms of the COVID vaccine. In January 2021, I was one of the first people to take two doses of the COVID mRNA vaccine because I volunteered in a vaccine centre. I still believe that traditional vaccines are some of the safest amongst all pharmacological interventions in medicine and I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm. As a public figure and respected doctor in the UK, I have built relationships across the board with many other public figures, including celebrities and politicians, who often come to me for medical advice. One of those people was film director Gurinder Chadha, who you may be familiar with some of her work, including the movie "Bend It like Beckham", who had asked me whether or not she should take the vaccine and had sent me blogs which I dismissed and regarded as anti vax nonsense. I was then asked to go on good morning, Britain because Gurinder Chadha, the director herself tweeted that I had convinced her to take the vaccine. The main reason for this TV appearance was to help tackle vaccine hesitancy, which was very prominent amongst people from ethnic minority groups in the UK. I made the point on that programme that I understand where vaccine hesitancy was coming from because of the history that I have been involved with over many years in highlighting the shortcomings of pharmaceutical industry influence over medicine. And I even made the point, if I remember correctly, that they have been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death, prepandemic after heart disease and cancer, is prescribed medications. I, however, reassured the public and said that despite these figures, of everything we do in medicine, traditional vaccinations are amongst the safest. I still believe this to be the case. A few months later, in April 2021, I met with a colleague and friend of mine who I regard as one of the brightest cardiologists in the United Kingdom. I was surprised when he told me that he had not taken the COVID vaccine. He explained to me that he had concerns because he had seen in the supplementary appendix of Pfizer's original trial that there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and only one in the placebo. These numbers were small and did not reach statistical significance. So this could be random chance, or his concern was it could represent a signal of problems in the future. And if this was the case, we are going to have a huge problem. He said he'd rather wait and see what happens before taking the vaccine. On July 26, 2021, my father, aged 73, who was a very prominent, well known doctor in the UK, including being the honorary vice president of the British Medical Association and had received honours from the Queen of England with an OBE, suffered an unexpected sudden cardiac arrest. I was particularly devastated by this happening and I was also I find it difficult to understand why my father, who was a fit and well man, I knew his cardiac history and his cardiac status, would suffer a cardiac arrest. But also my initial investigation was to try and understand why there had been a 30 minutes ambulance delay arriving to his apartment. Two weeks later, the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up. She was very upset, she knew my father very well and she was crying and she told me, Aseem, there's something I need to tell you. She in effect told me that throughout the country, for the last two months prior to my father's cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time for heart attacks and cardiac arrests. And there had been a deliberate, and I will use these words because I mentioned it, I've mentioned it before, a cover up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public. I worked with an investigative journalist with the I newspaper in the UK to write an article and a news story that became BBC News headlines a few months later, exposing this. Just before I exposed this, I messaged a professor of cardiology who I trust in the UK. He has a leadership role to explain to him what had happened and what I was about to do. I have text message evidence of this. He told me not to do this because it would make me enemies. I explained to him that I had a duty to patients and the public. I'm highlighting this as one example and I'll give you more examples of a cultural problem within medicine. The next part of this story is the post mortem findings of my father. They did not make any sense to me. I am considered a leading expert, maybe in the world, on the development and progression of coronary artery disease. My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest. Then in, within the space of a few weeks, around October and November, 3, different sources of information was brought to my attention that made me realise that there was probably a significant problem with the COVID mRNA vaccine. The first in October 2021. I remember I was giving lectures in Stockholm. I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, Dr Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew in my own experience, I said that two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress. We know that when populations undergo severe stress after war, for example, there is an increase in heart attacks and strokes that can last for many years. She asked me whether I thought that there was a contribution. I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the COVID vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her, a good scientist should never exclude any possibility. But I felt at the time it was unlikely to be related to the COVID vaccine. But we should watch this space and keep our eyes open. A few weeks later, a publication appeared in the Journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the United States that revealed a potentially very strong link between the COVID mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Very specifically, in several hundred people of middle age, there was a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having the COVID mRNA vaccines. Of course, this is one bit of data, but even if partially true, that is a huge increase in risk in a very short space of time. And for me now made me think and link back to why my father may have suffered a cardiac arrest six months after having two doses of the vaccine. I remember thinking and speaking to a colleague, that if this was true, then we were going to see an increase in cardiac arrests, heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years. Then within a few weeks, I was called up by a whistleblower at a very prestigious british institution. I will name that institution, which I have not done publicly before as a University of Oxford. This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of very specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down, the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry. At that point, with these three bits of information, I then felt it was my ethical duty to speak out. And I went on GBNews to talk about what I'd found what I'd heard and I'd asked for the Vaccine Committee of the UK on TV to investigate this, to see whether there was a real problem with the vaccine in relation to heart issues. Around the same time which I found very strange is that the Secretary of State for Health at that stage, who was not Matt Hancock, was Sajid Javid, had announced in parliament that we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all healthcare workers are mandated to have the COVID vaccine. For me, this, by that stage had no ethical or scientific justification, because certainly after the summer of 2021, it had become very apparent that the COVID mRNA vaccine was not stopping infection and it certainly was not stopping transmission. It was understood that approximately 80,000 NHS workers had refused at this stage to have the COVID vaccine. And now they were threatened with losing their job if by April the following year they had not been fully vaccinated. Many of these people were very concerned and contacted me around that time, I was also conducting many interviews, both through the BBC and Sky News and GBNews in regards to what happened with my father's ambulance delay. And I used it as an opportunity on the mainstream media to call for Sajid Javid, the secretary for health, to U-turn on the introduction of a mandate for healthcare workers based upon the fact that I felt it was not scientific and it was unethical. I also received my own personal backlash from these comments where I was contacted by the Royal College of Physicians who I had an affiliation with, and they asked me to respond to anonymous complaints from doctors that I was spreading, in quotes, antivax disinformation. I felt with my own knowledge and experience of the healthcare system that this was a direct response probably fueled by a combination of willful blindness and institutional corruption. To elaborate a bit further, when I say institutional corruption, I mean that my view was that the complaints were likely being fueled by academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. I felt very concerned about the potential introduction of the vaccine, well, the vaccine mandate. And therefore I decided there were two things that I decided to do. The first was I made a phone call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. I had a good relationship with him and he respected my opinion. And I spent 2 hours on the phone explaining to him everything that I knew up to that stage about my concerns of the COVID mRNA vaccine. He said to me, "Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the COVID mRNA vaccine as well as you have from our conversation, he said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC". This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the United States, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News report. I say this just to emphasise that we should all accept our vulnerabilities to where we receive health information. Even doctors, policymakers, judges and lawyers are all influenced on the public massively by mainstream media. The chairman of the BMA also agreed with me. There was no ethical or scientific justification for mandating the COVID vaccine. He said the BMA also did not support it. And he said because of my conversation with him, he would speak directly to the secretary for health, Sajid Javid. One month later, at the end of January 2022, the COVID vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was overturned. I at that stage, given the fact that there was some backlash happening towards me, I realised that because this is a very big issue and area, and not my initial area of expertise, I needed to carry out my own critical analysis of the COVID mRNA vaccines. I spent six to nine months critically appraising the data, including speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative medical journalists and eminent scientists from the University of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. The most critical bit, the most critical research that was published on this issue, which I think the whole court should acknowledge in August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world's top independent of drug industry influence academics. That research, we was able to reanalyze the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA's website and Health Canada's website. The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine, specifically hospitalisation, life changing event or disability, than you were to be hospitalised with COVID That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800. Just to give you some perspective, historically we have suspended other vaccines for much less. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine was pulled because it was found to cause a neurological syndrome called Guillain-Barre syndrome In one in 100,000 people. In 1999, the rotavirus vaccine was suspended because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children affecting 1 in 10,000. This was 1 in 800. In my view, it was very clear that given this information, published in the highest impact Vaccine journal in the world, peer reviewed, and has not had any significant rebuttals, that this vaccine now, in my view, should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place. In my view, this very important court case in some ways, actually is a distraction from the much bigger issue, which is there should be court cases around the world with a full inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry and an inquiry as to how we got this so very wrong. Of course, one could argue this is just one bit of research, but actually, unfortunately, there are different, many different strands of research that are showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. From pharmacovigilance data that is reporting what we call yellow card reports from the public. We have plausible biological mechanism of harm. We have other research called observational data. We have autopsy data also confirming that certainly with the majority of people who died within a short space of time of having the vaccine in relation to the heart, was definitively caused by the vaccine. This is really a very, very, very horrific situation we find ourselves in. One would hope and expect that the regulators should be independently evaluating all medications. But of course, the evidence reveals this is far from true. There was an investigation by the BMJ, also published in the summer of 2022, which revealed that most of the major regulators across the world were taking most of their money from the drug industry. For example, the MHRA in the UK receives 86% of its funding from the drug industry, and the FDA in America receives 65% of its funding from the drug industry, A fact that most doctors do not know. And therefore, I would not expect members of the court to know this either, is that very, very rarely do drug industry sponsored research get independently evaluated. Clinical trial data can often involve thousands of pages of information on individual patients. The drug companies hold onto that raw data. They then give summary results to the regulator, who are then paying, who have an incentive to approve the drugs, and the drugs are then approved. I made these points in my peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, where I concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the COVID mRNA vaccines. I have since then been campaigning and advocating for a return to ethical evidence based medical practise around the world. Some of the clear solutions moving forward would be changes in the law that are required so that patients, doctors, members of the public can have greater confidence in the information they receive to make decisions about their health. Two very clear, low hanging fruit solutions, which are both ethical, scientific and democratic, would be that the drug industry should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn't be allowed to test them themselves. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to design their own research to and hold onto the raw data. Their information needs to be independently evaluated. One other clear solution would also be that the medical regulators, again, should not be taking any money from the industry, as this is a gross conflict of interest. I also want to highlight for people to understand the bigger picture. Prior to the pandemic, I had realised that there was a big problem with the reliability of clinical research, where invariably the results of clinical trials on all drugs sponsored by the drug industry, grossly exaggerate their safety and benefits. I have taken this information to the European Parliament, where I spoke in 2019, and I spoke to very senior politicians in the UK government. But although they were sympathetic, they felt that the issue was much bigger than them as individuals, and therefore it also needed media attention to get public awareness on the importance of such an inquiry. Before we continue with further questions, as I've been speaking for quite a long time now I'll just finish with two references just for the court and the judges to understand just how bad this problem is. Prepandemic the man who I call the Stephen Hawking of medicine is Professor John Ioannidis from the University of Stanford. The reason I call him the Stephen Hawking of Medicine is he's the most cited medical researcher in the world and is a mathematical genius. In 2006, he published a paper which was entitled why most published research findings are false. In that paper, he makes a point that the greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. I say this in context of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine which has made the company $100 billion. The other point that he makes in a further paper in 2017 is, again, the reason the system continues as it is is most doctors are unaware of the information they receive when they make clinical decisions has been corrupted by commercial influence. The other credible name I will mention is the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, who I personally know. In 2015, he wrote an article in the Lancet in relation to a secret meeting that had taken place with himself and some of the world's top medical academics. In that, he wrote that possibly half of the medical published literature may simply be untrue. And he said that science has taken a turn towards darkness. But who's going to take the first step to clean up the system? I believe in this case and in this court today, this is going to be a very pivotal potential moment in history for that first step. ---------------------- Dr Aseem Malhotra H/T: Tiina Keskimรคki ๐Ÿ‡ซ๐Ÿ‡ฎ

aussie17

798,441 views โ€ข 2 years ago

$NWBO #๐——๐—–๐—ฉ๐—ฎ๐˜…-๐—Ÿ: ๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—˜๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—ฃ๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—ง๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—บ๐˜€ A short, plain-language reading of the survival evidence for DCVax-L in #glioblastoma, and what it means under the MHRAgovuk guideline on external control arms. ๐Ÿ“Š ๐—ฃ๐—”๐—ฅ๐—ง ๐—ข๐—ก๐—˜: ๐—ช๐—›๐—”๐—ง ๐—ง๐—›๐—˜ ๐—ง๐—ฅ๐—œ๐—”๐—Ÿ ๐—™๐—ข๐—จ๐—ก๐——, ๐—”๐—ก๐—— ๐—ช๐—›๐—ฌ ๐—œ๐—ง ๐— ๐—”๐—ง๐—ง๐—˜๐—ฅ๐—ฆ DCVax-L more than doubled five-year survival, and the benefit is durability: a subset gets lasting disease control and simply stays alive. ๐Ÿ’‰ ๐—ช๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฑ๐—ฟ๐˜‚๐—ด ๐—ถ๐˜€ DCVax-L is a personalized cancer vaccine for glioblastoma, the deadliest form of brain cancer and a designated orphan disease. It is a living drug: its active ingredient is the patient's own immune cells, primed with proteins from that patient's surgically removed tumor, so the immune system learns to attack the cancer. Unlike a chemical drug that is metabolized and cleared, it switches on a living immune response that keeps working long after the injection. Glioblastoma comes back in almost everyone: even with the full standard of surgery, radiation, and temozolomide chemotherapy, most patients live under two years, and only about one in twenty reaches five. DCVax-L is given on top of that standard care, not in place of it: every patient in the trial received surgery, radiation, and temozolomide, and the vaccine was added to it, so the comparison measures what the vaccine adds. For two decades, nearly every new drug tried in this disease has failed. That is the backdrop against which any positive result must be judged. ๐Ÿ“ˆ ๐—ช๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ฑ In a Phase 3 trial of 331 patients, those who received DCVax-L lived longer. At the median the gain looks modest, about three months (19.3 versus 16.5). The number that matters sits at the far end of the survival curve: more than twice as many vaccine patients were alive at five years, 13.0% versus 5.7%, and a few reached ten years in a disease that usually kills within three. In patients whose tumor had already returned, the effect was larger still, cutting the risk of death by about 42%. ๐Ÿ‘ฅ ๐—˜๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ด๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฝ ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฑ, ๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ป ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜ The benefit was not confined to the easy cases. Of the six prespecified subgroups the trial examined, every single one favored DCVax-L, and there was no group in which it did worse than standard care. The largest gains came in patients whose tumors carry MGMT methylation, who reached a median survival of 30.2 months from randomization against 21.3 for the controls. But even the hardest-to-treat patients, whose tumors lack that methylation, resist standard chemotherapy, and carry the worst prognosis in this disease, still came out ahead with the vaccine, at a hazard ratio of 0.93. A treatment that helps across the whole population, and helps most where the biology is most favorable, is acting like a real drug. ๐Ÿ“‰ ๐—ช๐—ต๐˜† ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—ต๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—น ๐˜€๐˜๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜† That five-year number is the whole story, and the median buries it. Almost every treatment that ever helped in glioblastoma did the same modest thing: it slid the survival curve a few months to the right, then let it fall back. Doubling five-year survival is different in kind. A three-month gain at the median cannot, by itself, double the fraction alive at five years. The only shape that produces both numbers is a split: most patients get the small delay the median measures, while a subset gets durable disease control that lasts for years, well past where glioblastoma should have ended them. That subset is the long tail of the curve, and it is where the benefit lives. A median ignores extremes, the way a town's median income tells you nothing about its millionaires. The real story is not a longer delay; it is that a meaningful share of patients simply stay alive. ๐Ÿงฌ ๐—ช๐—ต๐˜† ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฏ๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—น๐—ผ๐—ด๐˜† ๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐˜๐˜€ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐˜€๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ The tail is not luck. It is what this biology is built to produce. The vaccine carries proteins from the patient's own tumor, so it aims the immune system at whatever that tumor is made of, not a fixed short list of targets. And it amplifies: one trained immune cell drives many others that multiply into cancer-killers. Andres Salazar, the neurologist who developed poly-ICLC into the clinical adjuvant given with the vaccine, puts it in a line: you start the fire, and you keep it burning. A response like that does not produce a one-time bump. It builds and widens over time. What matters is not just that a response forms, but what kind. Dendritic cells are the immune system's master switch for that, the cells that set what kind of attack the body mounts, and this vaccine is built from them. It drives what immunologists call a type 1 polarized response: an interferon-driven, cytotoxic program aimed squarely at the tumor. That direction comes from the vaccine itself; the poly-ICLC adjuvant given with it drives the same interferon program and sustains it. That is the active ingredient, and it has been measured. In UCLA studies of this approach, the patients whose immune systems mounted the strongest interferon response lived the longest. The response also spreads. In a different cancer, a vaccine carried on this same poly-ICLC adjuvant drove more than 70% of a patient's cancer-killing T cells to target proteins that were never in the vaccine: the immune system outgrew its original targets and went after the rest of the tumor on its own. This is called epitope spreading, and it is not particular to one tumor; it is what this kind of response does, and it is the kind of response DCVax-L builds. That breadth is the likeliest thing separating the long-term survivors from everyone else, a response that breaks past its targets and clears the disease rather than one that stays caged and stops. There is even a tell in who benefits most: the effect is largest in tumors whose biology builds up more mutations under chemotherapy, and more mutations mean more targets for a whole-tumor vaccine to find. The same logic explains what the vaccine is not, and what it does not need. Checkpoint inhibitors, the drugs that release the immune system's brakes, have failed on their own in glioblastoma because there was no active response to release; the vaccine supplies that response first. That makes the vaccine the natural foundation for combination therapy. Combining it with its poly-ICLC adjuvant, made by Oncovir, has already shown meaningful survival gains in a published analysis. In the pivotal trial, the vaccine's proven benefit came added on top of standard chemotherapy and radiation; the newer question is how much the immune response can carry on its own. A UCLA trial is now testing that in patients whose tumors have returned, adding #Keytruda (pembrolizumab), the checkpoint antibody from $MRK, in a regimen built entirely around the immune response with no chemotherapy or radiation in it at all. Its interim survival curve shows the shape the biology predicts. In the arm given the vaccine and Keytruda together after surgery, the curve does not fall away but flattens into a plateau, with roughly 65% of patients still alive well past the point where recurrent glioblastoma kills nearly everyone. That plateau is the signature of a response that took hold and lasted, the type 1 attack forming durable immune memory so that once the disease is controlled it stays controlled. That is where this points, and where it is already arriving, a treatment that works through the response itself, one that could in time lean less on the harsh radiation and chemotherapy that have defined glioblastoma care and barely moved its survival. These are interim results, from Prins, Cloughesy, and Liau at UCLA. ๐Ÿ” ๐—ฃ๐—”๐—ฅ๐—ง ๐—ง๐—ช๐—ข: ๐—œ๐—ฆ ๐—œ๐—ง ๐—ฅ๐—˜๐—”๐—Ÿ? The trial was randomized, an independent experiment shows the outside comparison is trustworthy, and every separate check points the same way. ๐Ÿค” ๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ผ๐—ฏ๐—ท๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป, ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐˜„๐—ต๐˜† ๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—บ๐—ถ๐˜€๐˜€๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ธ So much for what happened; the harder question is whether to believe it. The trial has the feature critics attacked: it could not keep a normal placebo group, because patients assigned to placebo were allowed, by design and by medical ethics, to switch to the vaccine once their cancer returned, and almost all did. That erased the internal comparison, so survival was measured against closely matched patients from other completed trials, an approach called an external control, which critics argued could tilt toward the vaccine. What the objection misses is where the randomization went. This was a randomized, blinded trial. The patients who got the vaccine were assigned to it at random, not hand-picked, so the treated group is an ordinary slice of the trial population, not a favorable one. The crossover removed the placebo group but never touched how patients were assigned. That leaves exactly one place for bias to enter, the outside comparison group, which is precisely what the next checks test. โœ… ๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฐ๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—ธ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—ถ๐˜ ๐˜๐—ฟ๐˜‚๐˜€๐˜๐˜„๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜๐—ต๐˜† Before trusting a scale to weigh something unknown, you confirm it reads zero with nothing on it. That is what the calibration does, and it is the strongest part of the case. A separate, independent randomized trial called INSIGhT was run through the very same external-control method, and it gave two answers. First, three experimental drugs that had already failed were run through it, and it correctly found nothing (hazard ratios of 1.00, 0.93, and 0.88): the method does not manufacture a benefit where none exists. Second, INSIGhT's external controls were set head to head against its own randomized internal controls, and they were statistically indistinguishable. In this disease, an external control reproduces the answer a real randomized control would have given, and because that trial belonged to a different group, no one can say a sponsor graded its own work. The one place bias could enter, the control side, is the one place an independent randomized experiment certified as clean. There is a deeper fit worth naming, and it is what makes the two halves of this case one. The same instrument that reported those three failures as failures reads the vaccine as a success, and the biology says why: those drugs could not hold a tumor this varied, and the vaccine builds the broad, lasting response that finally does. One method, opposite readings, and one mechanism behind both. The statistics and the biology are not two arguments. They are the same argument seen twice. ๐Ÿƒ ๐—ช๐—ฎ๐˜€ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฝ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ป ๐˜€๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ธ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐˜ƒ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฒ'๐˜€ ๐—ณ๐—ฎ๐˜ƒ๐—ผ๐—ฟ? A natural worry is that the outside comparison was arranged after the fact to flatter the vaccine. The trial was built to prevent that. The patients to compare against, and the rules for matching them, were fixed in writing before anyone saw results, and an independent firm, not the company, chose the comparison trials against those rules. The trial also switched its main measure partway through, from delaying tumor growth to overall survival, but that was not a maneuver: immune treatments cause a harmless swelling that mimics tumor growth on scans and made the growth measure unreliable, and the switch was made while everyone was still blinded. Three further checks point the same way. Survival in this disease has not improved over the years the comparison spans, so same-era controls are sound. When the borrowed controls were tested directly, the comparison came out conservative rather than flattering. And the controls were counted from the same point in the disease as the vaccine patients, so neither side got a head start. Where the comparison can err, it errs against the drug. ๐Ÿ”ฌ ๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—บ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ณ๐˜‚๐—น ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—น๐˜†๐˜€๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—ฏ๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ด๐—ฒ๐—ฟ, ๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜ ๐˜€๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ฟ The first comparison used whole groups. A sharper one became possible once patient-level records from three other trials could be obtained, pairing each vaccine patient with controls matched on the traits that drive survival in glioblastoma, above all MGMT methylation status, matched exactly, plus age, sex, extent of surgery, residual disease, and performance status. When the comparison got sharper, the benefit grew in every one of these analyses. The original cohort-level estimate was 2.8 months. Patient-level matching across the three trials put the gain between 3.4 and 6.3 months, and a method that weights patients rather than pairing them put it between 3.4 and 4.3, with several of the matched comparisons roughly doubling the original figure. The hazard ratio moved the same way, from 0.80 to between 0.69 and 0.77. The direction matters. A real effect blurred by crude matching gets clearer when the matching improves, while a biased one tends to shrink. It got stronger. ๐Ÿ•ต๏ธ ๐—›๐—ผ๐˜„ ๐—บ๐˜‚๐—ฐ๐—ต ๐—ต๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ป ๐—ฏ๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐˜€ ๐˜„๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—น๐—ฑ ๐—ถ๐˜ ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ฒ๐˜…๐—ฝ๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ฎ๐˜„๐—ฎ๐˜† A fair question is how much hidden bias it would take to erase the result. Statisticians measure that with the E-value, and here a hidden factor would have to be about as strong as age is on survival, would also have to drive who received the vaccine, and would have to have escaped the decades of research that mapped every known risk factor in this disease. A second, independent check, Rosenbaum's Gamma, comes at it from the other side, asking how large an unseen imbalance between matched patients it would take to break the result, and it reaches the same verdict. Every factor strong enough to matter was already matched. A hidden one that clears that bar is not plausible. ๐Ÿ”’ ๐—ช๐—ต๐˜† ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜‚๐—น๐˜ ๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ณ๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ฒ The strongest point is not any single result. It is that a hidden bias big enough to explain the effect away would have to produce the same answer in every independent test at once: โ€ข The independent randomized calibration trial. โ€ข Three separate comparison trials, drawn from different studies. โ€ข Two different statistical methods that handle the data in different ways. โ€ข A separate pooled analysis of other dendritic-cell vaccine trials. โ€ข The internal math of the survival curve, which points to the same result (about 0.71 at five years) that the patient matching found. And it would have to fall in the exact direction the biology predicted before any data existed: a slow, widening benefit concentrated in long-term survivors. A single hidden factor that could forge all of that at once is not a hidden factor. It is a coincidence that does not happen. ๐Ÿฉบ ๐—ฃ๐—”๐—ฅ๐—ง ๐—ง๐—›๐—ฅ๐—˜๐—˜: ๐—ช๐—›๐—”๐—ง ๐—œ๐—ง ๐— ๐—˜๐—”๐—ก๐—ฆ The drug is nearly free of harm, the evidence fits an established and approved regulatory path, and what remains unrun changes nothing about the case. ๐Ÿ›ก๏ธ ๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐˜๐˜† Two things decide whether a real effect reaches patients: whether the drug is safe enough to use, and whether regulators will accept the evidence. The first is settled. Across 2,151 doses, only five serious side effects were even possibly related to the vaccine, with no autoimmunity and no cytokine storm. It is made once, in about eight days, then stored and given as a simple injection. When a treatment barely harms, the benefit needed to justify it falls, and the benefit here clears that lower bar easily. โณ ๐—ช๐—ต๐˜† ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐˜€๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ด๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ฑ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฎ ๐—ฎ๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—น๐˜† ๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜„ A reasonable person asks why the sharper analysis appeared in 2026 and not in 2023. The answer is access, not choice. The patient-level analysis was written into the trial's plan from the start, to run if and when the data could be obtained. The company tried and could not get it in 2023, because the trials that held it had not released it; it became available later through a data-sharing repository, on the data owners' timeline, not the company's. The stronger analysis was always the plan. It was waiting on data that other parties control. ๐Ÿ”„ ๐—ฃ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐˜€ ๐˜„๐—ต๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ฎ๐—น๐˜€๐—ผ ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฑ The vaccine helped not only newly diagnosed patients but also those whose tumor had already come back, and there the effect was the largest seen anywhere in the trial. In that group, median survival ran 13.2 months from recurrence against 7.8 for the controls. The separation opened immediately, with 90.6% of vaccine patients alive at six months against 64.0% of controls, and the lead held to the later marks, where survival more than doubled: 20.7% against 9.6% at two years, 11.1% against 5.1% at two and a half. These are the original cohort-level results, already published. The high-resolution patient-level matching that was applied to the newly diagnosed group has not yet been done here, for a practical reason: it needs patient records from other recurrent-cancer trials, held by a European research organization that shares them through its own formal request. Obtaining them is a routine next step, not an obstacle, and the newly diagnosed experience suggests the sharper analysis would only make the recurrent result stronger. The approval case rests on the newly diagnosed evidence, so nothing important depends on this step; it would simply sharpen a result that is already the strongest in the trial. ๐Ÿ›๏ธ ๐—ช๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜€ ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—ฎ๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐˜ƒ๐—ฎ๐—น Regulators do not treat an external control as a first choice, but the MHRA's guideline allows it in exactly this situation: a severe disease where a placebo trial is not ethical or feasible, and an effect large enough to interpret despite the design. The guideline even gives its own worked example of an acceptable external control, and it reads almost like a description of this trial: a rare disease, no ethical placebo, same-era standard-of-care controls, an objective survival endpoint, and an effect too large to blame on bias. DCVax-L fits on every count, and it was the first medicine ever to receive the MHRA's Promising Innovative Medicine designation, which asks essentially the same questions. The newly diagnosed case carries the decision on its own evidence, and regulators weigh that evidence against the disease it treats: in a cancer this lethal, with nothing better on offer, the question is whether the benefit is large, clear, and consistent enough to act on, and a benefit of this size, pointing the same way from every direction, is. ๐Ÿ“œ ๐—ง๐—ต๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜€ ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ป ๐—ฑ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฒ ๐—ฏ๐—ฒ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ, ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ฎ๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ External controls are not a novelty invented for this drug. Over the past two decades they have factored into roughly forty-five drug approvals by the United States regulator, each granted under the conditions that apply here: a serious or rare disease, a placebo that would be unethical, and high unmet need. Regulators do not grant this lightly. They grant it when the disease is serious, its course is predictable and objectively measured, and the effect is large. Glioblastoma meets all three. The named cases cover every part of this disease's profile. Defibrotide, for a life-threatening transplant complication, was approved on a propensity-score comparison to a historical control, the same kind of method used here. Blinatumomab, for an aggressive relapsed leukemia, is the precedent for a fast-killing cancer, cleared by both the United States and European regulators. Cerliponase alfa is the precedent for a fatal brain disease, cleared by both agencies on treated patients versus a matched natural-history group. Glioblastoma is both at once, a fast-killing cancer of the brain, read by the same method, so no part of its profile lacks a close approved precedent. And on the one axis that governs how far an external-control result can be trusted, DCVax-L goes beyond all three. Each of those drugs was tested in a single-arm trial, with no randomization at all. DCVax-L began as a randomized trial and became an external-control comparison only when ethics consumed its placebo group. It sits in that tradition, and at the top of it. ๐ŸŽฏ ๐—ง๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฏ๐—ผ๐˜๐˜๐—ผ๐—บ ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฒ This began as a randomized trial. Medical ethics forced it into an external-control comparison. Every independent way of checking it, on different data and different math, points the same direction, and the biology predicted that direction in advance. The first analysis did not overstate the vaccine's effect. Read with the right tools, it understated it.

Andrew Caravello, DO

10,959 views โ€ข 1 month ago

๐Ÿ’ฅIMPORTANT๐Ÿ’ฅ ๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ‡ฟIS NEW ZEALAND DESPERATE ENOUGH FOR RADICAL REFORM? Let's be honest. Are you sick and tired of the same old politics? Another pathetic Chris vs Chris election. Another election where Winston Peters decides who gets the keys to the Beehive. Another parade of recycled politicians asking for another chance. Another party list stacked with Misfits you've never voted for, quietly sneaking into Parliament through the back door. Where is the vision? Where is the courage? Where is the leadership that makes you believe New Zealand's best days are still ahead? I don't see it. Do you? ************ NZ IS NOT GOING FORWARD. NZ is going backwards. Every statistic that actually matters tells the story. โ–ช๏ธ Families breaking apart. โ–ช๏ธ Family harm climbing. โ–ช๏ธ Child poverty. โ–ช๏ธ Elderly poverty. โ–ช๏ธ Homelessness. โ–ช๏ธ Crime. โ–ช๏ธ Drug addiction and meth devastating communities. โ–ช๏ธ Mental health deteriorating. โ–ช๏ธ Youth without hope. โ–ช๏ธ Businesses closing. โ–ช๏ธ Productivity falling. โ–ช๏ธ Government debt exploding. โ–ช๏ธ Kiwis leaving New Zealand in record numbers. Then politicians stand in front of cameras telling us everything is improving. They might believe it. New Zealanders don't. You can feel it. Something is fundamentally broken. This isn't the New Zealand we grew up loving. We've lost our way. And no one in Parliament seems capable of showing us the way back. ************ WE NEED REFORM Not another election. Not another slogan. Not another coalition of chaos. Not another reshuffle. Not another broken promise. A complete reform of our political system. Because here's the truth... The political parties aren't fixing New Zealand. They're protecting themselves. Parliament has become a fortress. Political parties protect political parties. Politicians protect politicians. The people come last. ************ PROJECT REFORM This is bigger than an election. This is about asking the question every Kiwi should now be asking... Is our political system still fit for purpose? Because if the system keeps producing failure... Maybe the system is the problem. ************ HERE'S WHAT REAL REFORM COULD LOOK LIKE 1. SLASH PARLIAMENT. Reduce Parliament from more than 120 MPs to 65 directly elected representatives. Smaller government. Less bureaucracy. Lower cost. More accountability. 2. SCRAP MMP. No more unelected List MPs. No more diversity or identity politics. No more party bosses deciding who gets into Parliament. If you want to represent New Zealand... Win your electorate. Earn it. 3. BREAK THE GRIP OF POLITICAL PARTIES. Political parties have become the gatekeepers of power. MPs spend more time being loyal to party leaders than loyal to voters. That has to end. Every representative should answer to the people who elected them. Not party headquarters. 4. DRAIN THE WELLINGTON SWAMP. Less bureaucracy. Less waste. Less career politics. More delivery. More accountability. More results. ************ A DIFFERENT KIND OF LEADERSHIP Imagine this... Instead of another politician who has climbed the ranks becoming Prime Minister... New Zealand elects a Visionary National Leaderโ€ฆa Presidentโ€ฆwhose job is to build the strongest leadership team this country has ever seen. Not based on party politics. But based on excellence. The very best people New Zealand has to offer. Imagine selecting... โ–ช๏ธ New Zealand's version of Elon Musk to rebuild our economy, modernise government, eliminate waste, introduce blockchain transparency for government spending, cut bureaucracy, reduce debt and put more money back into Kiwi pockets. โ–ช๏ธ The nation's best educator leading education because they have actually produced outstanding resultsโ€ฆnot because they've climbed a political ladder. โ–ช๏ธThe country's best innovators. โ–ช๏ธ The best business builders. โ–ช๏ธ The best farmers. โ–ช๏ธ The best infrastructure minds. โ–ช๏ธ The best technology experts. โ–ช๏ธ The best health leaders. A Dream Team of around twelve proven performers. Not academics. Not career politicians. Not people who've spent thirty years learning how to survive Parliament. People who've actually built things. Created jobs. Solved problems. Led organisations. Produced results. Real-world experience. Real accountability. Real leadership. Real Kiwis. ************ LOCAL PEOPLE STILL HAVE THE POWER Every electorate still elects its own representative. Every community still has its own voice. But instead of endless party games... Local representatives work alongside a national leadership team chosen because they are the very best in New Zealand. By the people. For the people. ************ WE ALSO NEED TO ASK THE BIG QUESTIONS If we truly want a new political system... Should New Zealand remain under the Commonwealth? Should we leave the monarchy? Why should we continue under a monarchy whose modern role has changed significantly from the one that existed when New Zealand was founded? Should New Zealand write a new Constitution that clearly defines: โ–ช๏ธ Who we are. โ–ช๏ธ What we value. โ–ช๏ธ Our freedoms. โ–ช๏ธ The limits of government. โ–ช๏ธ The responsibilities of citizens. โ–ช๏ธ Christianity as the founding faith that shaped this nation. These conversations shouldn't be feared. They should be had. ************ THIS ISN'T ABOUT ME Before anyone says it... No. I don't want to be President. My passion is seeing New Zealand finally get the leadership it deserves. I want my children... and my grandchildren... to inherit a nation that is stronger than the one we're leaving them today. I want to see moral leadership restored. Integrity restored. Common sense restored. Christian values honoured as the foundation that helped make New Zealand one of the greatest countries on earth. You don't have to be a Christian. But you should respect the values that built this nation. If the right visionary leader emerged, I would support them, and stand with them. Encourage them to never lose their way. I believe New Zealand needs an independent Accountability and Integrity Authorityโ€ฆa body with real teeth that holds every leader, every politician, and every public official to the highest standards of honest, transparency, and moral responsibility. Power without accountability always ends in corruption. Government must answer to the people. Not just on election day. Every day. Thatโ€™s the kind of nation I want my grandchildren to inherit. ************ THE POLITICAL CLASS WILL NEVER DO THIS Why would they? This reform reduces their power. Reduces their numbers. Breaks their control. Ends the political party cartels. Exposes corruption. And puts every leader through a constant test of character, integrity and accountability. They're being asked to vote for their own redundancy. It won't come from Parliament. It must come from the people. ************ SO I'M ASKING ONE QUESTION. Is New Zealand desperate enough for reform yet? Or are we going to vote for the best of a bad bunch... Yet again. This election. Another coalition. Another compromise. Another three years. Another decline. History shows nations can change. Countries have transformed themselves through bold political reform. Just look at El Savador with Bukele and Argentina with Mikele. The question isn't whether it's possible. The question is... Are Kiwis ready? Or do we need to suffer a little longer before enough people finally say... Enough. ************ JOIN PROJECT REFORM This is not a political movement. This is a movement to reform New Zealand for the next generation. To install visionary leadership. Install accountability. Restore freedom. Restore prosperity. Restore hope. And if you believe you're one of the movers and shakers New Zealand needs... A nation builder. An innovator. A business leader. A proven problem-solver. Reach out to me. Project Reform needs New Zealand's best minds to help rebuild this nation. This is no longer... Left vs Right. National vs Labour. Chris vs Chris. This is now... THE PEOPLE vs THE POLITICIANS. The question is... Are you ready to do something different. Are you ready to Reform NZ? Join PROJECT REFORM here:

Brian Tamaki

11,156 views โ€ข 1 month ago

๐Ÿ’ฅ LAP Alert ๐Ÿ’ฅ "I did this sort of spy thing where I changed hotel rooms and I changed taxis. I was making sure I wasnโ€™t followed." ~Knapp Is Lacatski Lying to Us About the Craft and Breaching the Hull? ~ "If not for that [2017 NYT] story about AATIP and the problems that [Lacatski] saw with it, he would never have mentioned [AAWSAP]...I don't think, ever." ~Knapp (So, in other words...thank you from the UFO community, to the NYT, for getting it wrong? ๐Ÿ™‚) ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Should we listen to Dr. James Lacatski on UFOs, on the fact, or the idea, that our government has at least one, he's admitted, and we breached the hull? Should we listen to him, George?" George Knapp: "I know a lot of people have noticed that he's talked about his role in counterintelligence as part of the AAWSAP program. And because they equate counterintelligence with lies, false info., cover stories, misdirection. Aha! He's putting out a bunch of false info. a decade after he retired from government service." (I saw one person suggest that, and I thought it was a questionable take...) Grant Lavac: "Given that Dr. James Lacatski was the 'counterintelligence coordinator' for AAWSAP, how much confidence can we invest in the veracity of his public statements that 'at least one recovered craft of unknown origin, a flying machine with no wings, no engine, no fuel, and no fuel tanks' is in the possession of the US government and that they had 'breached the hull' of the UFO? In the context of the counterintelligence value of UAP/UFO, his comments in this most recent interview on WEAPONIZED (edited for brevity) only raise more questions for me." ~~~ Knapp: "A, it's not [Lacatski]. He's not out there beating the bushes. He's talked to us, but that's pretty much it. He's telling the full story as much as he can in a series of books. And I was co-author on two of those, not on this one. And, you know, I remember the first time I met him, it was in 2018." ~ (In April of 2019, Knapp shared that story, minus Lacatski's name, at UFO MegaCon. Knapp in 2019: "I thought today I would share with you, sort of the informational foundation that Iโ€™ve acquired. So, one year ago, I made this trip to Washington, D.C. at the invitation of Senator Harry Reid. It was St. Patrickโ€™s Day, 2018 and I already knew a little bit about AATIP and AAWSAP and what theyโ€™ve been studying and where the money came from and how the program was created. I did this sort of spy thing where I changed hotel rooms and I changed taxis. I was making sure I wasnโ€™t followed. And if there was ever actually, anybody following me, they must have thought I looked ridiculous because it was way over the top. "But I ended up having to meet with Senator Reid and some other people who were directly involved in these programs and they gave me a download. And I thought I knew a lot about these programs when I went there and realized that I only knew a little tiny bit. The purpose of this was to learn about these programs. We all know about AATIP, but in reality, there was something before that. "I sat down for a couple of hours with Senator Reid and other people whose names, they donโ€™t want to be known. They brought me up to speed on how AATIP was created. How its predecessor was under way for a number of years. It coexisted for a long time. People in this room. People who investigate this topic may have suspected for a long time that there was some kind of a program that still existed. Weโ€™ve all heard that Project Bluebook was the end. 1969 it ended and the government was done with UFOs. They closed up shop. And the reason they closed it down is because there was no evidence that it involved national security. "And we all knew that was baloney because of the stories that weโ€™ve seen that are really well documented. For example, UFOs over nuclear missile bases. UFO encounters with the military installations and atomic facilities. Things of that sort the have been well documented over the years. There are cases that involved national security. So at the end of Blue Book, of course, this memo said, alright, any cases involving national security will continue to be investigated in the regular way. Well, what the heck was the regular way? We didnโ€™t know. Well now we do know. At least a little bit of it." (Project Blue Book was shut down in December of 1969, but a few months earlier, in October, we had the Bolender memo, which noted that "reports of UFOs which could affect national security should continue to be handled through the standard Air Force procedure designed for this purpose." What standard Air Force procedure? The regular way? Where did those cases go? We still don't know what Bolender was referring to in that memo.) ~ Knapp in 2019: "And one of the regular ways was this program called AATIP. So I went on this trip. [and] I learned this stuff about AATIP. I had known a lot about it before but I got this briefing about this alphabet soup of different programs, how they began and what they studied. December 2017, the New York Times breaks this story about AATIP. Now, I had known about it for a long time because I lived in Las Vegas. I knew Bob Bigelow. I knew Harry Reid. Weโ€™d talk about UFO stuff and what was going on. "So when I was told the New York Times was gonna break the story, Iโ€™m kind ticked off about it. Because hey, Iโ€™ve been sitting on this for a long time. Why donโ€™t I get to break the story? And they had to, one after another, gently remind me, 'You know. Youโ€™re not the New York Times.' Which I had to admit! It was true. And if I had done the story, the Times had said that they werenโ€™t going to do it if somebody else breaks it. So, if I had done it, itโ€™d be another story from a UFO reporter. "The New York Times did it and they changed everything. Because they did it, wider organizations did it. Some of them took shots at the New York Times because The Times got the story and they didnโ€™t. But that story was accurate, to a degree. But the story that it told was not the full story. AATIP, that we know aboutโ€ฆthe AATIP that studies nuts and bolts saucersโ€ฆcase of UFOs that have encounters with military units such as the USS Nimitz, that is studied by a group of people, Lue Elizondo was the head of it. "Itโ€™s not so much a program as it was a loose network of intelligence officials in different agencies, including the Air Force and the Navy, CIA, DIA, DARPAโ€ฆthere might be a couple of other agencies. But a case would come in from any one of their units [and] it would be shared with this group of people, analysis would be done, evidence would be looked at and then stashed in a draw and nobody ever sees it. Itโ€™s not passed up the chain of command. "In 2007, that changed. One of the guys (Lacatski. ~Joe 2025) I met with in this meeting in Washington is the one who changed it. He had been in the same position that Lue Elizondo had been in. And his name is just not out there. He grew frustrated with what was happening with the phenomenon and he suspected that UFOs flying around the sky, buzzing our military units every once in a while, is not the full story. Even if you could solve that part of the mystery it wouldnโ€™t solve the bigger part of the picture. "So he grew interested in Skinwalker Ranch and he had read the (Knapp/Kelleher โ€“ 'Hunt For The Skinwalker') book. And after he read it, he called up Bob Bigelow and saidโ€ฆactually, he wrote him a letter and said, 'Hey, can I go to the ranchโ€ฆgo look around? Iโ€™m with the DIA.' Bigelow says, 'Come on out to Las Vegas and Iโ€™ll take you there.' And thatโ€™s what happened. He flew to Las Vegas. They flew on Bigelowโ€™s jet. They went to the ranch. "This guyโ€™s not there fifteen minutes and he has an experience. And Iโ€™m not gonna go into detail. Iโ€™m hoping that heโ€™s going to maybe come forward at some point and describe his experience. But it was just for him. Of all the people in this room, in the encounter, he was the only one who could see it. Heโ€™s the only one who had an angle on this thing that appeared. And heโ€™s pretending that heโ€™s not seeing it but itโ€™s right out of the corner of his eye. And he doesnโ€™t say anything until he leaves the ranch. And he gets off and he asks Bigelow if he had seen it. And he had not. The other people who had been in the room had not seen it. "He flies back to Las Vegas, goes back to Washington, D.C. and looks up Harry Reid and tells him about it. Now Reid had some experience in these matters that Iโ€™ll get into in a little bit. But as a result of that conversation, Reid, who had an interest in UFOs and had maintained that interest over many years โ€“ and I can attest to that personally โ€“ called in a couple of his friends in the Senate โ€“ Daniel Inouye and Ted Stevens. They had a conversation in a secure room and they decided to provide some funding for a much broader study. Something that looked atโ€ฆbeyond flying saucers, that looked at other paranormal aspectsโ€ฆsupernatural aspects that we would not normally associate with aliens or ETs. Assuming that thatโ€™s what this is, which Iโ€™m not sure anyone knows for sure. And that is how AAWSAP was born. The Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program." ~~~ Knapp Yesterday: "The only reason [Lacatski] came forward, he was ticked off about how AATIP had been described in major media reports, and no mention had been given to the actual, real program. That one that had a $22 million budget, lasted 27 months, and which put together the biggest UFO data warehouse in history, that had written all these papers that still have not been released." (In the most-recent interview (Part 1) with Weaponized, Lacatski let it fly with his issues related to the 2017 NYT article: "The initial reporting...by the New York Times story in 2017 was totally inaccurate. Contrary to what some people claim, the authors knew my name and position at AAWSAP, yet never attempted to contact me. Likewise, the The Washington Post. POLITICO (laughs) contacted me within hours after the articles were published in the free publications, asking for my opinion. They knew my name, they had my phone number. Why didn't they contact me [beforehand]?" ~Dr. James Lacatski on Weaponized ~ Knapp: "So, Jim was a counterintelligence guy for AAWSAP, but in this role. He wasn't putting out cover stories or lies, he didn't put out anything. The world didn't hear that AAWSAP existed until years later, at least by that name. There was one statement made to the press about that program. It was by Robert Bigelow, whose company, BAASS, got the contract. A week after he signed it, he came on with me on Coast to Coast AM and said, 'We got this program dealing with UFOs, we have an unnamed partner, and we're excited to get going.' That was it. "Jim Lacatski wasn't putting out PR releases about AAWSAP. There was nothing. That was the last thing anybody said until the New York Times did the AATIP story, and then Jim Lacatski felt the real story was being covered up. If not for that story about AATIP and the problems that he saw with it, he would never have mentioned this. I don't think ever." (Well, then, thank you to the NYT journalists and editors for pissing off Lacatski!) Knapp: "You'll recall, AAWSAP, at the time that things went downhill, that the funding was moved away, they were trying to make it into a SAP, a Special Access Program. And if it had happened, we probably would never have heard of it. If it had happened, Lue Elizondo would have been the counterintelligence guy for AAWSAP, that he had already talked to Lacatski. "But Lacatski is not proclaiming the greatness of the program. He's not out there beating the bushes on podcasts and newscasts, other than with us, and he never put out in counterintelligence. His role, counterintelligence, meant something different for AAWSAP. The thing that DIA had told him was, 'Look, you know, it's not a rogue program. I know it gets weird into some of the phenomena that was at Skinwalker Ranch and other places. We don't care. Here's what we care about: Don't let the secret out. We don't want to see this on the front page of the Washington Post. We want it kept secret.' (John Greenewald was one person questioning whether AAWSAP was actually a prosaic program and Lacatski just decided to go rogue with a foray into UFOs and the paranormal.) Greenewald Tweet: "Did the U.S. government really sanction this, and if so, is this really how it was run? Or was this a rogue operation by a select few on the inside playing with Uncle Sam's coffers?" (Greenewald was quote tweeting a Greenstreet hit-piece video on AAWSAP. In his interview on Weaponized aired over the past few weeks, Lacatski said that former Deputy Director of AARO, Tim Phillips, also used the "rogue" word when describing AAWSAP. Did DIA really not know what AAWSAP was about? Did Lacatski go rogue and turn a program that was supposed to look at prosaic, advanced technology into one that studied UFOs and the paranormal? Here's an exchange from the 2023 interview Knapp and Corbell did with Lacatski and Colm Kelleher.) Kelleher: "The critical part of AAWSAP that we tried to convey in 'Skinwalkers at the Pentagon,' was that there were two fundamental, parallel tracks that AAWSAP ran on. The first one was the examination of UFO performance. And, you know, the UFO performance part was getting all of the data from eyewitnesses, plus deploying sensors into the field, in order to gather data on the performance of UFOs. That was track number one. And track number two was: What effects do UFOs have on humans? That was a parallel track that, from the get go, AAWSAP decided, unambiguously, to run both tracks in parallel. We documented psychological effects, and then we also documented paranormal effects." Lacatski: "Anything can be said on the internet it seems, factual or not. Well, one thing that is not factual is, DIA knew what it was getting into in regard to both aspects that Colm just described to you. And let me end my statement right here. We had no choice but to pursue both aspects." (That was a poor way of him saying: The claim that DIA was unaware of AAWSAP looking into all aspects of UFOs, including the paranormal, is NOT true.) Lacatski: "I want to emphasize something I said on my first and only interview. It was a closed program. It operated very similar to a SAP. The director, the director of analysis, and my office chief...and, of course, division chief, knew about this program. No one else did. Now, I was also protected by the stovepipe nature of that. I did not have to address political-type questions. I was insulated, but they were, too. There was no one else. People in the surrounding cubicles didn't know. Nothing was purposely being hid. It was a closed, stovepipe system, and it needed to be. It needed to be operated that way." ~~~ Knapp: "And so, Jim Lacatski took it on himself, put it in his own hands. He and Colm Kelleher interviewed all these people who applied for the jobs, the 50 full-time positions that they staffed, in a matter of months. They did background checks, they required security clearances for all those people, and they were worried about leaks. They didn't want information to get out. "They also were concerned about espionage by foreign players, by foreign companies, things of that sort. And some of that really did happen. As Jim has shared with us, there were a couple of phones that were transmitters that were found inside Bigelow Aerospace, inside the Bigelow, uh, facilities, and it was very alarming because they weren't sure who was doing it. I think they think it was a foreign government. I'm not going to say which one, uh, they suspected the most." (Lacatski said that the phones in question were made in China.) Knapp: "But, and then they also found weird frequencies emanating from Skinwalker Ranch. That's not strange, and there's a lot of unusual stuff that happens there, but it was some sort of a an espionage program that they believed was was not only looking at the ranch, but also at BAASS. "That was his primary concern. He was worried that the story gets out, because secrecy was of paramount interest to the heads of DIA and he's worried about the information getting out to the public. Because once it happened, then the knives come out in the Pentagon and within the intelligence community, which is kind of what happened. A memo was sent from Harry Reid's office, let other people know that AAWSAP existed, and that's when things started getting problematic." Corbell: "The bugging thing. So, it's not just like Bigelow Aerospace was tapped with something, he said, specifically, AAWSAP, right? So they were looking at that new UFO program. And I don't know how public this is, but he did say it was - not just him, other people have all said - it was multiple nations, multiple, different devices from those phones. And he also said that they worked with FBI, they had FBI liaisons looking at the ranch property, and also at Bigelow Aerospace. "Because, remember, they were supposed to receive a transfer of materials. That's why they reverse, reverse engineered (laughs), you know, they built everything to be able to hold SCIF-capable and material-capable property at that classification level. So, look, I think if we pull it back, the whole idea is, James Lacatski made a statement at some point that he was, you know, head of, or part of, or running the counterintelligence for AAWSAP. But his point was to keep AAWSAP itself secret from foreign nations. So then he has to keep it secret from the U.S. He did it. He did a great job. They actually kept it secret. That doesn't mean he's going out and creating false information to the public like he's been accused of. "So, should we listen to Jim Lacatski? That was like, you know, the main question. Oh, one second. He also identified that there is currently a counter-programming, counterintelligence operation going on to the American public, but not against the American public, by AARO." (In other words, spread misinformation to the American public so they can advance their goal of misinforming and confusing our adversaries who are always listening. National security! IMO, that's only acceptable if we're talking specifics related to propulsion, technology and weapons that can be used to give us a leg up on said adversaries. But everything else should come out and be made public. We shouldn't be told a bunch of lies about information we paid for and that could, potentially, give us some clarity about our species and other lifeforms on this planet.) Corbell: That was so clear in our interview with him that he said that, you know, 'Look, they're acting this way. They are telling you lies about AAWSAP and what happened.' And that's why he said, 'My books, I'm a government employee. This was paid by taxpayers. I'm trying to give you information.' And that's what his books are. "So it's clear from these rounds of interviews that we just had with Dr. Lacatski that he supports a controlled UFO disclosure. He made that very clear. So should we listen to what he has to say? I mean, he was a big dog, right, George?" Knapp: "He was the head of the largest U.S. government-funded UFO investigation in history, that we know of. He worked with Colm Kelleher, who was the boots-on-the-ground guy in Las Vegas. He worked with Jay Stratton. Stratton's role in the development of AAWSAP has not been really fully explored, but he's got a book coming out at some point, once it gets through the DOPSR process. But then we'll get additional information to buttress what Lacatski has said."

Joe Murgia

56,558 views โ€ข 9 months ago

On March 15th, 2021, an anonymous Twitter user asked Harvard Medical professor Martin Kulldorff a question. โ€œDo you think younger age groups and or people who have already had the virus need to be vaccinated?โ€ Who is Martin Kulldorff? Heโ€™s a Harvard Medical School professor for 21 years, a well-known Swedish biostatistician who developed widely used software for disease mapping, the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration on how to deal with the COVID pandemic, and an advisor to the worldโ€™s leading health organizations. What he said was that โ€œThinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should get COVID. Vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it, nor do children.โ€ Natural immunity. Is it a myth โ€” a โ€œconspiracy theoryโ€ โ€” that once you have been sick from a virus, then you wonโ€™t get sick, or as sick, again? In fact, weโ€™ve known for 2,500 years that natural immunity is real. โ€œThe same man was never attacked twice, never at least fatally,โ€ wrote Thucydides, describing the plague of Athens. He observed that recovered individuals could safely nurse the sick without falling ill themselves. And yet Twitter censored Martin Kulldorffโ€™s tweet. โ€œLearn why health officials recommend a vaccine,โ€ read a warning that Twitter employees put on it. For most people, the Tweet cannot be replied to, shared or liked. In other words, Twitter had decided that this professor at Harvard Medical School was wrong, and that natural immunity wasnโ€™t really something that could protect you from COVID. Jay Bhattacharya, whoโ€™s currently our Director of the National Institutes of Health, and thus one of the highest-ranking public health officials in the world, was a Stanford epidemiologist before that. Twitter put him on a โ€œTrends Blacklist.โ€ Not long before we discovered this, we were told that shadow-banning was a conspiracy theory, because Twitter had said it didnโ€™t shadow-ban. Now the European Commission is trying to censor the entire global internet. They want to put a 140 million Euro fine on X. They want to end anonymity, which was what allowed that question of Kulldorff to be asked. They want to use a โ€œDemocracy Shieldโ€ program to shield the Commission from democracy. And the Commission wants to impose โ€œchat controlโ€ so they can read your private messages. It just gets worse and worse. Unsubstantiated and likely false claims of Russian government election interference through TikTok and social media were made in Romania and in the Czech Republic. Truth is not something that anybody holds as a possession and rather emerges through dialogue. Weโ€™ve known that since Plato and Socrates. We need free speech for science, public health, and national security. Itโ€™s essential to journalism, democracy, and human freedom. Free speech enabled civilization; censorship threatens it. This is the only political cause that I would die for. And yet there is currently an active coordination between Stanford, Brazil, Australia, and others to impose what I think we can call, without exaggeration, global totalitarianism. Theyโ€™re pushing for digital identification that will end anonymity online. Why is that? Why are these guys behaving in this way? When Elon Musk took over Twitter on October 28th, 2022, unprecedented insight into multiple secret government mass censorship efforts emerged from this exploration. We had unlimited access to Twitter files. They revealed that the mainstream news reporters, who donโ€™t deserve the name, were demanding censorship. No true journalist demands censorship of his fellow journalists. What emerged from this was an understanding of something we call the โ€œCensorship Industrial Complex,โ€ which directly grew out of the military industrial complex and was run by active or former intelligence community officials who often operate under that banner. It led to multiple congressional investigations and hearings, and it spread across every social media platform. So we now know the censorship that occurred, not just at Twitter, but at YouTube, at Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms. What is the Censorship Industrial Complex? The model isnโ€™t that complicated to understand. The government chooses people whom they call โ€œresearchersโ€ to serve as censors. These are government-funded individuals who often come from the intelligence community and foreign policy establishment. They work at non-governmental organizations funded by governments or at universities funded by governments. They conduct โ€œfact checksโ€ to serve as โ€œtrusted flaggers.โ€ These โ€œtrusted flaggersโ€ demand censorship by social media platforms. Itโ€™s all done in secret. Theyโ€™re looking to censor narratives. This is essential because, as decades of good cognitive science have shown, people understand and retain information through storytelling. We think in terms of stories, not bullet points. And so they were out to censor whole narratives. From the Stanford censorship project on COVID, the โ€œVirality Project,โ€ they said they wanted to censor โ€œtrue storiesโ€ of vaccine side effects. Why? Because it might โ€œfuel hesitancy.โ€ In other words, they want to control your behavior. They donโ€™t want you to receive true information that might lead you to not get the vaccine. If that isnโ€™t totalitarianism straight out of 1984, I donโ€™t know what it. These people were on the verge of passing legislation in the United States that wouldโ€™ve authorized the National Science Foundation to choose these โ€œresearcherโ€ censors. Iโ€™m presenting slides to Europeans and the world for situational awareness into what totalitarian politicians and bureaucrats have planned because this is still going strong. Stanford helped the US government censor COVID dissidents, and then they lied about it. You might be detecting a pattern. Theyโ€™re really not interested in censoring โ€œmisinformation.โ€™ Theyโ€™re very interested in censoring true information. The censors flagged an Israeli preprint which came out in December, 2020 and found, lo and behold, that natural immunity is a real thing. In fact, itโ€™s more protective than the vaccine. But the censors flagged somebodyโ€™s Google Drive. โ€œSee the following Google Drive links being used to compile testimonies about vaccine shedding, Covid videos, showing side effects and whatnot.โ€ Google then removed that content from that personโ€™s Google Drive. You donโ€™t control your Google Drive. Contrary to Stanfordโ€™s claim that the project did not ask social media platforms to remove any content, they privately said they did. And we know that many hundreds of thousands of tweets and Facebook posts were removed, even though they were a hundred percent accurate. In fact, in 2021, Stanfordโ€™s โ€œVirality Projectโ€ flagged accurate claims that the World Health Organization did not recommend vaccinating children. The people who spread the misinformation are the people demanding the censorship. They claimed Covid couldnโ€™t have come from a lab, that the Covid vaccine prevented infection, and that natural immunity didnโ€™t exist. The only solution to hate speech and misinformation is free speech. If you censor false information, how would anybody get the true information? The whole point is the debate. They lied when they said false information travels faster than true information. Itโ€™s a completely bogus study and involved six seconds of content on Twitter. Who are these people? As of 2020, there were so many former FBI employees at Twitter that they called them โ€œBu alumni.โ€ They created their own private Slack channel and a crib sheet to onboard new FBI arrivals. Intriguingly, we discovered that the general counsel of the FBI โ€” arguably the second most powerful person of the FBI, or maybe the first, if you think, consider that what their actual job is to decide what the FBI can and canโ€™t do โ€” resigned from FBI in early 2020 and went to Twitter to take the deputy general counsel role. Isnโ€™t that interesting? Somebody in one of the most powerful legal positions in the world would take a junior legal role at a social media company. Why would that be? This email popped up when we were going through Twitter files and it really jumped out at us. Itโ€™s from the director of policy at Twitter. โ€œWe have seen a sustained if uncoordinatedโ€ โ€” supposedly โ€” โ€œeffort by the intelligence community to push us to share more information and change our API policies. Theyโ€™re probing and pushing everywhere they can.โ€ The Hunter Biden laptop censorship occurred later that year. The FBI and the intelligence community discredited accurate, factual information about Hunter Bidenโ€™s foreign business dealings both before and after the New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14th, 2020. How could the FBI spread false information about something that nobody knew about? Because the FBI had Hunter Bidenโ€™s laptop, which showed his familyโ€™s massive influence peddling scheme. It consisted of accepting tens of millions of dollars, including from the Chinese government. The FBI had been sitting on that laptop since December of 2019. They had been given it by the computer repair store owner, who had been given the laptop by Hunter Biden, likely because he dropped it in his bathtub or in the pool, when he was on one of his many crack and alcohol benders. The government strategy is always the same: spread disinformation first, then demand censorship of accurate information on the basis of it . โ€œThe FBI came to us in the summer of 2020,โ€ Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan two years later, โ€œand they were like, โ€˜Hey, you should be on the alert. We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in 2016. Thereโ€™s about to be some kind of dump.โ€™โ€ In the summer of 2020, the New York Post had not published the story about the Hunter Biden laptop. It would only come out in October. We see something very interesting show up in the Twitter files: the Aspen Institute, an intermediary between the intelligence community and the public. Itโ€™s known as a Davos-style gab fest in the United States. Itโ€™s also the place where intelligence community operations are run. They hosted a workshop to train reporters and all of the social mediaโ€™s top censorship officials, known as โ€œtrust and safety officials,โ€ how to deal with a story they would hear in the future relating to Hunter Biden and Barisma. A few months earlier, the Stanford Cyber Policy Center had published a report attacking what we in the United States call the Pentagon Papers Principle. The Pentagon Papers Principle says that if a government official gives me, a journalist, a bunch of Pentagon documents showing that weโ€™re losing the war in Vietnam, I, as a journalist, can publish them, and not risk prison. That was decided in a famous Supreme Court case in 1971. Stanford argued that, really, we should get rid of that principle, which may be the most important investigative journalism principle in the United States, and said, โ€œYou should cover the person who leaked the materials, not the leaked emails.โ€ In other words, you should cover and expose the whistleblower. The person who exposed the Pentagon Papers is the real bad guy, not the DOD, CIA, and presidents who had lied to us for over a decade. Stanford was training the journalists and the social media trust and safety officers in how to cover a story that had not yet come out. This is known as โ€œpre-bunking,โ€ and itโ€™s also part of the European Union strategy to shield themselves from democracy. When the Hunter Biden story appeared October 22nd, Twitterโ€™s trust and safety censorship official said it didnโ€™t violate its terms of service. Thereโ€™s nothing illegal about any of this. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that youโ€™re allowed to report on information thatโ€™s been leaked to you. At that moment, the former FBI general counsel, Jim Baker, argued vigorously that Twitter really needed to censor it. Baker won and they censored the story. Itโ€™s not that we didnโ€™t hear about the Hunter Biden laptop story when it came out. I certainly did. But we had the impression that there was something wrong with it, that it was not really the whole story. And so many of us dismissed it. What they had done was a psyop on this major story. They had changed our perception of the story. And it worked. It worked on me, it worked on everybody I knew. What is the role of the intelligence community of social media companies? The former CIA people are the head of elections at Meta, and Googleโ€™s head of trust and safety. Former and current CIA officers have a history of spreading misinformation and promoting the Russiagate conspiracy theory. We now know that between 2018 and 2023, there were 36 people from the CIA 68 from the FBI 44, from the National Security Administration and 68 from the Department of Homeland Security who had moved to work at the social media platforms. This is not unique to the United States. My colleague Cecilia Jilkovรก, the daughter of famous Czech dissidents, discovered that European Union officials claimed, days before the European elections in 2024, that a โ€œpro-Kremlin websiteโ€ was spreading propaganda and were paying off European politicians. That was the headline in Politico. We wrote to them and asked, โ€œWhereโ€™s the evidence of this? Just go ahead and share the evidence to support your accusation days before the European parliamentary elections.โ€ Nobody was arrested. They never produced the evidence. The former Czech president, Vรกclav Klaus, who was accused of this, said, โ€œWe donโ€™t even know what the โ€˜Voice of Europeโ€™ is.โ€ Another Czech politician said, โ€œHow could I have known it would be a security threat? At the time I gave the interview, they werenโ€™t on any list.โ€ Another said, โ€œIf theyโ€™re such a big threat, why did the European Parliament let the Voice of Europeโ€™s journalists inside?โ€ Nobody responded. Nobody talked to us. This was a disinformation campaign carried by Politico, which, in my view, is a suspect publication. In the spring of 2022, Barack Obama went to Stanford to give a speech at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center run by Michael McFaul, his former ambassador to Russia. Obama said misinformation harms democracy and urged support for legislation in Congress that would empower government-appointed researchers to serve as โ€œtrusted flaggers.โ€ Six days later, the Department of Homeland Security rolled out their Disinformation Governance Board. What a coincidence that they got Obama to frame the issue for them. Facebook in 2021 censored accurate vaccine information so the White House would help it to get data from Europe. In addition to removing vaccine misinformation, wrote Facebook to the White House, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation. White House said jump, and Facebook said how high? Why did they do it? Why would they voluntarily censor? This also emerged from the Facebook files. Nick Clegg on the left wrote an email to his colleagues. He said, โ€œMy sense is that given weโ€™ve got bigger fish, we have to fry with the administration, e.g., data flows, it doesnโ€™t seem like a great place for us to be.โ€ Data flows. Whatโ€™s he talking about? Heโ€™s talking about billions of dollars worth of business that he has to, that they would have to pay the European Commission for if they didnโ€™t have the support from the Biden administration to lean on the European Commission. In other words, this was a shakedown by the White House of Facebook and it worked in France, the country of Libertรฉ. Turns out it has a special role.... Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, watch the full video, and read the rest of the article!

Michael Shellenberger

174,749 views โ€ข 7 months ago

"We had people around us that started having things happen. And not all of it was rosy. We didn't know that...it's gonna stay with you for maybe...years and years or the rest of your life." ~Mr. B. A Whole Lot of Not Rosy Robert Bigelow: "And so, it (survival of consciousness research) does have this aspect of things to be concerned about. And you know, I've told you that since we formed this institute (Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS)) in June (of 2020), all of a sudden, we had people around us that started having things happen. And not all of it was rosy, okay?โ€ (I really hope he give details in a future interview because I think it's important to know what happened. Just the formation of an institute that planned on studying consciousness caused phenomena to start taking place and some of it was negative in nature. To me, that's problematic. Did anybody get injured or sick, or were they just scared?) Bigelow: "So, I mean, this is family members, myself, my staff. And none of this we expected, we hadn't asked for anything, positioned anything, decided to do anything in this kind of research. Our whole intention to begin with was simply trying to get ourselves up to speed in the literature, after being away from this for so many years, focusing on [the] space world, right? That's been mainly what I've been doing - except for the Skinwalker Ranch thing for 20 years - is the space world...has been huge in my life to pursue. The legitimate, parochial kind of, you know, using fire engines, rockets to get you there (smiles). "So we didn't expect anything like this to happen." (Again, this is various phenomena that allegedly started happening once they formed BICS with the intention of studying consciousness (including life after death), and apparently, some of it was not good. Again, did anybody get hurt? Exactly how bad was it? Details are sorely needed.) Bigelow: "And so, this Holy Grail is different than the second Holy Grail. If the second one being the ET, is a little bit lower. And this first one: Is there any part of your consciousness that survives your bodily death? That's a big deal, that's a huge story, that's gigantic." (I'd push back and suggest that both Holy Grails may be connected or related and the 2nd one may not be ET at all. This other intelligence (which John Keel labelled, "Ultraterrestrials") may reside in, or be able to enter, the same realms we enter when we die. Thereโ€™s strong evidence that psychic mediums can acquire information they had no way of knowing about via their five senses. But are they talking to the dead, or is something else going on?) ~~~Excerpt from Operation Trojan Horse by John Keel~~~ In 1866, a New Englander named William Denton declared himself to be the first modern contactee. He claimed to be in telepathic contact with beings from another planet, and he and his whole family later purportedly visited Venus and Mars. Denton wrote a series of books describing saucer-shaped vehicles in detail, which he thought were made of aluminum. (A commercial process for manufacturing aluminum was not invented until 1886.) He also told his audiences (he lectured widely) that the folks who rode around in aluminum airships looked very much like us. His narratives were, in many respects, identical to those of the modern contactees. Trance Mediums and Possession Trance mediums were nothing new in 1850. In the Bibleโ€™s First Book of Samuel, Chapter 28 describes how Saul consulted a medium (โ€œโ€ฆ a woman that hath-a familiar spiritโ€). Mediums acted as oracles in ancient times, and people with this peculiar gift appeared in each new generation. Such persons seem to serve as instruments through which the ultraterrestrials can speak to us directly, and they often come up with amazingly accurate prophecies of the future and precise details of events that could seemingly be known only to the dead relatives of the people who consulted them. Of course, when spiritualism became a national fad, a goodly number of charlatans and hucksters moved in. But most of the genuine mediums exercised their talents carefully and for free. They did not indulge in fancy hocus-pocus and did not need paraphernalia, such as spirit cabinets. They wereโ€”and areโ€”people who can apparently summon up unseen entities or alien intelligences and extract information from them. I am not a spiritualist myself, although I have attended a few sรฉances over the years, usually in the role of a scoffer and disbeliever. As a longtime amateur magician, I have been able to see through the frauds, but I have also been genuinely perplexed by some of the manifestations I have personally witnessed. (I recommend everybody read about The Scole Experiment or watch the documentary on YT about it. And...read the book, "Ghost Hunters" by Deborah Blum. Related links here: ) ~ Back to OTH... Essentially, a trance medium lapses into an unconscious state, and while in this condition, his or her body is taken over by some outside influence. This influence is usually a self-styled โ€œIndian guideโ€ from โ€œthe other side.โ€ Many mediums have been simple, uneducated people, but when in a trance state they have been able to talk foreign languages fluently. Scientists and clergymen have put countless mediums through severe tests over the years. At one group of sรฉances in the 1920s, sitters, who were all versed in different languages, grilled mediums in everything from ancient Chinese to Swahili, and the controlling entities not only conversed in those languages but corrected the sittersโ€™ grammar! The daughter of Judge Edmunds, president of the Senate in the 1850s, gave incredible performances while in a trance, speaking fluently in Greek, Spanish, Polish, Latin, Portuguese, Hungarian, and several Indian languages. Because the sittersโ€”and the mediumsโ€”assume that they are dealing with residents of heaven, they ask mostly spiritual questions. Customarily, the โ€œcontrolโ€ will announce that Mr. Blank is standing next to him and wishes to speak to Mrs. Blank, who is attending the sรฉance. Mrs. Blank excitedly begins to question her dead husband, Mr. Blank. How is life on the other side? Just fine, the control replies, a little bored, everyone lives in vine-covered cottages, and all is sweetness and light. Where did Mr. Blank hide his valuable gold watch before he died? Itโ€™s wrapped in an old sock and buried under some papers in the bottom drawer of the old rolltop desk, the control answers. Sure enough, when Mrs. Blank gets home, she finds the watch exactly where the mediumโ€™s alter ego said it would be. Try to convince Mrs. Blank that she didnโ€™t talk with her dead husband! In many cases, the medium even begins to talk in a voice that sounds exactly like the dead Mr. Blank, uses his pet expressions, and even refers to things known only to Mrs. Blank, indulges in their private jokes, and so on. Occasionally, a deceased celebrity will โ€œbreak through.โ€ Recently the late George Bernard Shaw made a tape recording in England that is now circulating in occult circles. Those who knew Shaw claim that it sounds exactly like him, uses his phraseology and vocal mannerisms, and displays his brilliant and distinctive wit. The trance phenomenon deserves extensive study because so many aspects of it are directly related to the contactee phenomenon. The contactees have been told a hundred different stories of what life is like on other planets. If you review the descriptions of heaven produced at the thousands of possibly genuine sรฉances, you will find the same contradictions. The entities will lie transparently at one point in the sรฉance, and a few moments later will come up with astounding information that could not be based upon simple trickery. The mediums themselves have always been aware of their controlsโ€™ mischievous sense of humor. They speak of false shades and malevolent spirits who perform outrageous hoaxes. So the mediums and the professional investigators are always wary. The fact that a control can imitate George Bernard Shaw does not necessarily mean that GBS is doing the speaking from the spirit world. The fact that a control knows where Mr. Blank hid his gold watch does not necessarily prove that Mr. Blank is standing at his side โ€œon the other plane.โ€ The medium generally remains completely inert while in the trance or โ€œoccupiedโ€ state but in some instances can become quite animated and make gestures appropriate to whatever is being said. In a very real sense, the mediumโ€™s mind has been blanked out, and his or her body has been completely taken over by the control. The medium has become a zombie of sorts, possessed by an alien entity, an entity who lacks a physical form of his own. Contactees often find themselves suddenly miles from home without knowing how they got there. They either have induced amnesia, wiping out all memory of the trip, or they were taken over by some means and made the trip in a blacked-out state. Should they encounter a friend on the way, the friend would probably note that their eyes seemed glassy and their behavior seemed peculiar. But if the friend spoke to them, he might receive a curt reply. In the language of the silent contactees this process is called being used. A used person can suddenly lose a day or a week out of his life. I have known silent contactees to disappear from their homes for long periods, and when they returned, they had little or no recollection of where they had been. One girl sent me a postcard from the Bahama Islandsโ€”which surprised me because I knew she was very poor. When she returned, she told me that she had only one memory of the trip. She said she remembered getting off a jet at an airportโ€”she couldnโ€™t recall getting on the jet or making the tripโ€”and there โ€œIndiansโ€ met her and took her baggage. She remembered nothing further after that. The next thing she knew she was back home again. It seems likely the same methods are applied to both mediums and contactees. In the case of the mediums, the mind control serves a useful purpose. It enables the entities to establish direct vocal communication with us and, in many instances, pass along worthwhile information. This process can also be destructive. A young man from Ithaca, New York, called me some time ago at the urging of William Donovan, president of Aerial Investigation and Research (AIR), to tell me of his close brush with death. One evening in the fall of 1967, he said, he left his home to drive to a meeting. For some reason he couldnโ€™t explain, he got out of his car, went back into his house, and carried out several aimless actions such as picking up a book from a table and putting it on the shelf. โ€œFinally, I said to myself, Okay, itโ€™s time,โ€ he told me. He remembers leaving the house and again heading for his parked car. The next thing he knew he was in a hospital bed. He had apparently driven about four miles to a railroad crossing just in time to meet an oncoming train. His car was demolished, but he escaped rather miraculously with only a few minor injuries. If he had not gone back into the house and carried out those meaningless, time-killing chores, he would have avoided the train altogether. It is possible, of course, that the shock of the accident blotted out his memory of that four-mile driveโ€”but he couldnโ€™t even remember putting the key in the ignition. This man had been active in investigating the UFO flap that took place around the radio telescope installations near Ithaca in 1967-68. In his book Passport to Magonia, Dr. Jacques Vallee, a NASA astronomer and computer expert, touches on all this. โ€œIn the Soviet Union, not so long ago, a leading plasma physicist died in strange circumstances,โ€ Dr. Vallee states. โ€œHe was thrown under a Moscow subway train by a mentally deranged woman. It is noteworthy that she claimed a โ€˜voice from spaceโ€™ had given her orders to kill that particular manโ€”orders she could not resist. Soviet criminologists, I have been reliably informed, are worried by the increase of such cases in recent years. Madmen rushing through the streets because they think the Martians are after them have always been commonplace. But the current wave of mental imbalance that can be specifically tied to the rise and development of the contactee myth is an aspect of the UFO problem that must be considered with special care.โ€ So there seem to be both good and evil forces at work in this type of phenomenon. The good guys latch onto people with particularly receptive minds and turn them into trance mediums. The bad guys use the same methods to tamper with the minds of contactees and even to commit murders indirectly. Because incidents of these types can be traced throughout history, it seems probable that these forces have always been extant on this planet. When the good guys worked through mediums, they needed some excuse that we would accept. The answer seemed to be โ€œcommunication with the dead.โ€ These communicative efforts led to the foundation of spiritualism, and the entities played the role to the hilt, using their complete knowledge of us and our individual lives to provide us with โ€œproofโ€ of the existence of a spirit world. This is the same precise methodology being employed with the UFOs to build up support for the extraterrestrial thesis. We humans need acceptable explanations for unnatural phenomena, so โ€œtheyโ€ happilyโ€”and often humorouslyโ€”supply us with all the explanations we can handle. At the same time, they give us tiny fragments of the real truth, hoping no doubt that we will be able to digest them slowly. Ever so slowly. In earlier times it seems as if they made a complicated attempt to convey the truth to us through mediums and psychics, but we chose to misinterpret these efforts and placed them within the context of our primitive religious beliefs. We are still doing this, and they are going along with it because even misinterpreted communication is better than no communication at all. Religion may not be truth but may merely be a step on the long path of the real truth. Do the ultraterrestrials really care about us? There is much disturbing evidence that they donโ€™t. They care only to the extent that we can fulfill our enigmatic use to them. The Reverend Arthur Ford is one of Americaโ€™s best-known trance mediums. For most of his life he has served as an instrument for an entity who calls himself Fletcher. In 1928, Fletcher announced that Harry Houdini (who had died in 1926) was on hand and had a message which he wanted conveyed to his widow, Beatrice. The message was in a code once used by the Houdinis in a mind-reading act. This code was known only to the couple and had never been published or revealed to anyone. Fletcher, through Ford, was able to give precise details of this secret code, and Mrs. Houdini later confirmed that the message had to come from her husband. This was only one of Fordโ€™s many coups. In the fall of 1967, Ford went into a trance on Canadian television and produced a message for Bishop James Pike from his deceased son. Bishop Pike, who was present at this televised sรฉance, avowed that the message seemed authentic and seemed to come from the familiar personality of his son. This well-publicized sรฉance launched a major revival of spiritualism in the United States. Reverend Ford travels in high circles but has never made any material gain from his peculiar gift. He gives freely of his timeโ€”and Fletcherโ€™s advice from the other sideโ€”at sรฉances all over the country. Mrs. Ruth Montgomery, the well-known author and Washington reporter, tells of the time that Reverend Ford visited her in Washington and lapsed into a trance so she could ask Fletcher for some advice on his behalf. Reverend Ford was then in the process of moving and wanted to know what he should do with some of his things. Fletcher seemed totally disinterested in Fordโ€™s problems, Mrs. Montgomery reported, and when she asked if Ford should visit a clinic for a checkup, Fletcher snapped, โ€œHeโ€™d better do something. If he doesnโ€™t, I canโ€™t work through him much longer.โ€ Although Reverend Ford had voluntarily submitted his person to Fletcherโ€™s use for nearly half a century, the entity was apparently completely disinterested in his problems and welfare. This is, alas, rather typical. Even the most helpful entities seem more dedicated to the job of communicating than to any kind of involvement with those to whom (or through whom) they are communicating. The bizarre history of psychic phenomena is filled with Fletchers. Mrs. Montgomery, incidentally, indulges in automatic writing herself and has received constant messages for the past few years, many of which have been valid prophecies and stern advice meant to govern her future actions. There have been innumerable psychic hoaxes for the past 150 years, and many of these parallel the UFO hoaxes. In 1855, the Fox sisters confessed that their spirit rappings were a hoax. They said they produced the sounds by โ€œsnapping their toes.โ€ Think about that for a moment. Snapping your toes so that it sounded like a rap on a wall or table would be a most remarkable talentโ€”perhaps even more remarkable than the ability to communicate with the spirit world. I donโ€™t believe I would pay ten cents to hear someone talk to a rapping spiritโ€”but I would happily pay five dollars to examine someone who could duplicate the rapping sound by snapping his toes. Later the two sisters said the confession was false, and they had been bribed to make it. "Mrs. Houdini was genuinely astonished and impressed by Reverend Fordโ€™s messages from her husband, and she made numerous public statements to that effect, as well as signing various affidavits. But later, in the 1930s, she chose to deny it all for a time. Then, shortly before her death, she reversed her denials. In ufology we have to contend with teenagersโ€™ hot-air balloons, and in psychic phenomena we have to worry about youngsters firing rocks at houses with slingshots and phony mediums levitating โ€œspirit trumpetsโ€ with black thread. But there are many more UFO sightings than there are plastic balloons, and there are more poltergeists dumping rocks in living rooms than there are wild-eyed youngsters with slingshots. There are also more ultraterrestrial entities than either the occultists or the UFO enthusiasts dream of." ~~~Edit of the Bigelow Interview~~~ Bigelow: "I also, I was...I got very disturbed toward the end (of AAWSAP) about something that happened to some of the government people, and I realized uhh...holy crap." (Read, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon." I think it's one of the most important UFO books in recent memory.) George Knapp: "Hitchhikers." Bigelow: "Umm... Well, yeah. You know. So, hitchhikers being that you take things home with you. Everybody took things home with them. I took things to my house. Things happened to my wife, and to me. Different things. So, everybody took things home. We all, you know, we did. But we didn't know that, gee, it was like, gonna be kind of permanent. You know, we didn't know that, you know? That it's gonna stay with you for maybe...for years and years or the rest of your life, who knows? "But the ones that bothered me a lot where anybody got hurt or really disturbed... Not that it happened on the ranch, it was when they left the ranch. As you say, hitchhikers. And these were government people and it affected them." Knapp: "In very dramatic ways, though." Bigelow: "Very dramatic ways. Very dramatic ways. You know, and there's a cousin to that that we're facing, but it's abated, at least for now. And this other survival topic, right? The very dramatic kind of things that we wanted to have reduced or stopped." (The "cousin" to the hitchhiker phenomenon features the not-so-rosy things he referred to early on in this clip. But at least it had abated at the time of this interview. Has it started up again?) Bigelow: "But going back to the government people, the buyer (Brandon Fugal) came along at the right time, I had decided I wanted to tone down..." Knapp: "Take this off your plate." Bigelow: "Yeah, take it off my plate, tone it down, and if necessary, just lock it up and forget about it. And next thing I know, you know, [Fugal] comes along and, you know, the rest is history." Knapp: "Before we leave this, though, the incidents that happened to you, to your wife, to Colm (Kelleher), to me, the, you know, you bring it home. How does everybody handle that? I mean, is it spooky at the time, and do you draw the connection that it's ranch related?" Bigelow: "Yes and no. If the events hadn't happened very often prior to the ranch, then it's not ranch connected. But they did happen." (I think he meant to say, if the events hadn't happened prior to him buying the ranch in 1996 and did happen once he made the purchase, then it would seem to be connected just to the ranch. But he says these anomalous events did happen before he bought it. Maybe some events were connected to the ranch and others were not? Or, this precognitive sentient phenomenon, as John Alexander labelled it, was able to know that Bigelow was going to purchase the ranch in the future and began interacting with him and his wife before he bought it?) Bigelow: "And [these anomalous events] did [happen], where we lived with my wife and I. We had a poltergeist event one time that was really fun and very different, and that was before I ever acquired the ranch. My wife was a very strong - and probably still is, in spirit - person. And so she took them in stride. She had a full manifestation of an apparition, a human-form apparition in the bedroom, and looking at her. "And this was a holy cow. And she happened to tell me, kind of like, 'Oh, well, while you were gone, this is what happened here, a manifestation of this.' I've heard this kind of thing many times through other people, and recently. And she felt the bed depress as there was a curiosity going on because the facial features were distinctive enough to be able to...as though, 'Who are you and what are you doing here?' Coming from the manifestation from the apparition, looking at her, right? "And torso up was kind of what was manifested. And being able to see and feel the mattress being depressed as it's looking at you, wondering, 'Who are you?' That kind of look on the face. 'What are you doing here?' You know, usually you think it would be the opposite direction. 'Who the hell are you?'" (Fully-formed apparitions have been reported over the last 150 years or so but many times only partial bodies are seen. In this case, Mrs. Bigelow only saw the apparition from the torso up. When Leslie Kean sat with physical medium, Stewart Alexander, she said she only saw a hand form. The alleged spirits will say that, many times, it takes too much energy to form a full body. Learn more about the Kean encounter here: ) ~ Knapp: "Was [Mrs. Bigelow] freaked out?" Bigelow: "No. No, she wasn't. There was a bar of light - so this was not normal in the survival research, but maybe in the ET - that was between her pillows. A bar of light. It wasn't coming in from shutters or blinds or anything from the room or any kind of other light source. You could cover, put the pillows down, and the bar would not be reflected on the surface of the object above it, on the second pillow. It only happened when you did this. And she did that and said, 'Oh, well.' I said, 'Well, what did you do?' "'Well, I went to sleep.' Went to sleep, so..." ~~~ (In January of 2012, NYT journalist, Ralph Blumenthal wrote an article about Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS). He ended it with this: ) "One personal footnote. Donโ€™t ask me what happened on Jan. 4 at 5:45 a.m. as I lay sleepless, wrestling with this story. A tremendous bang jolted me and my wife and the dog upright. We found the glass door to our 12th-floor terrace completely spiderwebbed with cracks as if struck with tremendous force, but there was no sign of any projectile. Invisible moisture between the double panes? Or something else? There are things I donโ€™t mind talking about and things I do mind talking about." (Was this prosaic or just more of the not-so-rosy phenomena Bigelow referenced? We need to know!)

Joe Murgia

106,462 views โ€ข 1 year ago

Dear David Coltart, WHY I CANNOT SUPPORT QUINTUPLE C: COLTART, CHAMISA AND CCC My attention has been drawn to your fraudulent and disgusting tweet you posted on my Twitter TL yesterday David, in which you quoted a tweet I posted four years ago on 22 January 2019 in memory of my father. I reproduce below both tweets for ease of reference: โ€œI have always genuinely sympathized with you Jonathan - the loss of your father in such circumstances must be devastating. I just donโ€™t understand why you continue to side with the party which brought such suffering to your family, and which still brings so much suffering.โ€ โ€“ Tweet by David Coltart, 30 July 2023; commenting on my tweet below I posted four years ago: โ€œ1/5 On 22 January 1983 my father, Melusi Job Mlevu, was callously murdered in Tsholotsho by gukurahundi soldiers & the CIO. They tortured him upon his arrest & in front of his family; got him to dig a shallow grave, tortured him again; pumped bullets into his body & buried him!โ€ โ€“ Jonathan Moyo tweet posted on 22 January 2019. Now David, are you really serious that you โ€œhave always genuinely sympathised with meโ€, because of โ€œthe loss of [my] father in such circumstancesโ€? And since thereโ€™s no strategic ambiguity about the meaning of โ€œalwaysโ€, as it means exactly what it says, how have you โ€œalways genuinelyโ€ expressed your sympathy over all the years, since knowing about the circumstances under which I lost my father? The fact that your tweet yesterday is a response to a tweet I posted a long four years ago on 22 January 2019 โ€“ in memory of my father who was murdered by the Fifth Brigade in Tsholotsho on 22 January 1983 โ€“ shows and proves that youโ€™re a fraud and a charlatan with neither sensitivity towards me and my family nor respect for us as Africans and human beings. All told, and typically of Zimbabweans of British colonial extraction and in particular of soul-free Rhodies, youโ€™re contemptuous of our culture as a family and as Africans. You see David, it is fraudulent and utterly disgusting of you to claim that you have ever sympathised with me over my fatherโ€™s loss. Itโ€™s actually patronising and very insulting in the extreme. Your fraud is clear even to yourself, thatโ€™s why you did not express your so-called sympathy when I first posted my tweet on 22 January 2019 in memory of my father who was murdered on 22 January 1983. In fact, until your fraudulent tweet yesterday, you had never before expressed any genuine or even non genuine sympathy for me and my family regarding the loss of my father on 22 January 1983. Even fools will immediately see that the key sentence in your tweet yesterday is not about your cruel declaration of fraudulent sympathy for me and my family over the circumstances of my fatherโ€™s loss, a loss my family commemorated this year not yesterday but seven months ago on 22 January 2023, with no tweet of sympathy from you. The sentence in your tweet yesterday that captures what you really foolishly communicating to me is this: โ€œI just donโ€™t understand why you continue to side with the party which brought such suffering to your family, and which still brings so much suffering.โ€ David: what I say, believe and do is without exception based on and an existential product of what I know, what I think and what I have experienced or lived. I never say, believe or do anything that I donโ€™t know, donโ€™t, I have not thought of or which I donโ€™t believe. Now David, you pretend to be a democrat who believes in the rule of law as enshrined in the Constitution, so, what business of yours is my choice of what side to support or to not support in politics? Are my freedom of conscience and my right to make political choices freely now subject to your understanding, or are they my constitutional rights, as they are for every Zimbabwean, in terms of sections 60 and 67 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe? Are you aware David and do you understand that the Constitution in 67(1)(b) says every Zimbabwean citizen has the right โ€œto make political choices freelyโ€? And, David, are you aware that section 60 of the Constitution says every person, not just every Zimbabwean but every person, has the right to freedom of conscience which includes โ€œfreedom of thought, opinion, religion or beliefโ€, and โ€œfreedom to practice and propagate and give expression to their thought, opinion, religion or belief, whether in public or in private and whether alone or together with othersโ€. The fact that you quoted and abused my personal tweet I posted on 22 January 2019 in memory of my father who was brutally murdered by the Fifth Brigade on 22 January 1983 to say you โ€œdonโ€™t understand why you [me] continue to side with the party which brought such suffering to your [my] family, and which still brings so much sufferingโ€; shows that you are either ignorant of sections 60 and 67 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, and proves that you are a fraud and a charlatan with no constitutional values. Why do you want to police my freedom of conscience and my right to make my political choices freely? Just why do you and your lot in CCC, think that you can interfere with my freedom of conscience and my right to my political choices that are guaranteed to me by the Constitution of Zimbabwe? If you and your lot were genuine democratic change champions, as you claim and purport to be, you would be the first to understand and to propagate freedom of conscience and the right to make political choices freely as sacrosanct constitutional values and principles that must be respected for every Zimbabwean at all times. But this has not been possible because you are frauds and charlatans. Now, your attitude towards me, the one captured in the disgusting tweet you posted yesterday, leads me to conclude without any fear of being contradicted that you are a frivolous and stupid person, David. Otherwise, if you care to know, there are three months that are cruel to me. October in which I lost my daughter Zanele in 2015, November because of what happened to me, my family and some colleagues during the 2017 military coup โ€“ it was also on 11 November 1965 that Rhodesia under which you blossomed, unilaterally declared independence โ€“ and 22 January the dark day on which my father was murdered. These are traumatic days for me in the calendar year. You see, I was a student in California in the US when my father was murdered by the Fifth Brigade in cold blood on 22 January 1983, having gone to the US before independence in 1977. When this awful tragedy happened, I did not know who my father was. I was born when my mother was barely 16 years old, and I was raised by my maternal grandparents who, like my mother, did not want me to know who my father was for reasons best known to them. Although, as I grew up, I understood their position from our cultural perspective as Africans, it nevertheless profoundly pained me. Truth be told, I was most grateful and I still am to this day, that my grandfather was a great father and my grandmother a great mother to me in ways that made me who I am today. I got to know who my father was well after I had graduated with my doctorate in 1988 and long after his gruesome murder, about which I was first told only 10 years ago. Since then, while it's been a profound rebirth for me to connect with my father through the loving Mlevu clan at large, I owe my dear sister Simiso an existential debt of gratitude. Through her, my kids have a hand-holder gateway through which to know about their grandfather. I really thank God and the spirit of the Mlevu clan for Simiso. The fact that I was born on 12 January, and that my father was brutally murdered on 22 January, makes the month of January an unbearable time of anguish for me, more so given that my father and I never met in life. When four years ago on 22 January 2019 I posted the tweet that you abused yesterday with reckless abandon, as you exposed your disconnection from the African experience, I was existentially troubled by the worst that could have happened to me and to my family on 15 November 2017, which got me thinking about what happened to my father, and even more troubling against the backdrop of the events of November 2017, I was devastated by the fact that I never met my father, and I spent the better part of 22 January 2019 wondering what life could have been for me had I known him in life and grown up under his parental care and guidance. You see David, maybe this is not true of people of European ancestry like you but, for many Africans it is very common for kids to be raised by their grandparents, like I was. As things turned out, I grew up knowing many such kids as my peers, the majority of whom never got to know who fathered them, some of whom are leading very successful lives in society as you read this. Unlike them, I was fortunate to end up knowing who my father was, but I was unfortunate not to have met him, and even more unfortunate to have known of him long after his death, made worse by the tragic circumstances of that death. I do not have a fly by night connection with Zanu PF. When I finished my high school in California, I proceeded to university there for my undergraduate education on a scholarship I got through Zanu PF. While an undergraduate, I was the political commissar of the Zanu PF branch in Los Angeles. I did my masters and doctoral degrees with academic scholarships endorsed by Zanu PF and underwritten by the Government of Zimbabwe through a staff development programme at the University of Zimbabwe. Having gone through Mgagao run by Zanu PF, and having gotten university education to the highest level under the auspices of Zanu PF, I have a long history and experience with Zanu PF, and with Zanu PF people whose complexities define who I am as an adult Zimbabwean, for better or for worse. It's my history, I'm proud of it and I own it. Itโ€™s an inescapable truth that each individual, and each therefore each person has a unique existential history best known to himself or herself, family and to a small cohort that has been intimate parts of that personal history. It's hopelessly foolish for someone to hope to prescribe a history on anyone. Every human being is who they are. And it's a fact not exclusive to me that my association with Zanu PF has not always been rosy. Life is a personal struggle between the person or the individual and the social formations through which life goes on. Itโ€™s common cause, that the military coup was a traumatic experience for me and my family and that it was profoundly painful and life changing in untold ways. Itโ€™s also common cause and not surprising to any normal human being that I blamed Zanu PF for that traumatic experience. Anyone else in my situation would have done the same at point or another. Yet the bigger story is that I, my family and my colleagues survived that 2017 ordeal with the very direct, active and truly genuine assistance and support from Zanu PF people. Working with other African Angeles, and I emphasize African Angeles, it was Zanu PF people who made sure that we were able to be safe and to get out of the country to be where I am today, all of them at great risk to their lives or livelihoods. In 2017 I was saved to be alive today by Zanu PF people. During the life threatening 2017 ordeal that my family and I went through, there was not even one person associated with the opposition as it was then, or as it is today, who reached out to find out where I was or how I was doing. It is common cause, some of it is documented, that many in the opposition then and who are still in opposition today, actually wanted me dead, all because of my political differences with them. You David Coltart, who now wants to pretend that you โ€œhave always genuinely sympathised with meโ€, never inquired after me. Thatโ€™s why I think you are a monumental fraud and a charlatan. I repeat, I was helped out of the traumatic ordeal in 2017 by Zanu PF people, not by anyone from your lot David, not even one. Of course, at some point and largely because of the 2018 general election I found myself connected with some of your lot, especially Nelson Chamisa and others who were close to him or working with him i the election campaign, as the MDC-A presidential election candidate. I will not rehash that story here, as it has been told very well by many others. From my experience, and the lessons I have extrapolated from the late Vice President Joshua Nkomo, such as on the attached video clip, I have come to better appreciate that it is a mistake and wrong to a understand and define a political party with a deep-seated background and history like Zanu PF in terms of its leadership; rather, a grounded political party with a long history is necessarily defined by its founding values, constitution and membership, not least because the membership is permanent while the leadership comes and goes. By the same token, I have come to better appreciate that the mistakes or excesses of the leadership of grounded political parties with an entrenched history should not automatically or reflexively be ascribed or attributed to or blamed on the membership. On 15 November 2022, Patrick Zhuwao and I wrote an open letter to Zanu PF members to precisely make this point. I am attaching herewith a link to that letter, lest you missed it. Itโ€™s a self-explanatory letter which contextualises and explains everything that I did and said between 15 November 2017 and 14 November 2022. It also explains why do not support Nelson Chamisa and your CCC. I stand by the contents of that letter. In this connection, I draw your attention and that of your lot to an interview done by the late VP Joshua Nkomo in 1983 โ€“ which is attached herewith as already mentioned โ€“ in which Nkomo explains why the Fifth Brigade was not a Shona issue. Although Nkomo made it clear that gukurahundi was a political and not a tribal issue, I have come to understand and appreciate that it was a political issue not in the sense of Zanu PF as a political party in membership terms but, rather, in the sense of the political leadership and, more particularly, of individuals within that leadership. However, given your utter contempt for sections 60 and 67 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, I do not expect you to understand the dangers of painting a tribe or a political party with one brush, or to understand the misguided consequences of conflating the leadership of a political party with the partyโ€™s membership or even of treating the leadership of a political party as a monolithic formation that always acts in concert. Basically David, and just like Nelson Chamisaโ€™s trolls, it's clear you believe that you can abuse my personal and tragic circumstances to blackmail me for your doomed political purposes in two ways. First, you think you can abuse the circumstances of my fatherโ€™s brutal death to somehow generate cheap and outrageous propaganda for yourself, Nelson Chamisa and CCC that I support Zanu PF which killed my father, and you do this under your self-indulgent presumption that everyone who is in Zanu PF as a political party is murderous by definition. Second, and based on this falsification, youโ€™re abusing my tragic personal circumstances regarding my fatherโ€™s loss to blackmail me into supporting you in particular, given my attack on your imposition as CCC's Ward 4 councillor candidate in Bulawayo; Nelson Chamisa and CCC . Your outrageous position is that if I cannot support you, I must keep quiet about you, under the ridiculous presumption that youโ€™re all by definition virtuous, competent, capable, the only and best democratic alternative for everyone in Zimbabwe. On the back of sections 60 and 67 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe and drawing from my knowledge, thoughts, experiences and received wisdom from the late VP Joshua Nkomo, I have dealt with your self-indulgent presumption that Zanu PF is a monolithic formation with undifferentiated leadership and membership structures, in which you take everyone in it to be murderous by definition. In light of the fact that you invited this intervention by your disgusting and intrusive tweet you posted yesterday, and because we are age mates, I conclude my rejoinder to your offensive tweet by telling you what I think about you, about Nelson Chamisa and about CCC. David, as a former member of the Rhodesian security services which were murderous and which committed unspeakable atrocities across Zimbabwe and beyond its borders into Zambia and Mozambique, you have no moral authority to pontificate about human rights or anything of the sort. You David Coltart operated in Matabeleland where you did dastardly things, some of which you narrate in your autobiography and many of which you will take to your grave untold, because you never faced a commission of inquiry to be grilled under oath about your service in the Rhodesian security services. The fact that a person like you has remained active in Zimbabwean public affairs for 43 years since independence is a huge credit to our national politics because, with your background in the Rhodesian security services, you would not have survived this long in public life elsewhere. Itโ€™s mind boggling that Chamisa has imposed you to run for Ward 4 councillor in Bulawayo, after you were resoundingly defeated in your partyโ€™s Ward 4 community candidate selection caucus in which you were clobbered and you came a distant last among the contestants. Thanks to your being power hungry, you have made it possible for everyone to see that youโ€™re a fake democrat and a charlatan who believes in the imposition of candidates. Your criticism of what you say is Zanu PF's undemocratic practices is hollow and hypocritical. Furthermore, itโ€™s shocking is that Chamisa is bent on imposing you from Harare as Bulawayo mayor. You donโ€™t qualify for that position not least because you do not speak the language of the local community in Bulawayo despite having been born there 66 years ago. Unlike Members of Parliament or Senators, whose chambers conduct their business mainly in English, Councillors and Mayors work in the local languages of their local communities. For the above reasons, and as an expression of my freedom of conscience and my right to make my political choices freely, I do not and cannot support you at all David. As for Chamisa, having worked closely with him between 2018 and 2021, I came to the settled conclusion in November 2021 that he is a dictator with a very dangerous God complex, in that he sees himself as having been chosen by God to lead Zimbabwe, and more ominously, he claims to have direct communication with God who has the last word on what he should do or say in public. In politics, thatโ€™s an unworkable Jim Jones proposition. Because of his God complex, Chamisa is visible only when there are elections as he was in the 2018 harmonised general election, March 2022 by-elections and now for the 23 August harmonised general election. After he ditched his supporters in August 2018 when he called them "ma stupids" [stupid people], in January 2019 and in July 2020, his unavailability to provide leadership when his supporters needed it triggered a viral political joke that: โ€˜in Zimbabwe there are three things that are unavailable when you need them the most, the UN, a condom and Nelson Chamisaโ€™. But even more telling aboutChamisa is the shocking way in which he has used CCC since its formation in January 2022, and particularly in the partyโ€™s candidate selection for the forthcoming elections, to ruthlessly purge the opposition. It's been scary and it explains why the opposition in Zimbabwe today is the most clueless and the weakest since independence in 1980. How can a democratic change champion insist on running a political party with no constitution, no structures, no bank account and no accountability? I cannot support a leader like that. Thereโ€™s nothing more dangerous in politics than, a young 'popular' dictator with a God complex. My conscience and freedom to political choices freely do not allow me to support a leader like that. As for CCC, it has no ideology, no values, no constitution, no structures, no bank account, no policies and no other visible office bearers besides Chamisa, Gift Siziva, Fadzayi Mahere and Amos Chibaya; and it has not been launched to boot. Thereโ€™s just no way anywhere on earth that a political formation like that can be supported by rational people with rational expectations. Thatโ€™s why I cannot side with you David or with Chamisa or with CCC. Youโ€™re not โ€œthe alternativeโ€, youโ€™re just a worse and more dangerous alternative which can only be supported by polticidal people who do not mind moving from the frying pan into the fire! Jonathan Moyo 31 July 2023

Prof Jonathan Moyo

181,491 views โ€ข 3 years ago