NorthWestern Energy Poisoning Homes, Violating Montanan’s Rights

If someone were going to install a cell tower in your living room, wouldn’t you expect them to at least tell you first?

NorthWestern Energy contractors are making the rounds in a community near you, switching off your power to install harmful technologies onto your home that cannot be switched off. And they’re not even telling residents this change is occurring, instead choosing to gift us with surprise power outs, increasing energy rates, spontaneously burning buildings and EMF radiation. And if you happen to be among the growing population of electrohypersensitive individuals, there appears to be no way to opt out of NWE’s “bright future.”

These so-called “smart” meters emit harmful radiation that is known to cause a spectrum of health problems. Last year, more than 240 scientists signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, calling for stronger exposure limits due to known health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.

Good News! They’ll be back to install a smart module on your gas meter, so you can double up on radiation-induced headaches.

Article IX, Section 1 of Montana’s Constitution declares, “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”

Untested wireless technologies contested as extremely dangerous to human health by countless medical and scientific professionals the world over, installed onto our homes without our knowledge or consent, seems to be a direct violation of Montanan’s rights as specified by Article IX.

If we have a right to a clean and healthful environment then we shouldn’t be guinea-pigged into experiments involving a technology associated with irreversible negative health consequences. It should be studied by independent third parties and we should be able to make informed decisions about our exposure.

The future looks bright for NWE’s shareholders

Maybe NWE shouldn’t be installing this stuff on people’s homes without telling them, or without informing them of the well-documented adverse health effects associated.

These meters aren’t even in the best interests of NWE. Those employed as “meter checkers” will soon find themselves in the unemployment line. Worse still, NorthWestern’s executives could end up facing the same kinds of criminal charges and lawsuits that blackened PG&E’s skies after smart meters began causing houses to catch fire. When these “state of the art” devices are slapped onto buildings with old electrical systems, the fragile wires often catch fire, reducing family homes to smoldering rubble.

Jeromy Johnson was a technology enthusiast with a masters degree in engineering who worked in Silicon Valley for many years until he eventually developed electrohypersensitivity from his overexposure to EMF radiation fields. The exposure resulted in symptomatic headaches, ringing in the ears, disorientation, insomnia, fatigue and brain fog, in-turn changing his life forever.

In his TED Talk, Johnson eloquently illustrates how we can no longer trust the Industry’s claims regarding the “safety” of their toxic products.

Transcript of Jeromy’s talk:

I’d like to begin by asking a few questions.

Who knows if they have a wireless smart meter on their home? And who has their smartphone in their pocket right now? And who’s read the fine prints in your owner’s manual that says that the smartphone should never be within about an inch of the body?

I’m going to speak to why we can no longer assume that our wireless technology is safe. Technology has allowed us many benefits. It has connected us to people and to places and it has brought us convenience that few could have imagined just 10 years ago. It’s also brought us tremendous economic benefits. If we can look at how technology has increased in our lives in just the last eight years it started with the iPhone, and then tablet computing, ubiquitous Wi-Fi, the smart meter and the smart home and wearable tech, and now the Internet of Things.

If we could imagine how this would look, it would actually look like this — this is an artist’s rendition of what Wi-Fi in our public spaces looks like.

We could actually hear what microwave radiation sounds like with a device like this. So if anybody would like to hear what their smartphone or their smartwatch sounds like, come and see me at the end and I can show you.

But how does this affect our bodies?

That’s the question I want to ask because this exponential rise in microwave radiation can have effects. And that’s what scientists and medical doctors around the world are now saying, especially when it comes to children, because they’re going to be affected by this their entire lives. But today I also want to share a few solutions. I want to give everyone here things that you can do in your own lives in order to reduce this type of exposure.

So I actually got into this topic about five years ago. Before then I was a young technology enthusiast. I always used my smartphone and Wi-Fi. I’ve worked in Silicon Valley and have a master’s degree in engineering.

So if anyone had told me that wireless technology could have health effects I would have thought they’re crazy. So if you’re thinking that right now, I can relate. But this all changed for me over the period of about one week. I started to experience headaches, ringing in the ears, insomnia, and a fatigue and brain fog that I’d never experienced before.

And I shared this with a colleague at work. And she said the exact same thing happened to her husband when a wireless smart meter was installed in their home. So I went home that evening and I checked downstairs. And sure enough, we had a bank of wireless smart meters installed right below our bedroom in San Francisco.


So this started me on a journey to learn as much about this topic as I possibly could. I now have a website about this and I’m contacted by people all around the world every day who are experiencing the exact same things. It can be when they have a wireless smart meter installed, or a new Wi-Fi router, or even a cell tower placed across the street from their home. These are the common symptoms that people start to experience. This is actually from a published paper on the health effects of wireless smart meters.

Just here in the Bay Area, I’m in touch with dozens of people who’ve had their lives changed by this: medical doctors, high school principals, teachers and students, IT professionals, and even entrepreneurs. These are people who had a normal life and then over a short period of time went to where they could no longer work; where they could no longer go to an office. Some of them actually have had to move out of their homes because they can’t be in an environment which is normal now for most people. I’ve been in touch with people around the world who’ve become homeless because of this. There are many people that’s actually happened to.

And unfortunately, I know of people who’ve actually taken their lives because there’s essentially no place they can go. And this is something that society does not yet recognize.

My own life has been tremendously changed by this. After that first exposure to wireless smart meters, now I can no longer be in an environment with strong Wi-Fi for very long. So I can’t go to my work the way I used to be able to. Most environments are now essentially toxic to me. So even finding a safe place to live has become very difficult. Imagine not being able to live in an apartment building where everyone has Wi-Fi, or to be able to live next to a cell tower.

This is actually a proposed cell tower here in Berkeley. The residents have actually stopped it for now, but most churches and most schools now have cell towers on them. And so it exposes the people around them and of course the students who go to those schools.


This is a cell tower in San Francisco: that brown thimble on top of the telephone pole is a cell tower. And these are being placed every couple of blocks. So you could have an amazing home, and then one week a company can come and put a cell tower right outside your window.


So this is something that’s happening throughout the Bay Area and it’s going to be happening throughout the United States. So it makes it so that people like myself have a hard time finding a place to live, but it also is ratcheting up the exposure of the entire population.

So you might be asking, ‘perhaps some people are being injured by this, but if you’re not feeling it, it’s probably not that big of a deal’. And I think that’s a very common experience.

But it’s not as simple as saying that just a few unfortunate people are being affected by this. Because what the science shows is that we’re all affected on some level whether we can feel it or not. And the reason is because essentially, our bodies are electric. Every cell in our body communicates using tiny electric signals. It’s how our nervous system operates. So to think that we could put an exponential amount of microwave radiation into our environment and not feel effects is simply false.

To illustrate this I actually had many friends come to me when I started to experience this and they would say, “Jeromy, are you sure you aren’t making this up in your head?” And I thought this too myself. At the beginning.

But then, a year or two later, they would come to me and they’d say, “You won’t believe it, but now I’m feeling pain in my arm when I use my cell phone,” or “when I put it to the head,” or “when a new Wi-Fi router is installed.” So this is something where when people have more of an exposure, more people are being affected. And it’s not just headaches and insomnia. It’s much more serious things such as infertility, DNA damage, and eventually cancer. This is what the research is starting to show.


Isn’t this regulated? And this is one of the most interesting things I’ve found. The Federal Communications Commission is who is supposed to be regulating wireless technology, but if you look at the regulations they’re almost 20 years old. So that means our most advanced technology is using science that’s at least 20 years old.

But not only that, they’re based on a concept which is nearly 50 years old which says “if microwave radiation does not heat us, then it can’t possibly hurt us”. But there are now hundreds of studies that show that this is false.

So how is it that we have a regulatory body that’s not protecting the public? Like many public health issues in our country you end up having industry influencing the regulatory body. And that’s what’s happening here. So you have a revolving door between the wireless lobby and the FCC Commission. That’s what’s happening.

Plus, the science is heavily influenced by industry funding. This is a study by Dr. Henry Lai. He looked at 326 studies based on the biological effects of cell phone radiation. He found that about half of the studies showed effects and half didn’t. That’s pretty normal for this type of research. But what he found that was interesting was that if you looked at who funded the studies, 70% of the independent studies showed effects, and only 32% of the industry-funded studies showed effects.

So you see that there’s an influence in money on this topic, just like many other topics. Tobacco is another one where essentially the industry funded science that was going to show their products were safe. So, that’s the bad news.

Now I want to share some good news, and that is that there are solutions for this. We are going to have to have the industry start to create safer products, but there are ways that we can both protect ourselves and move industry forward. So one of the primary things we can do is to move towards fiber optics because this is a way that we can make our homes safer; our businesses and our schools. Fiber optics are safe, they’re secure, and they’re one of the fastest things we can use.

Another way we can go is to design products which are safer. So currently we have product designers and engineers working together, but we could bring in biophysicists and biologists to work together to create products that don’t just emit right underneath the FCC regulations, but emit the least amount of any type of electromagnetic fields as possible.

If smart meters had been designed to use either fiber optics or to emit just once or twice a day rather than the 10,000 times they do emit, then I wouldn’t be standing here today, and thousands upon thousands of people around the world would not have been injured by smart meters.

So what are some things that all of us can do? This is one of the most important things because everyone wants to know how to essentially protect themselves and their families. The first thing is to make sure we use our cell phones wisely. I mentioned that you don’t want to put the cell phone within about an inch of the body. The industry is telling us this now. So make sure you use speakerphone, get an air-tube headset; and when it’s on the body, make sure that you put it on airplane mode when it’s either in the pocket or sometimes in the bra. And when it comes to kids, we don’t want to have kids use cell phones. But if they must, then please teach them how use these wisely.

We can wire our homes. Most people don’t need Wi-Fi in their home. So move towards Ethernet; move towards fiber optics. And if you must have Wi-Fi, make sure you turn it off at night. You can get a simple timer so you don’t even have to think about it.

When it comes to kids, we want to reduce their exposures as much as possible. So if they use an iPad, put all of the data on the iPad and then turn the Wi-Fi off. In schools, I simply do not think we need to have Wi-Fi in schools because we’re filling those classroom with microwave radiation. We can have amazing technology, but it can be wired. And this is where I think we’re going to have to go.

When it comes to the smart meter and the smart home I recommend you to opt out. I’ve had wealthy early-adopting families contact me who went all-in on the smart home, and they ended up getting sick within a few months. So this is something that affects families. And I just recommend that you don’t go down this path because it’s a technology we do not need.

And one of the last solutions I want to get today is to create a safe place to sleep. Because this is one of the most important things. Because this is when your body rejuvenates. And it’s when you can make sure that everything’s off. So turn off all your wireless devices; unplug things. If you have a baby monitor I actually recommend that you turn that off, especially at night. I just do not recommend those for kids. And if you do these things, I know many people who’ve ended up sleeping better. They are much clearer during the day and their fatigue is much less. So this is something which I recommend everyone can do.

So in conclusion I want to say that this is a problem that we can solve. There’s tremendous people around the world working on this right now. And I believe we’re coming to a tipping point where enough people realize that this is an important topic and that there are solutions. So I recommend that you share this with the people who are closest to you. Because if enough people wake up to this issue then industry will start creating safe technology. And once they do that our entire society can move towards a healthier future.


Only The Illiterate Trust Big Pharma

Did you know that more than 20 countries, including most of Europe, suspended the rollout of the Oxford AstraZenica vaccine due to thousands of fatal blood clots? Are you aware that the US Government’s official reporting system admits to more than 4,057 deaths and 118,902 adverse reactions directly associated with the experimental “vaccines”? Did you know that Europe has thus far reported 10,570 deaths and 405,259 injuries sustained from the jab? Did you know that many vaccinated people continue to test positive for the virus? Did you know that the Oxford AstraZeneca jab was developed with help from English eugenicists at the Galton Institute (formerly the UK Eugenics Society) and EngenderHealth (formerly the Sterilization League For Human Betterment)? Are you aware that more than 100,000 Doctors & Medical Professionals openly oppose the covid-19 vaccine? Have you noticed how Pfizer’s claim that their vaccine is 95% effective conceals the fact that said efficacy pertains to 1.23% of applicable test subjects during phase 3 trials? And did you know that Pharma conducted exactly zero safety studies regarding any of these jabs, and enjoys complete and total legal immunity from all litigation related to adverse effects that result from the ensuing experiment?

We all know many people who’ve been injected. Unfortunately, in many cases they’ve done so without studying the science in depth, reading any of Pfizer’s internal documents, carefully weighing potential benefits against known risks, or comparing alternatives in deciding whether this treatment was even necessary or right for them.

Quite the contrary.
It seems that the injection followed the influence of peer pressure, propaganda, and fear.

Because none of my “vaccinated” colleagues ever familiarized themselves with any of the animal studies (J&J; Oxford /AstraZeneca; Moderna mouse; Moderna primate; Pfizer mouse; Pfizer primate) that consistently resulted in hepatitis-induced liver damage, pulmonary immunopathology (severe inflammation of the lungs), Antibody Dependent Enhancement, and death.

None of my “vaccinated” friends seemed to notice when the CDC acknowledged the deaths of 4,863 Americans as a direct result of these experimental jabs (as of 30 May). It follows that few, if any, of my “vaccinated” acquaintances seem to think that Big Pharma might be up to their same old tricks, or that Pharma’s uniquely corrupt history of lawsuits and scandals represents the most infamous example of corporations gone wild.

It is not an “opinion” that Pfizer was charged $2.3 billion in the (then) largest healthcare fraud settlement in history to resolve criminal liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products in 2009. Pfizer plead guilty for misbranding Bextra, an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled in 2005, with the intent to defraud or mislead. Pfizer agreed to pay an additional $1 billion to resolve allegations that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon; Zyvox, and Lyrica, and submitted false claims to government health care programs. Somehow they’re still allowed to continue doing business, unmolested by regulatory agencies. And somehow, a huge swath of the population seems blissfully unaware that Pfizer might even have a plan to profit handsomely from annual corona shots for years and decades to come.

As Stephen Goldfinger, chairman of the American Psychological Associations’s Committee on Commercial Support, once put it, “The pharmaceutical companies are an amoral bunch. They’re not a benevolent association. So they are highly unlikely to donate large amounts of money without strings attached. Once one is dancing with the devil, you don’t always get to call the steps of the dance.”

Martha Rosenberg’s recent Counterpunch piece titled, Pharma is willing to look “unscientific” to sell vaccines expands on this grim reality:

Pharma knows best” rings false with a quick look at withdrawn drugs like Vioxx, Bextra, Baycol, Trovan, Meridia, Darvon, Phen-Fen, Raxar and Seldane–all called safe when they were making millions…. Neither mainstream or progressive news sites want to acknowledge the existence of the federal National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) which, since 1988, has settled more than 16,000 claims and awarded $3.18 billion in injury settlements. … Mainstream scientists are the ones who are “unscientific.” The truth is not all vaccines are safe, life-saving or necessary and conflicts of interest do exist.

Even when corrupt officials have literally gone to jail, their “science” remains politely accepted by mainstream science. Scott Reuben published fraudulent research on Lyrica, Effexor, Celebrex and other drugs for Pharma. He went to prison for six months but the “science” behind the drugs he promoted stands. Richard Borison, former psychiatry chief at Augusta Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center and Medical College of Georgia, went to prison for 15 years for using clinical trials on veterans of the antipsychotic Seroquel to line his own pockets. The drug went on to earn billions and his for-profit “research” still stands.”

In September Forbes revealed that vaccine trials were rigged to succeed by deliberately testing for the wrong things:

One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus? These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19, and not infections themselves. Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these trials when they should be of critical importance. It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation.”

Former Editor-In-Chief of the New England Journal Of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, was one of Time’s 25 most influential Americans in 1997, and won the George Polk Award for magazine reporting in 2002. Her 2009 review, Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption,” included a sobering statement regarding so-called “clinical research”:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

Angell’s position at the NEJM provided a front-row seat to the growing corruption of the pharmaceutical industry and provided all the evidence she needed for her 2004 book, The Truth About The Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us And What To Do About It, which further corroborates the rigging of clinical tests to favor the industry:

“Researchers don’t control clinical trials anymore; sponsors do. … The doctors are not themselves trained researchers, so they simply do what they are told—or risk losing their lucrative deals with the contractors. The contract research organizations, in turn, answer only to big pharma. That means the drug companies have nearly total control over these trials. As a result, drug companies now design clinical trials to be carried out by researchers who are little more than hired hands—whether the trials are in academic centers or in physicians’ offices. … Not surprisingly, bias is now rampant in drug trials. A recent survey found that industry-sponsored research was nearly four times as likely to be favorable to the company’s product as NIH-sponsored research. That is in accord with a large body of evidence showing that researchers with industry connections are far more likely to favor company products. In the case of calcium channel blockers like Norvasc, for instance, one survey of seventy articles about their safety found that 96 percent of authors who were supportive of the drugs had financial ties to the companies that made them, whereas only 37 percent of authors who were critical had such ties.” (Angell, 107)


As reported by the Montana Free Press this March, “At least four people have died at a COVID-19 outbreak at a long-term care facility in Livingston that started after most residents had received at least the first dose of the vaccine.”

A similar scenario continues repeating countless times around the world in 2021.

Bill Maher and 8 New York Yankees tested positive for covid despite being “fully vaccinated”. More than 12,400 Israeli residents tested positive after vaccination. In Ireland nine nursing home residents died of COVID despite being mRNA “vaccinated”. Dozens of Floridians contracted the illness after being fully vaccinated from it. Another four people in Oregon tested positive after receiving both doses. More than 140 people in Houston tested positive following the jab. In March a new outbreak occurred at the Cottonwoods Care Centre of British Columbia after it was confirmed that 82 percent of their residents had been vaccinated as of February. By mid April the CDC finally had to admit to 5,800 vaccinated people becoming infected, 74 of whom have died so far. A nursing home in Auburn, New York reported zero Coronavirus deaths until vaccinations killed 24 residents in under two weeks. Finally, 2 nuns died at a monastery this February following their experimental mRNA shots, with 28 of the total 35 nuns testing “positive.”

America’s Frontline Doctors published a video by Dr. Jessica Rose, PhD, MSc, BSc, who analyzed the VAERS database, concluding that, “vaccines are likely the cause of reported deaths, spontaneous abortions, and anaphylactic reactions in addition to cardiovascular, neurological and immunological adverse effects.” According to Dr. Rose, 6% of all the breakthrough cases have resulted in death, “breakthrough” meaning people who get infected after being fully “vaccinated” against Sars-Cov-2 infection. This seems ironic given that people are taking these jabs in the pursuit of preventing death. According to Newsweek, the CDC now admits to over 10,000 breakthrough infections as of 30 April 2021.

Fully vaccinated” people testing positive begs the question, How do benefits of this experimental protocol outweigh the risks?

From Wired:

The problem is, a Covid-19 vaccine that only prevents illness—which is to say, symptoms—might not prevent infection with the virus or transmission of it to other people. Worst case, a vaccinated person could still be an asymptomatic carrier.”

It should also point, at least partially, to the high rate of failure associated with covid testing apparatuses, which emerged as a stubborn problem from the first day of the 2020 global panic.

Firstly, to say that someone or something “tested positive for covid” is not only medically dishonest, but also grammatically meaningless, due to the dysmal track record of a faulty testing apparatus that was never designed as a diagnostic tool (as espoused by it’s inventor, Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for creating Polymerase Chain Reaction technology and died suddenly right before the pandemic broke out). PCR tests are scientifically meaningless because the technology is designed to replicate DNA sequences, not test for coronavirus infections. PCR tests cannot distinguish between “live” viruses and inactive viral particles, and therefore cannot be used as a diagnostic tool. Thus “covid” becomes the umbrella label for PCR “positive” regardless of clinical presentation. It’s all theater based on computer models and appeal to authority.

NPR outlined the PCR’s false positives in June of 2020, admitting the FDA’s own fact sheet on testing acknowledges false positives (as does the CDC fact sheet). This is why Coca Cola Tested Positive In Austrian Parliament, why Erykah Badu’s covid tests came up positive in the left nostril, negative in the right (as did Elon Musk’s), and why courts in Austria, Portugal, Germany and the Netherlands have ruled that PCR tests are not suitable for COVID-19 diagnosis. Tanzanian President John Magufuli proved that a pawpaw fruit can come back positive on a PCR test. Even the WHO finally admitted that PCR tests are virtually meaningless.

Next, the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA jabs are not, by legal definition, “vaccines” at all. Johnny Vedmore at Unlimited Hangout details exactly why it’s so problematic to refer to these experimental jabs as “vaccines”:

Many of the pharmaceutical companies researching potential coronavirus vaccines are using old methods. They take a proverbial pinch of the virus and infect your immune system at a very low and slow rate, allowing your body the time it needs to build up a natural immunological resistance to the illness. But developing those types of vaccines is a slow and arduous process, and the pharmaceutical companies using a radical new method that has never been tried before.

A vaccine provides immunity to a disease. This does not provide immunity to anything, nor does it protect others from transmission. In an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Doctors Rubin and Longo both conclude:

No existing vaccines have been shown to be effective against infection with any betacoronavirus, the family that includes SARS-CoV-2, which causes Covid-19.”

Other high priests of “science” have also confessed that it doesn’t prevent you spreading the virus. As further evidenced by the 246 fully vaccinated Michiganders who contracted COVID, the effect of any of the covid vaccines on disease transmission seems a known unknown. We’re now learning that those who took the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are 8 times more likely to contract the new South African variant of COVID-19 than the unvaccinated, according to Mathew Maavac at Activist Post:

Dr. Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at Yale University, has estimated that over 60 percent of all new COVID-19 cases seem to occur among the “vaccinated.”

This March Reuters likewise acknowledged that rushed vaccines pose a serious risk of “immune enhancement,” whereby people who get the vaccine can actually get a worse reaction to the virus.

None of this comes as much of a surprise to those paying close attention, as the industry never claimed their jabs would protect anyone from the virus. In fact, Moderna describes the technology as the “software of life,” not a vaccine. Likewise, Pfizer’s medical literature refers to it as patented “Genetic Chemotherapy” for cancer treatment that does not result in immunity from coronaviruses.


Canadian entrepreneur and activist Sadaf Gilani published a risk-benefit analysis of synthetic mRNA covid vaccines that clearly explains the mechanisms of mRNA technology to the layperson:

Both thePfizer/BioNtech as well as the Moderna injection employ the same technology: synthetic gene therapy (SGT), which is being dispensed to the populace for the first time in human history. Medications are given to sick people to treat disease. Vaccines are given to healthy people to prevent an infection. Therefore consideration of risk-benefit analysis is paramount. … The Covid synthetic gene therapy injections employ synthetic, thermostable nucleotide sequences which are wrapped in a PEG (polyethylene glycol)-lipid nanoparticles to protect from destruction in the bloodstream and facilitate entry into the cells. The claim is that the cellular machinery will engage with these synthetic sequences and produce segments which code for the SarsCov2 S1 spike protein. It is believed that the immune system will mount a sufficient antibody response.”

The piece quotes a staff writer for Forbes who warned in a video last March that, “They are going to hack the cells in your body in order to make them into drug factories.” Indeed, Pfizer’s own studies confirm the creation of said “drug factories” may threaten to expose unvaccinated people through a phenomenon now colloquially referred to as “shedding”. And as the Montana Daily Gazette reported this April, there is already precedent of this occurring with unvaccinated women reporting miscarriages and painful, irregular menstrual cycles following interactions with vaccinated people.

He continues:

The fact that mRNA technologies alter the function of your DNA in your body has made many people suspicious of what unexpected horrors could arise through mass use of this experimental protocol. … Because this vaccine protects individuals in their response, there is no good reason why everybody in our society should be forced to take it. It is used to increase specific protein production in someone who’s at severe risk—that’s how a medicine works normally. You don’t take HIV medication if you don’t have HIV. You shouldn’t be taking cancer drugs unless you have cancer. And you shouldn’t need to change your DNA’s production of specific proteins unless it’s personally necessary to do so.”

This all corroborates what Dr. David Martin has emphasized for over a year: that this technology does not meet the definition of a traditional vaccine, that the trials do not test for reduction in transmission, and that these therapies do not prevent infection, merely reduction of one or more symptoms.


The Pfizer vaccine trial included nearly 44,000 people, half of whom received placebo and half of whom were jabbed; of the 170 who became ‘infected with Covid,’ 162 of them were in the placebo group; only 8 were vaccinated. The vaccine is therefore credited with preventing 154 cases of Covid19…or 95%. You don’t need to be an epidemiologist to understand the fatal flaw in this reasoning. The entire trial of 44,000 people is deemed a success based on the potentially multi-variant outcome from less than 4% of those involved.

Moderna makes a similar claim about their experimental mRNA jab, touting 94% efficacy. But when it comes to drug advertising, the word “effective” does not mean what you think it means: Based on the phase 3 trial data, the Pfizer vaccine is 95% effective, but only 1% of the time. In the same way, the Moderna vaccine is 94% effective, but only 2% of the time.

Thomas Neuburger further explains this statistical fallacy with regards to Moderna’s trials:

In the Moderna vaccinated group, 11 people out of 15,000 got the virus for an overall infection rate of 0.07%. In the Moderna placebo group, 185 people of 15,000 got the virus, for an overall infection rate of 1.23%. And if you divide 0.07% by 1.23%, you get a 5.7% infection rate — or inversely, a 94% protection rate, which is what they’re claiming. But that’s a percentage of a percentage, a ratio of a ratio, something called the “relative rate” in the medical profession. What this really means is that, of the 1.23% of people who would have gotten the virus in the vaccinated group, 94% of them didn’t. But Moderna isn’t testing 30,000 people who are infected with the virus, or even 15,000 people. Only 185 people “got the virus” in the placebo group. That population was reduced to 11 people with vaccination. So the Moderna vaccine is 94% effective — but only 1.23% of the time.”

Dr. Angell revealed how routine this kind of statistical dishonesty is within the industry:

First, faux research yields a faux answer to a clinical question. Then faux education assures that doctors everywhere hear about it, so they can write millions of prescriptions based on the faux information. Bribes and kickbacks sometimes grease the skids. … I find it hard to imagine that a system this corrupt can be a good thing, or that it is worth the vast amounts of money spent on it. But in addition, we have to ask whether it really is a net benefit to the public to be taking so many drugs. Doctors have been taught only too well by the pharmaceutical industry, and what they have been taught is to reach for a prescription pad. Add to that the fact that most doctors are under great time pressure because of the demands of managed care, and they reach for that pad very quickly. Patients have also been well taught by the pharmaceutical industry’s advertising. They have been taught that if they don’t leave the doctor’s office with a prescription, the doctor is not doing a good job. The result is that too many people end up taking drugs when there may be better ways to deal with their problems.” (Angell, 169)


Dr. Angell describes Big Pharma as an industry perpetually inundated by a “tidal wave of government investigations and civil and criminal lawsuits”:

“The litany of charges includes illegally overcharging Medicaid and Medicare, paying kickbacks to doctors, engaging in anticompetitive practices, colluding with generic companies to keep generic drugs off the market, illegally promoting drugs for unapproved uses, engaging in misleading direct-to-consumer advertising, and, of course, covering up evidence. Some of the settlements have been huge. TAP Pharmaceuticals, for instance, paid $875 million to settle civil and criminal charges of Medicaid and Medicare fraud in the marketing of its prostate cancer drug, Lupron.” (Angell, 18)

Through Medicare and Medicaid, the federal government now offers Texas doctors double the normal reimbursement per vaccine for every experimental shot they administer. The shots are “free” to the patients. But these kinds of cash incentives are nothing new for the pharmaceutical industry. In July of 2020 the U.S. Justice Department announced a $678 million settlement with Novartis over improper inducements made to doctors. Novartis sales representative Oswald Bilotta became a whilstleblower in the case after wearing a wire to record evidence of doctors taking cash bribes from the Swiss pharmaceutical giant in exchange for prescribing their drugs. Bernstein market analyst Ronny Gal predicted covid “vaccine” sales would reach $40 billion this year.

Dr. Angell reminds us that Pharma has been bribing doctors for decades:

Gifts to doctors are often lavish. Doctors can pretty much count on being taken to dinner in fine restaurants whenever they want; there company-selected experts sometimes give talks. But there are also other expensive gifts. An editorial in USA Today painted a vivid but all too accurate picture: “Christmas trees. Free tickets to a Washington Redskins game, with a champagne reception thrown in. A family vacation in Hawaii. And wads of cash. Such gifts would trigger a big red ‘bribery’ alert in the mind of just about any public official or government contractor. But not, it seems, in the minds of many doctors. They have been raking in jaw-dropping gifts from pharmaceutical firms battling to give their products an edge in an increasingly competitive market.” (128)


According to the U.S. government, these experimental jabs thus far have killed more people than died in 9/11, and the anecdotal evidence continues to pile up into a statistically significant heap. As early as December 2020 the CDC was forced to respond to more than 3,000 negatively affected vaccine subjects. Then California halted Moderna vaccinations in January due to an “unusually high number” of adverse reactions.

Italian authorities launched a manslaughter investigation against AstraZeneca for their covid vaccine following the death of Sandro Tognatti, a 57-year-old music teacher from Biella, Italy. Tognatti died just hours after receiving the AstraZeneca jab on 14 March 2021. In an equally horrific example, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that 18-year-old Emma Burkey underwent three brain surgeries related to dangerous blood clots after receiving the Johnson & Johnson injection.

Norwegian medical professor Pål Andre Holme warned at a press conference in March that the AstraZeneca jab caused fatal blood clots after investigating the adverse reactions experienced by three fellow healthcare workers. That same month vaccine-related blood clots killed 9 in Germany, prompting the country to halt the rollout of the AstraZeneca experiment.

By April, Europe’s top pharmaceutical regulator finally acknowledged the link between rare blood clots and the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab, but only after Australia’s deputy chief medical officer, Michael Kidd, acknowledged that there was, in fact, a connection. The United Kingdom joins other researchers throughout Europe who insist there is evidence that these shots cause fatal blood clots after acknowledging more than 2 dozen new cases of the rare clots with 9 proving fatal.

Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommended a halt of the AstraZeneca shots following concerns about blood clots and vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia (VIPIT), citing 2,530 individual reports of adverse events following “vaccination,” including 24 deaths. By early April Georgia authorities suspended the J&J rollout after 8 people experienced adverse reactions. Soon thereafter, the FDA recommended J&J pause their experimental covid shot, “out of an abundance of caution.” In May, French doctor Gérard Delépine declared the evidence is overwhelming that deaths and infections have “exploded” since the rollout of experimental covid injections.

Even the NIH expressed that they were ‘very concerned’ about side effects in the vaccine trials. And it turns out that fatal blood clots are a problem across the board for all of these injections, including the mRNA shots pushed in the states. But it seems that no matter how much evidence mounts, the scientific truism that “correlation is not necessarily causation” will be inappropriately repeated by true believers and propagandists until the cows come home.

Nevertheless, tragic evidence continues to mount at a frightening rate:

  • Rap star DMX (Earl Simmons) died on 09 April 2021 of a fatal heart attack following his dose of the experimental jab, according to a family member, that has since been reported as an alleged “drug overdose”.
  • Rock and Roll legend Eric Clapton wrote in regret after his vaccination: “I suffer with peripheral neuropathy and should never have gone near the needle. But the propaganda said the vaccine was safe for everyone.”
  • Boxing Champion “Marvelous” Marvin Hagler died on 13 March 2021 following a nasty battle with “side effects” following his dose of the experimental covid “Vaccine”.
  • Bill Shakespeare, the first man in the UK to receive the experiment, died of ‘unrelated illness’ 5 months after receiving the Pfizer jab.
  • Israeli fashion icon Alber Elbazdied on 24 April 2021 at the age of 59 after getting “fully vaccinated” for covid.
  • Baseball legend Hank Aaron received an experimental Moderna mRNA injection 2 weeks before his death at the age of 86.
  • MSNBC’s Legal Analyst, 47-year-old Midwin Charles, was announced dead on 06 April 2021, thirty-seven days after receiving an experimental mRNA shot for covid.
  • Dr. Thomas Flanigan was a 48-Year-Old plastic surgeon from Toledo, Ohio who died on 27 April 2021, 11 weeks after his second Moderna shot on 03 February 2021.
  • Dan Kaminsky was a 42-year-old cybersecurity expert who died on 23 April 2021 less than two weeks after being injected with a COVID shot on 12 April 2021.
  • Baldwin Hills’ Star Ashley Taylor Gerren died on 18 April 2021 at the age of 30 after receiving the experimental jab.
  • 16-Year-Old Kamrynn Soleil Thomas of Waunakee, Wisconsin died on 30 March 2021 of “persistent cardiac arrest requiring ECMO,” “believed secondary to pulmonary embolism,” following 2 doses of the Pfizer jab.
  • Brad Malagarie was a 43-Year-Old father of 7 in St. Martin Mississippi who suffered a stroke and became paralyzed immediately after getting a Johnson and Johnson COVID shot on 13 April 2021.
  • Benjamin Goodman of Chelsea, New York, died on 14 March 2021 the day after received the experimental Johnson & Johnson viral vector shot on March 13.
  • Desirée Penrod was a 25-year-old educator from Connecticut who died on 17 March 2021 one week after her Johnson & Johnson viral vector shot.
  • Joshimar Henry was a 27-year-old resident doctor who died on 03 April 2021 three months after being among the first Chicago residents to get the initial dose of Pfizer’s experimental mRNA shot on December 15, 2020.
  • Sonia Azevedo, a 41-year-old Portuguese mother of two and surgical assistant at the Instituto Portugues de Oncologia, was found dead on new year’s day just two days after receiving the Pfizer jab.
  • John Francis Foley was a 21-year-old National Honor Society pre-med student at the University of Cincinnati who died on 10 April 2021 hours after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID jab.
  • Rachel McKinney, a 35-Year-Old UK nurse and mother of 2, died on 03 April 2021 following her dose of the experimental Pfizer jab.
  • Luke Garrett was a 20-Year-Old Scottish Man who suffered a fatal seizure and died on 09 February 2021 just 12 hours after being injected with the experimental Pfizer mRNA jab.
  • Dr. Haley Link Brinkmeyer was a 28-Year-Old PhD Physical Therapist who died on 21 January 2021 only 2 days after being injected with the experimental mRNA technology.
  • Dr. Kimberly Credit was the first female pastor at the Mount Zion Baptist Church in Boonton Township, New Jersey, died on 05 April 2021 at the age of 44 after taking the Moderna COVID shot.
  • Sara Stickles was another 28-year-old healthcare worker from Beloit, Wisconsin who died on 11 February 2021 from a ruptured brain aneurysm following her second dose of the Pfizer mRNA shot.
  • Kassidi Kurill was a 39-year-old surgical technician from Ogden, Utah who died 4 days after the second Moderna mRNA shot on 05 February 2021.
  • Virginia Ellington was a North Carolina college professor at Appalachian State University who died of a stroke on 10 March 2021 just 48 hours after receiving the experimental Johnson & Johnson injection.
  • Detroit’s CBS news anchor Karen Hudson-Samuels died suddenly on 09 February 2021 only one day after being injected with the experimental mRNA shot.
  • Dr. Witold Rogiewicz mocked anti-vaxxers in a video he taped of himself submitting to the experimental jab before dying days later on 14 February 2021.
  • Kansas City Council Woman Jeanie Marie Evans died on 24 March 2021 just hours after receiving the experimental COVID injection.
  • Augusta Turiaco was another Italian music teacher who died on 31 March 2021 following the administration of the AstraZeneca experiment on 11 March.
  • Ilaria Pappa was a 31-Year-Old Italian professor who died on 16 March 2021, two weeks after receiving the experimental AstraZeneca injection.
  • 37-year-old Zelia Guzzo was another Italian professor who died on 23 March 2021 of a thromboembolism (blood clots) three weeks after receiving the AstraZeneca injection.
  • Science professor Cinzia Pennino, also of Italy, died on 25 March 2021 following administration of AstraZeneca jab on 17 March.
  • Shirel Hilel was a 22-year-old Israeli girl who died from myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) two weeks after receiving her second dose of the experimental mRNA Pfizer injection.
  • Brandy Parker-McFadden of Nashville, mother of three, received her second Pfizer COVID shot on 16 April 2021 and hours later succumbed to catastrophic pain and soon became paralyzed, still unable to walk.
  • Dr. Gregory Michael, 56, developed a rare autoimmune disorder three days after receiving the Pfizer jab on 21 December 2020 and subsequently died on 03 January 2021.
  • Tim Zook’s health went into a sharp decline 2.5 hours after receiving his second shot and he was eventually transferred to the University of California, Irvine Medical Center where he died on 09 January.
  • Lisa Basiuk-Stonehouse, 50, passed away May 3, 2021 from a stroke caused by blood clots after receiving her AstraZeneca vaccine in Canada.
  • John Medved, a 58-year-old from Hibbing, Minnesota, received the experimental Johnson & Johnson viral vector shot on 1 April 2021 and died 21 days later from a pulmonary embolism (blood clots in his lungs).
  • Griselda Flores, 61, from Santa Ana, California was found dead by her family just two days after her second shot on 14 April 2021.
  • Megi Bakradze was a 27-Year-Old Nurse from Georgia who died the day after receiving an experimental shot of AstraZeneca on 19 March 2021.
  • An unidentified elderly man collapsed and died in Manhattan on 07 February 2021 only 25 minutes after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination at the Javits Center, according to a statement from New York state health commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker, who cynically added, “I encourage all eligible New Yorkers to get vaccinated.”
  • James Develon is a Certified Nursing Assistant who reports that very few residents in the nursing home where he works got sick with COVID and none of them died during the entire year of 2020 until shortly after administering experimental mRNA Pfizer jabs whereupon 14 residents died within two weeks with many others near death.
  • Raam Laxman was a 78-year old Bollywood music composer from India who died 6 days after his second AstraZeneca “Covishield” shot.
  • Jeanie Evans of Effingham, Illinois began to experience anaphylaxis following her dose of the experimental shot, and was taken to a hospital in Kansas where she later died on 24 March 2021.
  • Dana Ottmann, a 32-year-old German psychologist, developed blood clots and died 12 days after receiving the AstraZeneca shot.
  • Ronald Babb, Sr. was a 57-Year-Old from Syracuse who openly mocked so-called “anti-vaxxers,” after receiving the J&J jab on 12 April 2021 and subsequently died seven days later.
  • Clive Haddon of Australia died of fatal blood clots after receiving his AstraZeneca jab on the first of May.
  • Anthony Nguyen Kha Huy was a 45-year-old father of two from California who submitted to experimental injection on 20 April 2021 and died 10 days later of fatal blood clots.
  • NaTalia Johnson, a 37-year-old professional ballerina, died two weeks after injection.
  • Haziq Kamaruddin was a 27-year-old Olympic archer from Malaysia who died 10 days after his second Pfizer shot after developing fatal blood clots.
  • 26-year old Chance “Florexic” Sula died 2 weeks after his first Moderna dose from blood clots that led to a seizure and then a heart attack.

While the individual accounts of young, healthy adults dying post jab seems particularly concerning, the nursing home death statistics following vaccination may be even more grim. 22 nursing home residents in the Netherlands died 1 week after getting injected with the experimental mRNA COVID jab; 12 Welsh nursing home residents died in February after receiving their first COVID vaccine; 9 Irish nursing home residents died in March of “covid” after being mRNA “Vaccinated”; and 8 German nursing home residents died after being forcibly injected with the Pfizer experimental mRNA shot against their will.

This all begs another question…


While Biden and CNN urge us to participate in the experiment as a matter of moral and civic duty, the growing list of adverse effects rippling through the participants goes completely ignored.

The Israeli People’s Committee report on deaths and injuries from experimental Pfizer shots concludes that never before has a “vaccine” injured so many, citing a 22% increase in overall mortality since the roll out began, with a high correlation between the number of people vaccinated per day and the number of deaths per day. Likewise the Brazilian states of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo have both suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s Vaxzevria jab in pregnant women following the death of a woman who received the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab. Then in May Sweden’s Medical Products Agency admitted to 31,844 reports of adverse reactions linked to its vaccine rollout.

A mainstream correspondent interviewing Bill Gates for CBS seemed flabbergasted when Gates shrugged off credible reports of side effects as no big deal. When the anchor pressed him again on the safety of the vaccine, his answer appeared to be simply, trust us.

Gates was asked, “Side effects from the Moderna vaccine sound concerning… We looked. After the second dose at least 80% of participants experienced a systemic side effect, ranging from severe chills to fevers. So are these vaccines safe?

Gates responded: “The FDA, not being pressured, will look hard at that. The FDA is the gold standard of regulators, and their current guidance on this — if they stick with that — is very very appropriate.”

But as Bloomberg reported in September 2020, it didn’t take long for Gates to turn on the FDA (and even the CDC) for political reasons. Beyond that, the FDA’s standards aren’t nearly as sterling as Gates might have us believe. As Dr. Angell explains:

The FDA may approve the drug on the basis of minimal evidence. For example, the agency usually requires simply that the drug work better than a placebo in two clinical trials, even if it doesn’t in other trials. But companies publish only the positive results, not the negative ones. Often, in fact, they publish positive results more than once, in slightly different forms in different journals. The FDA has no control over this selective publishing. The practice leads doctors to believe that drugs are much better than they are, and the public comes to share this belief, on the basis of media reports. There is a general inflation in the notion of the good that drugs can do (and a deflation in concern about side effects).” (Angell, 111)

Although quick to approve drugs, the FDA is slow to take them off the market when they prove dangerous. For instance, in 1997 Warner-Lambert’s diabetes drug Rezulin was taken off the market in Britain because it caused liver failure, but it was not removed from the market in the United States until two and a half years later, by which time it had caused at least sixty-three deaths. (Angell, 209)

Congress also put the FDA on the pharmaceutical industry’s payroll. In 1992, it enacted the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which authorized drug companies to pay user fees to the FDA. These were to be employed only to expedite approval of drugs. Fees originally amounted to about $310,000 per new drug application and soon accounted for about half the budget of the agency’s drug evaluation center. That makes the FDA dependent on an industry it regulates. For the drug companies, the user fees are chump change—more than offset by the added income from getting to market sooner. … Members of FDA advisory committees are said to command unusually high consulting fees from drug companies. They are certainly in a strong position to do so. They probably don’t even have to say, “Pay me if you want your drugs approved.” According to the Washington Times reporter August Gribbin, “One drug company executive who asked not to be identified referred to the advisory committee members’ approaches for obtaining [consulting] work as ‘shakedowns’ because a company that refused to yield to such requests could doom products that cost tens of millions of dollars to develop.” (Angell, 211)

2020 provided a great example of this when the FDA ordered the heartburn drug Zantac off the shelves due to cancer risk after it was “discovered” that the active ingredient in Snofi’s Zantac and its equivalents, Ranitidine, was found to be contaminated with NDMA (N-Nitrosodimethylamine), a probable carcinogen.

But one of the most shocking instances of industry malfeasance occurred over three decades ago when thousands of haemophilia patients contracted HIV and hepatitis from Bayer’s contaminated blood products. The National Center for Biotechnology Information reported the legal action taken against Bayer, and found that by 1992 the contaminated products had infected at least 5,000 haemophiliac people in Europe with HIV with more than 2,000 developing AIDS, and an additional 4,000 Japanese cases of haemophiliacs contracting AIDS.

Interestingly, a group of researchers at The Lancet medical journal warned last year that some of the covid vaccines could increase the risk of acquiring HIV, according to Forbes. And sure enough several Australian vaccine trial participants tested positive for HIV in December 2020, prompting the Australian government to in-turn scrap a billion dollar coronavirus vaccine agreement worth 51 million doses. The announcement came just days after FDA documents revealed that 6 participants died during Pfizer’s COVID vaccine trials. Participants were dying in trials from the very beginning, but the media rarely reported on stories like the volunteer who died on 15 October 2020 in AstraZeneca’s initial trials. This May the CDC reported 2 more infant deaths following clinical trials; a two-year-old dying in a Pfizer trial, and a one-year-old dying in a Moderna trial.

Bill Gates (who is now America’s top farmland owner and recently attempted to literally block out the sun) candidly admitted that vaccines constitute his ‘best investment’ after he turned $10 billion of “philanthropy” into $200 billion in profits. But there are more than just dollar signs motivating Bill Gates’s decree that three jabs would be necessary, or J&J CEO Alex Gorsky’s allegation that people may need an additional booster every twelve months in perpetuity after that.


When the Pfizer jab was first approved for emergency use in the United Kingdom, the English government warned that pregnant women should not take Pfizer’s vaccine, adding that,women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.” In its own clinical trial reports, Pfizer admits that women who are pregnant or wish to become pregnant should not take the shots (page 38).

Perhaps this is why unvaccinated women have began reporting miscarriages as well as heavier, more painful and increasingly irregular menstrual cycles after interacting with vaccinated people. There are even reports of post-menopausal women all of a sudden menstruating again.

Though the media have done a good job ignoring it, a startling number of women have lost a baby as a result of a covid jab. Dr. Sara Beltrán Ponce suffered a painful miscarriage just days after receiving her mRNA jab, and Mary Pat Voll, a pediatric nurse from Altamonte Springs, Florida, bragged about getting jabbed just eight days before her baby was pronounced stillborn. No wonder Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and Dr. Michael Yeadon filed a petition with the European Medicines Agency (EMA), warning that “vaccines could cause permanent infertility”. EMA animal trial analysis reveals that Pfizer’s fact sheets state pregnant or breastfeeding women should “discuss options with healthcare providers” before taking the covid jab, citing miscarriage as the most common adverse event reported by pregnant women who received the 2009 H1N1 vaccine.

Given that these vaccine companies are tied up with known eugenicists, maybe miscarriages and infertility aren’t such strange anomalies after all. As Whitney Webb explains in her expose, Developers of Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine Tied to UK Eugenics Movement, sterilization seems to be more of a deliberate feature than an accidental bug:

Yet, arguably most troubling of all is the direct link of the vaccine’s lead developers to the Wellcome Trust and, in the case of Adrian Hill, the Galton Institute, two groups with longstanding ties to the UK Eugenics movement. The latter organization, named for the “father of eugenics” Francis Galton, is the re-named UK Eugenics Society, a group notorious for its promotion of racist pseudoscience and efforts to “improve racial stock” by reducing the population of those deemed inferior for over a century….Formerly named the Sterilization League for Human Betterment, EngenderHealth’s original mission, inspired by racial eugenics, was to “improve the biological stock of the human race.”

Mr. Bill Gates’s own ties to eugenics help explain his numerous public pleas to “reduce population growth” by 10–15% through vaccination. And the track record of his foundation reflects this. Last year the UN was forced to admit that a Gates-funded vaccine caused a polio outbreak in Africa, adding to a long history of deadly “investments”.


What all of these drug companies have in common is a long and gruesome history of causing mass carnage with so-called wonder drugs. But of all the companies developing experimental jabs this year, Johnson and Johnson’s rap sheet appears among the most scandalous.

Last autumn, for instance, Johnson and Johnson was ordered to pay $5 billion in total settlements as part of a gigantic $48 billion deal, after more than 2,000 lawsuits alleged that the company contributed to the opioid crisis by overselling the benefits of its painkillers. The judge ruled that J&J distributed “false, misleading, and dangerous marketing campaigns” for opioids that led to “exponentially increasing rates of addiction” and overdose deaths.” But that’s just the tip of J&J’s criminal history iceberg.

In 1995 J&J paid $7.5 million for destroying documents to cover up an investigation into wrongful marketing of its Retin-A acne cream to remove wrinkles. In 2000 J&J’s subsidiary LifeScan paid $105 million for selling defective blood glucose monitors and failed to inform the FDA. In 2001 J&J paid $860 million in a class action lawsuit for misleading customers about its 1-Day Acuvue soft contact lens. In 2010 J&J paid $81 million for misbranding its anti-epileptic drug Topamax to treat psychiatric disorders and hiring outside physicians to join its sales force to promote the drug for unapproved conditions. In 2011 J&J paid $70 million for conspiracy after paying off Greek doctors to advance its product sales. That same year J&J paid $85 million for similar charges against its heart drug Natrecor. Several of J&J’s baby products were discovered to contain carcinogenic ingredients. J&J would later pay $127 million in damages for the talc in its J&J Baby Powder causing ovarian cancer (court documents later revealed that J&J themselves suspected a link between talcum and ovarian cancer as far back as the 1970s). In 2013 J&J paid nearly $2.5 billion to compensate 8,000 recipients for its flawed hip implants, and another $1 billion in 2016 for the same reason. When J&J’s Motrin IB caplets were discovered to not properly dissolve, they hired outside contractors to buy up store supplies in order to avoid making public declaration. The following year J&J was charged $2.2 billion in criminal fines after forty-five US states filed civil lawsuits, not only because the antipsychotic drug Risperdal caused men to grow breasts, but also for marking its autism drug for unapproved uses. By 2019 J&J were under criminal investigation by federal authorities for concealing the cancer risks of their name-brand baby powder (Talcum powder is procured from pure talc, which grows along with asbestos in the veins of the earth).

This is not a company with a clean ethical record. Yet, some seem eager for J&J’s “one shot and you’re done” adenovirus-based vaccine. While it is true that Johnson and Johnson have paid billions in criminal settlements, they have absolutely no experience in the vaccine department.

Comparing this track record with other drug companies, we can say that as bad as J&J’s history is, at least they have a product history; Moderna has never successfully brought a product to market before now.


Congressman Lloyd Doggett of Texas, who proved an outspoken voice on the subject of pandemic profiteering, stated that, “The power of the industry combined with fear is driving extraordinary spending. It all suggests rosy times ahead for the pharmaceutical industry.” As though on cue, Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, sold off 62 percent of his stock the same day his company publicly declared their experimental jab 90% effective. What a coincidence.

California Governor Gavin Newsom likewise provided a window into the ugly business of pandemic profiteering when he gave Blue Shield a $15 million no-bid contract to manage California’s vaccination efforts, after Blue Shield reportedly contributed almost $23 million to the Democratic governor’s campaigns, also resulting in nominations of Blue Shield executives to positions of power by the governor (such as Blue Shield CEO Paul Markovich who was appointed “to help steer the state’s COVID testing strategy”).

And the news that taxpayers will enjoy the privilege of footing the bill for all of this arrives as music to Pharma’s ears. According to Ellen Brown, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has already agreed to provide up to $1.2 billion to AstraZeneca and another $483 million to Moderna to develop their experimental technologies. Writing for Forbes, William Haseltine argues that American taxpayers are justified in asking “why?”

Both companies have attracted billions from private investors and don’t need taxpayer money, and the government’s speculative bets are being made on unproven technologies in the early stages of testing. The profits will go to the companies and their shareholders, while the liabilities will be borne by the public. Vaccine manufacturers are protected from liability for vaccine injuries by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the 2005 PREP Act, which impose damages instead on the US government and US taxpayers.”

As CNBC likewise reported:

The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer and Moderna immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.” Dallas labor and employment attorney Rogge Dunn was keen to note that, “It is very rare for a blanket immunity law to be passed.”

The tactics employed to sell this jab feel reminiscent of the those used by Monsanto and the tobacco companies in years past. Because of the lawsuits that followed the frenzied vaccine rollout pushed in the 1970’s, Pharma’s liability exclusion exists under the legal presumption that mRNA gene therapy is a “vaccine” instead of what it actually is.

“Drug companies are in business to sell drugs. Period. They are exactly the wrong people to evaluate the products they sell. I am not saying that all of the information drug companies provide to doctors is false. Some of it is useful and valid. But information from companies comes mixed with hyperbole, bias, and misinformation, and there is often no way to tell which is which.(Angell, 250)

The media profited handsomely from this mess as well. CNN technical director Charlie Chester inadvertently revealed the true mindset and motivations of his network in a series of videos wherein he admitted that the panic was “gangbusters” for ratings. He divulged that his coverage relied heavily on scare tactics and fear-mongering to keep people watching, explaining the ever-present death toll burned onto the corner of our screens 24/7. Chester even admits that he sometimes wished for the death toll to be higher during the panic of 2020 to help “drive the point home” with viewers. If ever CNN producers removed the statistic counter from the screen, the red “batphone” would ring with a call from network president Jeff Zucker demanding to bring it back. Because ratings mean profits, and profits mean everything.

Dr. Angell’s concluding chapter affirms that industry always favors profits over all considerations:

“Even granting the possibility that some individuals may respond very differently to these drugs, does that justify accepting a greatly increased risk of heart attacks and strokes? Since those who most need pain relievers for arthritis are precisely those older people most vulnerable to cardiovascular disease, the drugs have probably caused tens of thousands of heart attacks and strokes among the millions of people who have taken them regularly. That is a tremendous carnage to balance against the dubious proposition that the drugs offer something unique for pain relief. It is the FDA’s job to see that the benefits of prescription drugs outweigh the risks. It seems clear to me that the agency failed to do so in this case.” (Angell, 276)


Of all the adverse effects experienced by test subjects, the vaccine seems to also cause a violent allergic reaction to information about the vaccine, especially among those who read the Associated Press, listen to NPR, and watch MSNBC for information. While many express so-called “vaccine hesitancy” in 2021 (including a majority of US military service personnel and a “startlingly high percentage of health care professionals”) the fact remains that one third of Americans expressed skepticism about the covid jab as early as February, and the number of so-called “vaccine hesitant” individuals may be far greater. Additional polls indicate that the number of Americans unwilling to submit to experimental medical protocols may range as high as 54% to 58%.

As a result, the corporate propaganda escalated to hysterical levels. One headline from Yahoo News reads:Covid-19 Vaccine May Have Unpleasant Side Effects. That Will Mean It’s Working.A Guardian piece from February entitled “It is only a matter of time before we turn on the unvaccinated” posits that men of a certain skin color will cause poor people to suffer the highest death rates. And Cuomo appointee Tracey Edwards told New Yorkers in March to take the vaccine and “do not question what is in it.

Perhaps the most insidious of media falsehoods came in the seemingly innocuous forms of selective reporting and misleading interpretations of facts. The most reported vaccine-caused deaths in the United States overwhelmingly resulted from blood clots related to the J&J jab, but when reported, these single-digit deaths are repeatedly weighed against the millions who have received that vaccine. Far short of acknowledging the death toll recorded by the government-funded database known as the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS), mainstream media consistently focuses instead on a small handful of deaths from a single, very specific disorder. The news stories always emphasize the comparative safety of the J&J jab and seek to reassure Americans that health officials are acting out of an abundance of caution. This selective over-reporting seems calibrated to drown out the comparatively rare reports of over 4,000 deaths caused by the rest of the laundry list of vaccine-induced disorders. By constantly repeating a statistic that shows a comforting level of safety and caution, corporate mouthpieces in the media are able to obscure the risk of death from numerous other causes.

The declaration that trust in Pharma represents an extension of illiteracy, though deliberately provocative, is not meant as pejorative. Ignorance of the facts does not make one stupid; simply uninformed. However, if the absurd headlines above don’t trigger any red flags among readers, those readers would do well to update their bullshit detectors. Because knowing how to read does not make one literate any more than knowing how to sound out vowels and consonants makes one an orator. As our world continues transforming into an ever more confusing spectacle at an accelerating rate, we cannot change the media landscape or the world we live in, but we can become media literate and learn how to critically evaluate what we’re exposed to by mass media.

Media literacy is defined as a repertoire of competences that allows us to identify and evaluate the multitude of sophisticated propaganda techniques used on us every day by advertising agencies and corrupt governments. It’s the ability to read between the column inches; to tell the difference between Sponsored Content and news; to identify the manipulation techniques employed by the attention engineers and perception management teams working at the firms that brought these images before your consciousness.

To begin identifying said techniques, we can simply ask ourselves, with every piece of media we consume, “Who made this?” “Why do they want me to consume their product?” “Is it really selling what it’s advertising?” “How did this message get my attention?” “What creative techniques were used to attract my attention?” How might different people understand this message differently?” And, “Why is this message being broadcast?”

“As far as the mass of the people go, the extraordinary swings of opinion which occur nowadays, the emotions which can be turned on and off like a tap, are the result of newspaper and radio hypnosis.” ~George Orwell

It’s important to keep in mind that the status quo fib factory is owned by only 6 multinational corporations, meaning there may be more mainstream channels available, but fewer owners and therefore fewer sources of influence. They attack news organizations that publish critical stories, whistleblowers who talk, politicians who ask tough questions, and journalists who report. They mix truth and lies to convince us to dismiss everything, including the truth. They publish headlines contradicted by the articles that follow them, knowing few will ever notice. They claim to “debunk myths” that aren’t myths at all, and instead of questioning authority, they attack those who do.

To hide their overwhelming influence, this handful of conglomerates employs “astroturfing” among its methods to disguise corporate content as authentic, grass-roots efforts. Thomas Murray, president of the Hastings Center (a bioethics think tank) once stated that, “It’s ethically problematic when a company creates entities but then tries to pass them off as authentic and spontaneous grass-roots organizations. What bothers me is the deceptiveness.” A bit of digging reveals that special interests have employed astroturf camouflage for decades, publishing blogs and letters or starting social media accounts and leaving lots of comments, all of which favor the industry.

For instance, the astroturf slogan, “You’re not a medical doctor!” rippled throughout 2020 as a logically-impaired means of shutting down anyone critical of the official narrative. Forgetting for a moment that half of the country’s doctor’s were the ones expressing concerns (or that Bill Gates isn’t a doctor either). Are credentials the only metric for measuring statements? Do I need to be a licensed auto mechanic to observe unnatural noises coming from my engine? Do I have to be a licensed dietitian to read nutrition facts? If we print ingredients on food labels to help consumers avoid carcinogens like aspartame and carrageenan, why is it not so with experimental medical protocols?


Conscripting 7 billion healthy people to submit to an experimental medical treatment involving a needle-full of a DNA-altering substance that was rushed through development by some of the most corrupt corporations on the planet would be impossible without clever marketing. So Pharma spent billions deceiving the public with televised misinformation.

Dr. Angell outlines the fundamental problem regarding drug advertising:

“The huge amount of marketing also raises the question: If prescription drugs are so good, why do they need to be pushed so hard? Wouldn’t the world beat a path to the door of a company that produced, say, a cure for cancer? The answer is that truly good drugs don’t have to be promoted very much. A genuinely important new drug, such as Gleevec, sells itself.” (Angell, 133)

Of all the reasons for healthy people to be convinced to purchase a drug, “asking our doctor” if something we saw on television is “right for us” may constitute Big Pharma’s greatest trickery of all:

“Once upon a time, drug companies promoted drugs to treat diseases. Now it is often the opposite. They promote diseases to fit their drugs. Nearly everyone experiences heartburn from time to time. The remedy used to be a glass of milk or an over-the-counter antacid to relieve the symptoms. But now heartburn is called “acid reflux disease” or “gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)” and marketed, along with the drugs to treat it, as a harbinger of serious esophageal disease—which it usually is not. As a result, in 2002, Prilosec was the third best selling drug in the world (Nexium had not yet had a chance to replace it), and its competitor Prevacid was seventh.” (Angell, 86)

Maybe this helps explain why it’s immoral to entice people into medical treatments, either by offering high school students a chance to win an electric bike as Missoula County Public Schools have done, or coercing the poor with “vaccine lotteries” as Ohio’s Governor Mike DeWine has done.

Perhaps Governor DeWine missed an important opportunity to display unusual medical candor when he neglected to compare his lottery to Shirley Jackson’s classic dystopian short story “The Lottery”. In DeWine’s lottery, one member of the community is randomly selected each week as the winner of a million dollar prize, but how many citizens that sign up for experimental injection will be randomly selected as “the winner” of a rare blood clot, debilitating auto-immune disease, miscarriage or death?

Other bribes offered by local and state government to entice people into this experiment include Shake Shack Burgers, Krispy Kreme Donuts, and $50 gift cards.


Beyond the question of whether manipulating participants into medical experimentation under false pretenses violates the hypocratic oath, aren’t unprovoked discussions about vaccinations just as inappropriate for polite conversation as your last annual exam, pap smear, or colonoscopy? Do employers understand that any discussion one way or the other about this clearly violates HIPPA guidelines and opens up a massive door for potential lawsuit?

Legal precedent to those ends is already being set. New Mexico Detention Center officer Isaac Legaretta filed the first US lawsuit over mandatory covid vaccines on the first of March 2021. His attorney Ana Garner told Bloomberg News: “You can’t be forced to be a human guinea pig. We have the right to bodily integrity.”

May we please remind all those who are “just following orders” that Nazi officers who offered up the same pathetic excuse at Nuremberg were executed for crimes against humanity? The last time humans launched a plan like this to conduct experimental medical protocols on vulnerable populations was in Auschwitz where Joseph “angel of death” Mengele conducted medical experimentation focused primarily on children with no regard for the health or safety of his victims. In the end, many of the doctors who committed said human experiments on behalf of the Third Reich were put on trial in Nuremberg and subsequently executed.

With the adoption of the 1947 Nuremberg Code, humanity hoped to never repeat these sins of history ever again. The Code may be the most important legal document in the history of medical research ethics, as it established ten principles upon which clinical research could be presumed to be “ethical”. The first and foremost principle declares “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”. It prohibits research to be conducted on human beings without the informed consent of the individual. As recently as 2009, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the Southern District of New York cited the Nuremberg Code as: “the universally accepted norm in customary international law regarding nonconsensual medical experimentation.”

To quote human rights attorney Leigh Dundas, the covid ‘vaccine’ represents an experimental medical protocol that was authorized under the Emergency Use Authorization Act, and killed every last ferret in the final animal study performed by the industry. Based on said mortality rates of ferrets in animal trials, Dr. Christiane Northrup estimates a maximum life expectancy of 2 years in humans following administration of this experimental medical protocol. Former Pfizer Vice President Dr. Yeadon also warns that booster shots are completely unnecessary and represent tools of mass murder.

Many of the test animals that died, perished a result of Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) acquired from the vaccine. When the animal’s immune systems were challenged with the virus they were supposed to be immunized from, their immune systems were unable to identify it. So like a Trojan horse, the virus entered the body unseen by the immune system and began replicating unchecked, eventually overwhelming the host with fatal sepsis and cardiac failure. This is what is meant by “vaccine enhanced disease,” wherein vaccinated people experience more severe illness when exposed to the virus they were supposedly vaccinated against.


Subjecting healthy people to this medical experiment seems highly unnecessary given that, according to the CDC’s best estimate, the virus yields a 99.5 percent survival rate for those under 70 years old. That hasn’t stopped establishment figures from haranguing the “hesitant” with a deluge of ad hominem attacks aimed toward “anti-science grandma killers” who constitute the real reason we can’t get society moving forward again. This demographic may ultimately be blamed indefinitely for anything that goes wrong for years to come. Indeed, Kit Knightly recently revealed how the CDC are manipulating data explicitly to hide breakthrough cases and blame unvaccinated for “outbreaks”. We’re all told that unless we agree to get injected, we should be forced to stay inside our homes forever. But that’s precisely backwards. We shouldn’t be altering our entire society to cater exclusively to its weakest, most fragile members, while clipping the wings of everyone else. If pathological hypochondriacs are afraid to come outside, they’re welcome to stay home.

Questioning the motives of Big Pharma does not make one an “anti-vaxxer” any more than questioning America’s imperial wars makes one anti-American. Anti-vaxxers are against vaccines in principal, discounting any potential good; an extreme just as illogical as automatically placing trust into any of Pharma’s products. This takes into account the fact that Merriam-Webster very recently expanded its definition of “anti-vaxxer” to include “people who oppose laws that mandate vaccination.” But given that a December poll found only 21% of Americans in support of vaccine mandates, deductively this means that 79% of Americans are now, according to Merriam-Webster, anti-vaxxers.

But Pharma’s astroturfers loudly decry that the only people questioning the legitimacy and safety of this vaccine rollout are supporters of Qanonsense, who must be Trump voters, and thus, white supremacists by extension (or Russian agents, or whatever useful pejorative is in fashion at the time) and therefore deplorable people that we can all agree need to be rounded up and placed into joy camps for reeducation. Unfortunately, there are people who actually believe this line of logic, despite the fact that none of the aforementioned European officials halting the rollout ever voted for Donald Trump or give a rat’s rear end about the letter Q. This is nothing more than the anti-logic of anti-intellectuals who refuse to think for themselves and resent those who do.

History will vindicate the cautious because it has never paid to rush into unfamiliar situations without performing due diligence. Hurrying into this experiment seems particularly ill advised when weighed against the personalities waging it, their own claims about what it does, and the observable “side effects” that have begun to follow as a result. It should surprise no one that the pharmaceutical companies are willing to kill people with dangerous products to turn a profit, but as long as the regulatory agencies remain dominated by Pharma, they can always fool somebody into buying their toxic products. Whether this information will ever reach the public at large remains an open question. The fact that most people remain blissfully unaware that literally billions of masks are ending up in the oceans so millions of hysterical humans can delude themselves with a false sense of security illustrates how difficult it is to express anything consequential in a media landscape dominated exclusively by “pleasant things”.

Social media, while initially aimed toward connecting people together, has instead isolated individuals within custom-tailored bubbles of content and connection that are free from any disagreement, difference of opinion, or compromise with others. But learning has never had anything to do with agreement, and pretending it does severely limits our capabilities. If everyone had to agree about everything all the time nobody would ever learn anything. And if we can’t agree on what is true, it becomes impossible to navigate through any of society’s problems. As Jeff Flake contended in The Social Dilemma, “tribalism is no way for sane adults to act.” Because in the end the polarization of the population creates two sides that both want the other dead.

Marcia Angell excerpts adapted from The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us And What To Do About It, New York, Random House, 2004.

Printer Friendly Version

Mental Illness Mandatory: How America’s Open Air Insane Asylum Institutionalizes Madness As An Unavoidable Way Of Life

The once rare specters of hypochondria, germophobia and agoraphobia became required behavior for participating in polite society over the past year. These conditions remain the same mental illnesses they were in the twentieth century, but are now compulsory prerequisites for social acceptability in America and much of the industrialized world. The fact that millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane, and the fact that they agree on a consensus of errors does not make those errors truths. Surging suicide rates, alcohol treatment admissions, self-harm reports and drug overdose statistics reveal that if western society wasn’t already a cause for mental disturbance, it went completely insane during the panic of 2020. As it turns out, the choice to live like a vegetable carries major consequences.

Nonstop reports reveal ever more frightening trends in the mental health of Americans. Last month NPR Boston presented the story of a mother and father that refuse to hug either of their two children, whom they force to wear masks at all times inside their home while also prohibiting them from visiting any of their friends. All members of this family sleep in separate rooms, work from home and avoid contact with anyone outside the direct family.

This depiction of culturally-induced hypochondria would be disturbing enough if it were reported honestly. Such an instance of patently absurd behavior seems fit for programs like America’s Funniest Home Videos or Tosh point O, only valuable as an example of how not to behave; an opportunity to point at the freaks and laugh; an occasion to reevaluate our definitions of child abuse. But rather than ridiculing the psychotic overreaction, the hallowed airwaves of National Public Radio’s flagship evening news program instead promoted these irrational phobias and absurd behavior as the normal standard the rest of us should aspire to live up to. And the children growing up in this masochistic psychosis get the gift of unpacking the subsequent and detrimental psychological side-effects for decades to come. The gift that keeps on giving.

German humanistic philosopher and psychologist Erich Fromm suggested that the only data we can measure the psychological health of our communities are those for suicide, homicide and alcoholism. “It a safe assumption,” he writes, “that a high suicide rate in a given population is expressive of a lack of mental stability and mental health.”

It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society. Yet many of us refuse to entertain the idea that society as a whole may be lacking in sanity. We’re told that the problem of mental health in society lies with those “unadjusted” individuals, but not the culture itself. But America’s suicide and substance abuse statistics strongly suggest that we’re about to bear witness to a mental health roller coaster ride unlike anything we’ve ever witnessed before.

By the end of 2020 Americans’ mental health had fallen to a 20-year low in sync with a surge of student suicides, and opiate overdoses fueled by a nationwide epidemic of loneliness and despair. In fact, suicide rates increased across the board in all demographics last year, according to a CDC study published in December. They found that 1 in 4 young Americans considered suicide last summer amid life under the unprecedented social isolation of lockdown. According to another recently published study, self-harm claims among 13-18 year olds has risen by 333%. Overdoses are up too.

Last summer CDC Director Robert Redfield admitted that suicides and drug overdoses had surpassed the death rate for covid among high school students.

One California hospital doctor admitted that during lockdown he witnessed “a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.” While the mortality risk of covid for young adults hovers near zero, school closures coupled with isolation from family, friends, and community, creates a far more pernicious harm.

There’s no denying that confining people to their homes and stripping away their livelihoods directly correlates with spikes in suicide and depression. As reported by the New York Times, the negative health effects of social isolation are well-documented:

A wave of new research suggests social separation is bad for us. Individuals with less social connection have disrupted sleep patterns, altered immune systems, more inflammation and higher levels of stress hormones. One recent study found that isolation increases the risk of heart disease by 29 percent and stroke by 32 percent.

Another analysis that pooled data from 70 studies and 3.4 million people found that socially isolated individuals had a 30 percent higher risk of dying in the next seven years, and that this effect was largest in middle age.

Loneliness can accelerate cognitive decline in older adults, and isolated individuals are twice as likely to die prematurely as those with more robust social interactions. These effects start early: Socially isolated children have significantly poorer health 20 years later, even after controlling for other factors. All told, loneliness is as important a risk factor for early death as obesity and smoking.

Heartbreaking testimony from parents reveals how extended distance learning is “catalyzing a mental health crisis among school-aged children.One mother, Allison Arieff, said she had recently found her 15-year-old daughter “curled up in a fetal position, crying, next to her laptop at 11 a.m.” Another mother, Lindsay Sink, has seen a “major regression” in her 7-year-old son who has “uncontrollable meltdowns that turn the whole house upside down.”

Our society is actively teaching our kids that they need to protect other people from themselves at all times by wearing a mask; to run to the other side of the street if they see someone without a mask coming toward them. We’re conditioning the next generation to automatically assume other humans pose a significant threat by virtue of merely existing. They’re being trained that the only way forward involves assuming the role of a pathologically frightened loner who is perpetually searching for a guarantee of security that cannot exist so long as humans are mortal. And because the only place you’re completely secure is inside a nine-by-nine concrete cell, we’ve begun consciously transforming our entire world to resemble a literal prison. And nothing demonstrates this point better than a recent controversy in Toronto, Ontario.

Authorities in the Peel suburb of Toronto, Ontario distributed parenting guidelines last month for kids sent home from school following possible coronavirus exposure: the child must sleep and eat in a separate room, use a separate bathroom, wear a mask within the home and remain six feet away from other humans at all times.

One mom posts, “And so the 14 day isolation begins. Nothing has broken my heart like the sound of my 10 year old crying while I sit on the other side of the door and tell him 14 days will go quickly. Hoping Peel Health calls so we can get some advice and answers.” Another mother replies, “I have my 7 year old in isolation downstairs. He keeps messaging me on Facebook messenger saying, ‘mommy I’m lonely.’ My 5 year old wrote in his journal entry today that he is sad because his brother isn’t here. I set up a baby monitor to let the 8 year old ask for things. 5 year old is using it to talk to the 8 year old.”

Matthew Christiansen precisely articulates the fundamental flaw with this situation: “So your child is crying and you’re waiting for clearance from the state to comfort your own kid? Whose kid is it? Yours or the government’s? You’ve allowed the state to turn your home into a prison for children. Plain and simple.”

Martin Luther King famously proclaimed that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” It seems unconscionable that any parent would acquiesce to state-sanctioned child abuse, and yet the reporting of such extremes helps condition society to begin accepting such circumstances as “the new normal.”

We’ve collectively adhered to the state-sanctioned cognitive dissonance of a “two week” lockdown to “flatten the curve” for 52 consecutive weeks now. After a year the data confirms that the response to covid was highly disproportionate to the actual threat, which carried a survivability rate of 99.97%. The deadliness of the virus, and therefore the restrictions on individual liberties, should be in direct proportion to the level of the danger. The overblown hysteria consistently proves itself to be far more deadly than the covid boogieman, and everyone knows it. Yet so many continue behaving in silly ways just because they’re told to.

George Orwell describes Doublethink as, “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”

The oxymoronic phrases “alone together” and “social distancing”; the hypocrisy of banning Thanksgiving while promoting Black Friday consumerism; the double standard of closing churches while ignoring the laughable conditions at Walmart stores and Amazon warehouses, all represent the kind of state-sponsored doublethink Orwell was trying to warn us about. The fact that so much of society accepted the program seems the real tragedy. It seems that our susceptibility to embrace the quantum psychosis of doublethink comes from the need for a coping mechanism against the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

We’re finally arriving at the 365th day of “15 days to flatten the curve” and after a whole year we’re still being told not to hug our children because “affection spreads infection.” We’re told that bodily autonomy as pronounced by Roe v Wade no longer applies. We’re told that that freedom of choice amounts to the freedom to unintentionally kill old people; that bread lines are normal; that state imposed poverty results in heightened security; that your inability to breathe naturally protects you, rather than drastically increasing your susceptibility to bacterial pneumonia and lung cancer.

Historian Alexei Yurchak described “HyperNormalisation” as a similar phenomenon to doublethink. Filmmaker Adam Curtis tells us that, “in the 1980’s everyone from the top to the bottom of Soviet society knew that it wasn’t working, knew that it was corrupt, knew that the bosses were looting the system, knew that the politicians had no alternative vision. And they knew that the bosses knew that they knew that. Everyone knew it was fake, but because no one had any alternative vision for a different kind of society, they just accepted this sense of total fakeness as normal. And this historian, Alexei Yurchak, coined the phrase “HyperNormalisation” to describe that feeling.” The effect is social paralysis and political impotence.

In a society where nobody knows what to believe, submission to irrational authority becomes a necessary means of survival. The economic threat of starvation which forces us to accept the unacceptable also helps drive the barbarism of totalitarian movements. An army of obedient conformists who take up the dirty work of violent authoritarians cheerfully rationalize away any personal responsibility for their own actions by proclaiming that they were “just following orders.”

But it’s evident from the fatality data that covid was no more deadly – perhaps even less deadly – than the flu, which has mysteriously disappeared from the UK. This is not ebola. People are not keeling over in the streets to the soundtrack of nonstop ambulance sirens. In fact, hospitals have operated at reduced capacity, and the vast majority of us never knew anyone who died from the sniffles.

The doublethink flip-flops started early in 2020. No other public figure enjoyed such a boost to his social status, as our vaunted master of the medical arts, sometimes colloquially referred as the G.O.O.F: The Great, Omnipotent, Omnipresent Fauci! Every mention of his sacred name in the media comes in reverent hushed tones to clearly communicate that you must participate in the cult of his hero worship or be doomed to a life as a pariah and traitor to your society. The GOOF can never be wrong, even when he is wrong. Look no farther than the first great goof up of the lockdown: Doctor Fauci’s advice to the American public that we shouldn’t bother with masks and gloves. He told us all, plainly and directly, that masks do nothing to curb the spread of this virus.

A month or two later when someone or something decided that it would be better for their interests if we were compelled to wear masks, word passed down through medical science’s Mister Rogers declared that though it may be a beautiful day in the neighborhood, its time for us to hide our beautiful face from our neighbors indefinitely. To respond to the natural consternation caused by his unnatural contradiction, our beloved GOOF conveyed that he had been lying to us all when he said masks didn’t work. He naturally only lied because he didn’t want us dumb, panicky, unwashed masses to rush out and hog up all the masks, gorging ourselves on Personal Protective Equipment in a grotesque orgy of hoarding and conspicuous consumption. And even though he lied before, we can definitely believe him this time.

doublethink contradictions everywhere

Whatever you believe about mask efficacy, it’s clear that Fauci told the public two completely different stories. He contradicted his own sacred medical advice and justified his duplicity by assuring us that his lies were for our own good. But of the two contradictory stories he gave, why would we choose to believe the one that dehumanizes us? He admitted to lying to us, claiming the lies were for our own good because we simply couldn’t be trusted with the truth, and all at a time that so many of our intrepid authorities were hypocritically disobeying their own irrational mandates. Truly HyperNormal.

Pelosi and Lightfoot got caught at salons after shuttering salons; Newsom and Murphy and Hancock all got caught at crowded dinner tables or traveling after prohibiting travel and banning Thanksgiving; DeBlasio got caught working out at his private gym after closing down all private gyms. Pathological liars do well in politics and finance because the structure of our system rewards the sociopathic tendencies of those most attracted to money and power.

17th Century philosopher Baruch Spinoza posits that greediness and ambition are themselves forms of insanity, even though society does not think of them as “illness” per se. But it is nevertheless true that America’s nonstop war profiteering helps foster a social ecosystem conducive for psychopaths to thrive within.

As we peel back the layers on what may be one of the most frightening personality disorders on the spectrum of mental illnesses, we find that manipulation, deceit and egocentricity are also the very precepts most valued by our corporate state at large. A system that values profit over health incentivizes sociopathic tendencies in otherwise moral people and empowers the truly ruthless. This system has “inadvertently increased the number of attractive employment opportunities for individuals with psychopathic personalities,” according to Paul Babiak’s 2006 book, Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. America’s drones drop a bomb every 12 minutes on account of mental illnesses that are deemed socially acceptable by the military-industrial-surveillance-complex. When jobs are scarce and everyone’s out for themselves, a little war profiteering probably feels kinda normal once you get doing it. Nothing personal. Just blood for money. This attitude in-turn creates endless lines of broken soldiers returning home with chronic trauma, which then trickles back into our mental health statistics in the forms of alcoholism and suicide.

Fromm contends that, “An unhealthy society is one which creates mutual hostility, distrust, which transforms man into an instrument of use and exploitation for others, which deprives him of a sense of self, except inasmuch as he submits to others or becomes an automaton.” (71)

By contrast, “A sane society is one in which qualities like greed, exploitiveness, possessiveness, narcissism, have no chance to be used for greater material gain or for the enhancement of one’s personal prestige. Where acting according to one’s conscience is looked upon as a fundamental and necessary quality and where opportunism and lack of principles is deemed to be asocial.” (241)

But the spectrum of 2020’s irrational hysteria went even farther as we witnessed a hybrid of Stockholm Syndrome and Munchausen Syndrome unfold at a planetary scale.

Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological survival response that occurs when hostages begin to empathize with their captors over the course of prolonged captivity.

Munchausen Syndrome (also known as Factitious disorder) is a psychological disorder where someone pretends to be ill or deliberately produces symptoms of illness in themselves. Indeed, society now mandates that we all at least pretend to succumb to the mental illnesses of germophobia, OCD, hypochondria, agoraphobia, etc.

Have we internalized our learned helplessness to the point that we willingly choose the cage over our freedom as Huxley warned? Are we “not in danger of becoming slaves anymore, but of becoming robots” as Adlai Stevenson so famously proclaimed?

Fromm observes that in the modern technocracy, “There is no overt authority which intimidates us, but we are governed by the fear of the anonymous authority of conformity. We do not submit to anyone personality; we do not go through conflicts with authority, but we have also no convictions of our own, almost no individuality, almost no sense of self.” (96)

If next week our irrational authorities mandate obligatory butt-plugs because someone at the CDC declared that farts cause covid, would you wear one? How long would you wear it for? We all know that a percentage of us would. You likely know at least one or two individuals whose compliance with covid restrictions is so fanatical that they would eagerly do it, and encourage all those around them to “plug up and shut up”. We’ve all met these people. Some of them are even our friends, but would you be willing to plug up and shut up if the CDC told you to today? What about tomorrow? How many of your own personal barriers have already been broken down? How many times have the goalposts already been moved on you?

No matter how absurd, a proportion of the general population can always be fooled into acting the way the oligarchs want. How much more authoritarian nonsense will it take for people to feel safe again? Orange jumpsuit mandates? Bars over the window mandates? The insane protocols will continue so long as people remain afraid.

Those who spoke out against lockdown restrictions were branded “granny killers” and “anti-vaxxers” for merely displaying elementary skepticism because our deep-seated fear of social disapproval has been completely weaponized by the corporate state. We’ve been psychologically conditioned to imprison ourselves under a spell of fear that posits we might unintentionally get someone, somewhere, killed if we fail to obey our infallible authorities. The ability to hold discourse and debate and disagree remains integral for society to be healthy. But practical and fair debates based on reason and logic are in danger of becoming relics traded for conformity and obedience to irrational authority. The social hostility to reason and critical thinking that’s dividing our communities seems convenient for corrupt bureaucrats and their billionaire puppet masters. Now that we’ve been culturally conditioned to fear each other, we’re not getting together and talking about how badly we’re all getting fucked by this corrupt system, or how truly insane it has become.

“The alienated person attempts to solve this problem by conforming. He feels secure in being as similar as possible to his fellow man. His paramount aim is to be approved of by others; his central fear, that he may not be approved of. To be different, to find himself in a minority, are the dangers which threaten his sense of security; hence a craving for limitless conformity. It is obvious that this craving for conformity produces in turn a continuously operating, though hidden, sense of insecurity. Any deviation from the pattern, any criticism, arouses fear and insecurity; one is always dependent on the approval of others, just as a drug addict is dependent on his drug, and similarly, one’s own sense of self and “self”-reliance becomes increasingly weaker. The sense of guilt, which some generations ago pervaded the life of man with reference to sin, has been replaced by a sense of uneasiness and inadequacy with regard to being different.” (137)

In 1978 cult leader Jim Jones isolated nearly a thousand followers in the jungles of Africa and used fear to manipulate them into drinking his mass suicide Kool-Aid. Humans are highly adaptable creatures, and historically we seem to prefer emotions to facts, superstition to reason, and dogma to logic. But the chronic harms we’re unwittingly visiting upon each other in the illusory quest for safety and permanence far outweigh the potential benefits we’re told will somehow make all this “worth it” in the end. The notion that we must commit daily acts of self-harm by suffocating vital breath just to participate in society seems completely insane.

“How can conscience develop when the principle of life is conformity?” Fromm asks. “Conscience by its very nature is nonconforming; it must be able to say no, when everybody else says yes; in order to say this “no” it must be certain in the rightness of the judgment on which the no is based. To the degree to which a person conforms he cannot hear the voice of his conscience, much less act upon it.” (155)

This brings us to the colloquial definition of what may be the most pervasive mental illness in America today: insanity. That is, repeating the same action over and over again all the while continuously expecting a different result. We’re told that if we’re dissatisfied with the management of our communities to reinforce the very mechanism that maintains the status quo. The system tells us, both explicitly and implicitly, to “vote harder.”

Emma Goldman once declared that “If voting changed anything they’d make it illegal.” Mark Twain famously concurred with, “If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.” But it’s now a scientific fact that America is not a democracy but dominated by a rich and powerful elite, proven scientifically by professors Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page of Princeton and Northwestern, respectively. But no matter how much proof is offered that America’s elections have always been fixed, a segment of the American population will still demand ever more government as a solution to this problem. We keep voting, decade after decade, hoping for a different result. But the house always wins. The corporate state maintains its power by keeping us divided and distracted, and voting is one of the best ongoing ploys to accomplish this.

Chris Hedges tell us, “The nature of illusion is that it’s designed, at least at the moment, to make you feel good about yourself, about your country, about where you’re going. In that sense it functions like a drug. Those who question that illusion are challenged, not so much for the veracity of what they say, but for puncturing those feelings. Attempt to get up and question where we’re going and who we are and the critique will be that you’re such a pessimist, that you’re such a cynic, that you’re not an optimist. Optimism becomes a kind of disease. It’s what created the financial meltdown where you have this kind of cheerful optimism in the face of utter catastrophe. And you plow forward based on an optimism that is no longer rooted in reality.”

But our collective insanity manifests itself in other fascinating ways. The destruction of nature to fulfill vain consumerist desires drove the creation of The Lorax as a conscious warning about where our society is headed. And the fact that the name of this book’s author has become controversial in recent weeks seems to indicate a failure to heed that warning.

What the corporate media unwittingly accomplish is the widespread realization that the media are the virus. They pushed the narrative of their big pharma owners through a deliberate campaign of nonstop, paralyzing fear. Bill Hicks was right when he said that watching television is like taking black spray paint to your third eye. Maybe we should be practicing media distancing, because television only “tells lies to our vision.” This is in part why Robert F. Kennedy Jr. asks, “Do pandemics disappear when mortalities cease, or when it’s no longer in the media’s financial interest to frighten and shame the public?”

Speaking at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, Thomas E. Woods warned in the summer of 2020, “This is not normal. We’re surrounded by crazy people. We can’t even have a conversation because if you try to have a conversation about this, “You just want people to die!” You can never have an honorable disagreement with the hysterics. Never. And it’s always because you secretly “hate” something. And that strikes me as the classic case of projection. If their first instinct is, “This must be motivated by hatred!” maybe they intimately are familiar with that emotion, that they would constantly be consumed by attributing it to everybody. Take people who say to you, “If you don’t favor locking people in their homes, then you just enjoy watching people die.” Okay? I’ve had that said to me–that I want people to die. And then, conversely, I’ve had people tell me that they hope I die because I’m encouraging things that are going to make other people die. There’s a lot of death wish around in society these days apparently.”

Such a landscape of the blind leading the blind will teem with despots and criminals eager to tell everyone else what to do, how to think, and what to buy. We’ve become sequestered in our atomized dwelling units and slowly become sicker as we deprive ourselves of life-giving sunlight and oxygen in the very world that we’re shielding ourselves from, while the wealthy grow their fortunes to embarrassingly unethical proportions.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and positions of power have a strong tendency of attracting the corruptible. But skepticism of the government seems sadly lacking. How could anyone be sincerely convinced that this government cares about us in the abstract when our authorities systematically and deliberately denied healthcare to Americans during a pandemic while kicking around the idea of making ultra-profitable vaccines a mandatory requirement?

The true power of the pandemic drew from an entrenched fear of death that we are especially vulnerable to on account of the fact that it’s become a taboo subject. Our neurotic denial of impermanence and death makes us better consumers and better slaves. We rarely consider how our precious time is disappearing in service to this machine as we fill our inevitable inner voids with products and likes.

The negative long-term side effects from masks, social distancing, and prolonged isolation are well documented. David Cullin has repeatedly asked whether these measures are sustainable long-term. The efficacy of such measures is now seriously disputed and must be weighed against the suffering they caused in their own right. Given the catastrophic impact that all of the lockdown measures have on individuals and society, there is an obligation on all of us to question the veracity of the data that is being used to justify them. If the protocols are found to be disproportionate to the threat, we should not practice them any longer.

Many statewide mask mandates are lifting, meaning that normal folks can finally begin clearing away the rubble and move forward with their lives, partisan politicking notwithstanding. People have become wise to the fact that wearing a mask to stop a virus is like putting up chain link to stop mosquitoes. With a vape pen or a walk outside on a cold day anyone can watch the billowing clouds of water vapor pour through and around the face mask with every breath, even if the wearer has more than one mask on. If water vapor can get through and around your mask every time you exhale, so can a microscopic virus. The unscientific mandating of masks represents nothing more than the height of security theater.

No wonder there are psychological issues rippling through the population. While forces of totalitarianism actively muzzle free speech on every major platform, those same forces mandate a literal muzzle as a symbolic reminder to keep your mouth shut.

“Shut up, peasants!”

As far back as 1955, Erich Fromm noted that, “We find that the countries which are among the most democratic, peaceful and prosperous ones, show the most severe symptoms of mental disturbance. These data raise a question as to whether there is not something fundamentally wrong with our way of life and with the aims toward which we are striving.” (19)

In the essay, Industrial Society And Its Future, Ted Kaczynski concurs, “Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. … Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect, antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual’s internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable.” (145)

That someone as mentally disturbed as Ted could be capable of so accurately articulating the reasons for his clinically antisocial behavior seems like a very interesting warning; that the increasingly anti-human structure of our society threatens to create monsters far more dangerous than Ted, and perhaps more numerous as well. But Fromm noticed the exact same phenomenon at play in western society several decades earlier: “Today the function of psychiatry, psychology and psychoanalysis threatens to become the tool in the manipulation of men. The specialists in this field tell you what the “normal” person is, and, correspondingly, what is wrong with you; they devise the methods to help you adjust, be happy, be normal. In Brave New World this conditioning is done from the first month of fertilization (by chemical means), until after puberty. With us, it begins a little later. Constant repetition by newspaper, radio, television, does most of the conditioning. But the crowning achievement of manipulation is modern psychology.” (151)

These observations mirror those of countless philosophers throughout modern history, including Bakunin, Durkheim, Einstein, Marx, Own, Proudhon, Schweitzer and Tolstoy, all of whom addressed the psychological quagmire that our industrial systems impose upon the individual. The real problem is that we live in systems that benefit from the alienation of ordinary people, and the pandemic has merely magnified a preexisting problem; that our lives have become disconnected from purpose and meaning.

The late Mark Fisher pointed out continually that a mental health crisis does not happen in a vacuum or a bubble. “It happens as a result of social economic and political systems. The mental health plague in capitalist societies would suggest that, instead of being the only social system that works, capitalism is inherently dysfunctional, and that the cost of it appearing to work is very high.”

Many harsh economic realities swarm together to alienate the modern industrialized citizen, including an unconscious but ever-increasing sense of powerlessness, disposability, abstractification (what is x worth), and commodification (everything is for sale). Today’s modern citizen feels like an automaton whose artificial smile has replaced genuine laughter, and whose meaningless chatter has replaced communicative speech. Dissatisfaction, apathy, boredom, lack of joy and happiness, a sense of futility and a vague feeling that life is meaningless, are the unavoidable results of this situation.

“The alienated person cannot be healthy. Since he experiences himself as a thing, an investment, to be manipulated by himself and by others, he is lacking in a sense of self. The alienated person feels inferior whenever he suspects himself of not being in line. Since his sense of worth is based on approval as the reward for conformity, he feels naturally threatened in his sense of self and in his self-esteem by any feeling, thought or action which could be suspected of being a deviation. Yet, inasmuch as he is human and not an automaton, he cannot help deviating, hence he must feel afraid of disapproval all the time. As a result he has to try all the harder to conform, to be approved of, to be successful. Not the voice of his conscience gives him strength and security but the feeling of not having lost the close touch with the herd. (181)

The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, famously mentioned: “People fascinate me. First, they sacrifice their health to get money and then they try to sacrifice money to regain their health. They worry about the past and future so much that they do not enjoy the present. They try to live as if they are never to die and, in the end, they die without having lived.” Increasingly that final sentence about dying without having lived holds more true in 2021 than perhaps ever before, which brings us to the philosophical problem of risk.

Fromm addresses our modern obsession with “security”: “Increasingly people feel that they should have no doubts, no problems, that they should have to take no risks, and that they should always feel “secure.” Thus parents, especially those who follow this literature, get worried that their little son or daughter may, at an early age, acquire a sense of “insecurity.” They try to help them avoid conflicts, to make everything easy, to do away with as many obstacles as they can, in order to make the child feel “secure.” Just as they try to inoculate the child against all illnesses, and to prevent it from getting in touch with any germ, they think they can banish insecurity by preventing any contact with it. The result is often as unfortunate as exaggerated hygiene sometimes is: once an infection occurs, the person becomes more vulnerable and helpless before it.”

How can a sensitive and alive person ever feel secure?” Fromm asks. “Because of the very conditions of our existence, we cannot feel secure about anything. Our life and health are subject to accidents beyond our control. We can never be certain of the outcome of our best efforts. There is certainty only about the fact that we are born and that we shall die. The psychic task which a person can and must set for himself, is not to feel secure, but to be able to tolerate insecurity, without panic and undue fear.” (172)

Life seems riskier in the age of covid. But living cannot be reduced to mere biological survival because that would mean that ‘eating cans of navy beans inside of a windowless room for 75 years would be just as good as a life full of human affection, meaningful relationships and exhilarating experiences.’

We must grow up and accept that death is a part of life. And there is more to life than the avoidance of death. Life carries with it a certain degree of risk and people should be permitted to decide for themselves if they wish to take that risk. Therefore, vulnerable people should decide for themselves if they wish to quarantine and take precautions or not. But the choice should never be taken away from them. Corrupt governments weaponized our compassion for vulnerable elders as an excuse to paralyze the working class and push forward a cowardly new world.

Considering how we can build a sane society, Fromm writes, “depends on creating again the opportunity for people to sing together, walk together, dance together, admire together—together, and not, to use Riesman’s succinct expression, as a member of a “lonely crowd.” (303)

Dr. Stephen Shapiro, Chief Medical and Scientific Officer at the University of Pittsburgh Medical center, warned us during the 2020 lockdowns that, “What we cannot do is extended social isolation. Humans are social beings and we are already seeing the adverse mental health consequences of loneliness, and that is before the much greater effects of economic devastation take hold on the human condition.”

Erich Fromm excerpts adapted from The Sane Society, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston Inc., June 1955.

Printer Friendly Version

When Doctors Considered Hand Washing A Baseless Conspiracy Theory

175 years ago, when the practices of western science were just starting to catch on, one rebel doctor proposed the novel idea of hand washing to his colleagues as a means of preventing infection from spreading throughout his hospital, in-turn making himself the most ridiculed pariah of his day. In this case, the infection that was spreading around was called Childbed Fever, and it was killing women in droves all over Europe. Mortality rates for new mothers in 1846 were horrific. In some areas the death rate was as high as 30%. Pregnant women would be healthy until the moment of delivery, then suddenly become ill with a worrying number of them dying directly thereafter. Nobody at the time felt the need to investigate this death streak until one “crackpot” obstetrician sought to prevent these unnecessary deaths through the unorthodox strategy of hand washing. He succeeded brilliantly in his efforts, lowering the death rate to nearly zero, only to be hated by the entire medical establishment as a result.

When Ignaz Semmelweis became the chief obstetrician in charge of two maternity clinics at the Vienna General Hospital, he couldn’t believe how many women had dropped dead immediately after childbirth. Unknown to him at the time, Vienna General would serve as the perfect test site for corroborating his hypothesis of infection control.

The primary clinic was a medical school where women were treated by experienced doctors and resident medical students. The second clinic, right next door to the first, offered free medical care to poor women who would often serve as midwives in return for the clinic’s charity.

Vienna General Hospital, 1793, Schaffer

Interestingly, Semmelweis immediately noticed there were considerably more deaths in the ward staffed by doctors and medical students than in the ward staffed by midwives. The lethal culprit was known to the doctors as as Childbed Fever or Puerperal Fever.

Childbed Fever burned through the primary clinic like an un-contained forest fire, but was mysteriously nonexistent in the charity clinic. But how could it be that women in the clinic staffed by experienced doctors and trained medical students died at a rate nearly five times higher than women in the midwives’ clinic?

After rumors began to inevitably reach the general public regarding these horrific mortality rates, women admitted to the primary clinic often begged their doctors for a transfer to the midwife clinic.

Though established medical consensus didn’t seem to think much of it at the time, Semmelweis felt strongly that childbirth should not be killing as many mothers as it was, given that the mortality rate at adjacent maternity ward was only 2%, or 1 in every 50. It wasn’t just hurting the reputation of the hospital, it was killing people who shouldn’t be dying if the doctors were doing their jobs properly.

After all, first, do no harm.

So why did the doctors’ clinic suffer a much higher death rate than the midwife clinic?

Confusingly, the charity clinic was far more crowded than the primary clinic, yet suffered fewer deaths from infection. Both clinics stood right next to each other, yet the infection wasn’t spreading into the charity clinic next door.

The only real difference he could find between the two clinics involved childbirth posture, i.e. women in the charity clinic gave birth on their side while women in the doctor’s hospital gave birth on their back. Semmelweis introduced the charity clinic’s procedure into the primary hospital, along with several other changes, to limit as many known variables as possible. Unfortunately, all of these initial measures had zero effect. Women were still dying in troubling numbers in the primary ward. All of the obvious alterations yielded inconclusive results, necessitating an even more thorough investigation.

Digging a bit deeper, Semmelweis observed how doctors in the primary clinic began their daily schedule in the morgue. They performed autopsies on corpses of women who had died the previous day and prepared those bodies for burial. Then they would move on to treating other patients with infections or diseases before finally arriving at the maternity ward to deliver babies. Semmelweis noticed how dirty their hands were following the morning morgue routine, and was appalled by the staff’s indifference toward filth generally. These doctors’ hands were so disgusting following autopsy that a fowl odor followed them around for the rest of the day, and they never washed their hands before examining other patients. Orthodox medical opinion at the time simply didn’t call for it.

But Semmelweis recognized what seems to us today a relatively obvious pattern, and began to notice how infection spreads patient to patient through physical contact. It seemed evident that the doctors must be carrying something around on their hands from handling dead bodies, and the cross contamination of that filth seemed to spell certain doom for healthy mothers.

But germ theory had not yet caught on in the medical community, so there was no established vocabulary upon which to lay down such outlandish claims. On top of that, the standard procedure at the time for treating Childbed Fever involved bleeding the patient, dramatically accelerating the decline of patients who were barely holding on. Women rarely survived the bleeding, but the doctors kept doing it anyway.

Semmelweis developed and implemented a strict policy of hand washing with disinfectant before every patient contact. He called a meeting to make the entire medical staff aware of his potentially life-saving hypothesis. He appealed to a sense of hygiene as well, urging doctors to simply wash their hands after working in the morgue and to to be more mindful of cleanliness in principle.

They all said he was crazy, but lo and behold, a miracle: the death rate of mothers in obstetrics plummeted to such a statistically significant degree that it constituted a revolution in science. After implementing these procedures the death rate dropped from one in 6, to one in 50. The proof was there for all to see. “Crazy” Dr. Semmelweis turned out to be 100% correct. The simple practice of washing hands and equipment between patients significantly reduced the hospital death rate to practically zero, and did so literally overnight. The cure was discovered. All you have to do is wash your hands.

But the medical fraternity was much less enthusiastic about this discovery. Some doctors felt deeply offended by the suggestion that their life-saving hands could possibly transmit fatal diseases. Semmelweis’ observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time, creating political friction within the institution. The other doctors became irritated with the unintended political consequences that this revolution in science created because it had the effect of removing the spotlight from them, and even vilified them.

Who did this tourist from Budapest think he was to embarrass the entire profession like this?

Semmelweis had crossed a line, and even though it was a line that needed crossing thus saving countless lives as a result, he paid for it dearly nonetheless. His perfectly reasonable suggestions were rejected and ridiculed by his contemporaries who considered antiseptic procedures unnecessarily extreme measures. When they pressed him for an acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, his hands-on evidence could never satisfy their unrelenting skepticism. The direct evidence was too anomalous for the medical bureaucracy, which required peer reviewed and authority approved white papers to be convinced that these drastic changes were indeed necesssary.

The evidence didn’t matter because what Semmelweis was proposing simply couldn’t be true. Tiny, invisible microorganisms were perceived as merely the delusions of crazy conspiracy theory types who will believe anything they hear. And appeals to ethics didn’t work either. Adherence to their Hippocratic oaths didn’t feel to them as though it could apply in this case. Ultimately, his contemporaries refused to believe him on the basis that they simply didn’t like him. He lacked tact and was often curt with others. He had violated laws, not of medicine, but of power.

The institution’s arrogance bewildered him. He couldn’t understand how professional healers could care less about their patients than they did their reputations and careers. An anger began to boil inside him, which only alienated him further. He became so enraged at the medical establishment’s failure to even consider a simple hand washing trial to save lives that he wrote venomous letters to medical journals accusing the doctors of murder, further isolating himself from his peers. In desperation he began passing out handbills in the street telling women to demand that their doctors wash their hands.

Semmelweis’ 1862 Open Letter to All Professors of Obstetrics

Semmelweis was able to finally provide proof of the connection between the morgue and the maternity rooms, albeit at a large cost. His friend and colleague Dr. Jakob Kolletschka was leading a medical student through autopsy procedures when the student accidentally punctured Jakob’s finger with a scalpel. Kolletschka subsequently came down with all of the hallmark symptoms of Childbed Fever before dying of septicemia a few days later. The connection was undeniable, and had cost the medical fraternity one of their own. The evidence seemed overwhelming in Ignaz’s favor.

But it didn’t matter. Ignaz had become a thorn in the profession’s side. He was fired and dismissed from the hospital for political reasons.

After making some very influential enemies, he lost his job and spent years as an unemployed activist trying to spread the wisdom about the effectiveness of hand washing and hygiene throughout the medical system. His advice was largely disregarded by medical authorities and Semmelweis began to deteriorate mentally, possibly from a disease like syphilis or Alzheimer’s, or possibly just from the strain of fighting for years to change a non-cooperative system. In any event, the other doctors returned to doing as they had always done, ignoring the temporarily adopted hand washing protocols between the morgue and obstetrics. And surprise, surprise, the number of mothers dying during childbirth again began to climb. But that didn’t matter to the other doctors and nurses. Dr. Semmelweis had embarrassed them, and filled them with jealousy, which turned out to be far more influential than the evidence right in front of their faces that he was absolutely right. What was true simply didn’t matter.

In 1865, nearly 20 years after his breakthrough, he was committed to an insane asylum in Vienna. He died two weeks later from a gangrenous wound on his right hand from a struggle with guards. Death caused by septicemia; sepsis; blood poisoning. The very disease he had spent his career trying to prevent. A disease typically caused by inadequate sanitation during medical procedures; is this perhaps the very definition of irony, or simply as George Carlin would call it, an “oddly poetic coincidence”?

As Thomas Kuhn has shown in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, an exact measurement of the extent of stupidity among the learned is provided by the fact that every scientific revolution seems to take a generation. This one-generation time-lag seems to be caused by the fact that elderly scientists hardly ever accept a new model, however good it is, and the revolution is only fully accomplished when a second generation, with less prejudice, examines both the new and old models objectively and determines that the new is more useful.

Hagbard Celine, The Abolition Of Stupidity

The affair feels reminiscent of the film Idiocracy, wherein our protagonist Joe explains to the Presidential cabinet of the future that their food crops are all failing because they’re watering them with a sports drink instead of water. The societal assumption of the day has institutionalized the idea that plants “crave” electrolytes, and over time minerals began to gradually build up in the soil until nothing would grow, resulting in a great dust bowl. Joe recognized the connection between the sports drink and the dust bowl, but couldn’t get anybody else to even entertain the idea. After all, everybody knows that the sports drink has “what plants crave.” But even though he was explicitly appointed to his position of fixing the dust bowl on the basis of being the smartest guy in the world, the idea of watering crops with only water just seemed a bridge too far. “Water?” They asked. “Like out of the toilet?” Since nobody had ever seen plants grow out of toilets, Joe’s ideas seemed absurd and offensive. So “after several hours, Joe finally gave up on logic and reason, and simply told the cabinet that he could talk to plants and that they wanted water.

The doctors of 175 years ago weren’t that different from the doctors of Idiocracy’s tomorrow. Most of them smugly assumed they knew what they were doing and expressed the same irrational hostility to new ideas as Semmelweis’ colleagues. The doctors and scientists of the nineteenth century dismissed hand washing as a practice because the invisible boogieman presented seemed ridiculous. Semmelweis’ reformations were interpreted not as necessary advancements in the field of medicine, but as unhinged attacks upon the prestige of the medical profession. This resentment toward innovation constitutes the very definition of an anti-scientific attitude, yet accurately describes the behavior of many scientific professionals.

Rupert Sheldrake exposed the materialist religion of Scientism as an ideology of ignorance that deliberately ignores important evidence to the benefit of multinational agendas and to the detriment of everyone else. Scientism is a belief system faithfully practiced through the lens of “I don’t believe in God, I believe in Science.”

Sheldrake elaborates:

The biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers. The details still need working out but, in principle, the fundamental questions are settled.

Contemporary science is based on the claim that all reality is material or physical. There is no reality but material reality. Consciousness is a by-product of the physical activity of the brain. Matter is unconscious. Evolution is purposeless. God exists only as an idea in human minds, and hence in human heads.

These beliefs are powerful, not because most scientists think about them critically but because they don’t. The facts of science are real enough; so are the techniques that scientists use, and the technologies based on them. But the belief system that governs conventional scientific thinking is an act of faith, grounded in a nineteenth-century ideology…

For more than two hundred years, materialists have promised that science will eventually explain everything in terms of physics and chemistry. Science will prove that living organisms are complex machines, minds are nothing but brain activity and nature is purposeless. Believers are sustained by the faith that scientific discoveries will justify their beliefs. The philosopher of science Karl Popper called this stance “promissory materialism” because it depends on issuing promissory notes for discoveries not yet made.”

~Rupert Sheldrake, The Science Delusion (7, 9)

How far from its original intentions has science deviated that it ceases to practice the scientific method, instead opting to cherry-pick data and proclaim consensus on political bases?

We tend to fancy ourselves as enlightened, free of all of the stupidity of the past. Contemporary minds comfortably ridicule the idiots of yesteryear who simply lacked the enlightenment we enjoy today. The mindset of Scientism tends to reject novel observations, but many of us are unable to see the blatant politicization of science, at all points of history, through a media smokescreen that portrays our institutions as infallible organizations run by incorruptible heroes.

But the truth is that the arrogance of Western Scientism has always existed as an ever-present tax on the free thought of medical professionals. In the 1940’s and 50’s everybody knew that Camel brand cigarettes were recommended by the medical profession, because the advertising of the day proclaimed that “more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” Few questioned the consensus because it seemed inconceivable that the hallowed medical establishment might ever steer us wrong.

And we never seem to learn. Pharmaceutical companies convinced doctors throughout the 1980’s to prescribe methamphetamine for weight-loss, and still, few questioned the consensus.

Throughout the 20th Century, western popular culture hailed the scientific advancements of Monsanto as modern day miracles. And no matter how many people were injured or killed by PCBs, DDT, Roundup, et cetera, contemporary orthodox Scientific opinion consistently legitimized the industry while all third party studies were roundly dismissed by corporate medical journals as “junk science.” Publications that revealed this fact became labeled “fake news” outlets. The journalists and whistleblowers who stepped forward were labelled unhinged conspiracy theorists. Industry-funded studies will always claim that their products are safe because they need to make a profit. And if you want to feel good about using that product, industry cronies have co-opted our regulatory agencies and given themselves stamps of approval. This is how major corporations easily control the dissemination of scientific data to obfuscate obvious truths; with a confusing web of lawyerly lies.

The truth is that human beings as a species have almost always been wrong about almost every single thing that we ever thought was right, for the entirety of recorded human history. Wrong! Wrong! Oops! Fail! Missed again! Get ya next time! Wrong! Earth is flat! Burning witches! Slavery! Reefer madness! They thought Liberace was straight and Bruce Jenner was a man! Wrong! That should be inspiring. Occasionally here and again someone’s right about something, and they have a genius idea, and they’re right. And maybe you have a genius idea. So don’t be afraid to put it out there. Don’t be afraid to be wrong, because that’s what we do.”

~Doug Stanhope

The very idea that there could be an established medical consensus to begin with seems a fickle proposition. Learning has nothing to do with consensus because learning isn’t about agreement. Neither is the scientific method. Universal consensus would be inherently antithetical to the process of science itself, since any claim made by science is supposed to be made with the understanding that it might be falsifiable later, no matter how convinced we are at the time of any absolute or foolproof validity.

But the corporate monolith that has become Scientism deliberately ignores authentic studies performed in accordance with the scientific method because it believes it already has all of the answers, and if the studies don’t align with what the technocrats say is true, our modern establishment rejects them. As Semmelweis was rejected.

Scientism’s Myth of Progress assures us of how stupid people were in the past no matter what period of history it exists within. What’s interesting is how we seem to forget how this phenomenon of ever-present stupidity continues occurring around us all the time in the present moment without us ever noticing. We know that Erin Brockovich happened way back then, but don’t seem to notice the Alberta Tar Sands a few hundred miles to the north of us right now. Are the emotions, ambitions and delusions of laboratory laborers really any different today than they were in the time of Semmelweis, 175 years ago?

The hubris that dominates modern Scientism also echoes the fate of Galileo, when the ball of persecution was still in the Church’s court. His innovative discoveries were viewed by the Vatican as a challenge to political power and thus castigated as blasphemous heresy. And when it finally became obvious that his observations were simply fundamental, the pendulum of persecution started swinging the other direction, giving way to a subjugation and prejudice of an identical, but much more insidious nature. This new subjugation is that of Scientific Materialism, which transforms the method of free inquiry engendered in the original intentions of the scientific method into a dogmatic religion that denounces unpopular evidence that doesn’t align with lucrative political agendas.

The real shortcoming of Scientific Materialism is the belief in one and only one objective reality. A reality that exists “out there” and that we can all agree upon. Right-think. Just like every other fundamentalist religion that has ever existed, Scientism also proclaims itself to be the one true way. True believers of the Scientific dogma believe arrogantly that theirs is the only “correct view” and any perception that challenges or runs counter to this view is useless and laughable. Yet they are unable to see how their mentality is identical to the intolerance of religious fanaticism.

True believers tend to be ignorant, not in spite of their highly specialized training, but because of it. Patterns that seem obvious to many others are dismissed by the institution of almighty Scientism, which relies instead on the pathological neurosis of “coincidence theory” to explain away data that doesn’t fit the proper worldview. In another deviation from the scientific method, Scientism relies heavily upon confirmation bias, the tendency to notice and assign significance to observations that confirm our beliefs, while filtering out or rationalizing away observations that do not fit with our prior beliefs and expectations.

“I believe that the mechanical model for understanding nature is a metaphor that science has got stuck on : this prevailing idea that humans are machines, biological robots with computer-like brains. This belief will, to the advanced species that we are evolving into, seem as absurd as the flat-earth theories that we scoff at now… The time we live in now is similar, because the mechanistic, reductive dogma of “Scientism” – the belief that everything in the world can be explained using the scientific method – is about to be similarly overthrown. There are just too many questions unanswered and unanswerable. Consciousness, the consciousness that is now experiencing these words, has no explanation in science. Scientists believe that matter has no consciousness and that consciousness comes from matter, that 70 percent of the universe is made from dark matter, although they don’t know what that is, what it does, or anything. Just that it’s there. Science requires faith, the way religion does. Science requires acceptance of metaphor, just the way religion does.”
~Russell Brand, Revolution (48, 49)

Many readers are no doubt familiar with a slogan plastered across yard signs and T-shirts over the last few years which proudly proclaim “We believe in science.” But science is not a system compatible with belief. A cursory understanding of the scientific method reveals that science is a system of hypothesis and examination, a system that can only be perverted by such amorphous concepts as belief and faith. A more apt and encouraging slogan might be “We understand science.” However, anyone who drops cash on a sign proclaiming their “belief” in a system that is precisely intended to circumvent the need for belief, likely does not understand science. The slogan itself is inherently self defeating. Nevertheless, such badges are conspicuously displayed as a virtue signaling status symbol proudly proclaiming “My tribe is right.”

In fact, it seems a preexisting superiority complex characterizes those attracted towards materialism as a means to express a deep-seated disregard for others. This complex is attracted to the dogmatism of a Scientific religion as a means to condescend to those regarded as inferior and thus unable to argue with complicated terminology and specialized vernacular. Skeptics are regarded as lacking the superior mental faculties bestowed to our authorities by sanctimonious Scientism. Such individuals are prone to forget that the “Big Bang” is nothing more than another invention of the human imagination.

Terrence McKenna once proclaimed Science’s all-encompassing stance is “Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest,” with the miracle in this case signifying the spontaneous appearance of all existing matter, energy, phenomena and consciousness in a single instant from nothing. “If you can believe that,” Terrence said, “you can believe anything.” It cannot yet be proven, but to even hint at questioning its validity invites accusation of blasphemy against Holy Mother Science, after which you can anticipate ad hominem attacks against your character for going against the orthodox wisdom of the Scientific establishment; just like what happened to Semmelweis. If jealousy and vanity can influence science so readily, what other human follies can influence science?

What makes our society so perpetually certain that we have everything figured out this time?

Establishment hacks have never stopped dismissing people like Semmelweis as paranoid and delusional, even dangerous. Today he would be labeled as suffering from Illusory Pattern Perception, the modern DSM diagnosis for people who are making too many connections. Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers, Jeremy Scahill’s Dirty Wars, and Bethany McLean’s The Smartest Guys In The Room were all based on publishing efforts that were roundly dismissed by establishment authorities as “baseless conspiracy theories.” But large numbers of people are now aware of American troops in Cambodia during the Vietnam War, the existence of JSOC, and the scandals of ENRON, only because of the courageous efforts of these three authors, respectively.

Three things cannot be long hidden; the sun, the moon and the truth. Although Semmelweis’ discoveries were persecuted during his own lifetime, his mark was likewise impossible to erase. Just a few years after his death, the practice of hand washing finally earned widespread acceptance when French microbiologist Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease. Building on the work of Semmelweis, Pasteur completed a comprehensive theory, couched in language that his colleagues could accept. Today we recognize Semmelweis as a pioneer and one of the founders of antiseptic procedures. But authorities at the time were convinced he was a kook.

If science as a discipline is to be practiced ethically, its initiates must retain an inherent suspicion of any and all forms of imposed authority. Experimental evidence shows that authorities throughout history regularly attempt to smear the character of anyone in possession of truths that are corrosive to the existing power structure. Countless innovative pioneers are silenced and ridiculed every day, ultimately on the same basis that Semmelweis was canceled from Vienna; not because they’re wrong, but because they’re unpopular with people at the top.

But sometimes it’s good to be unpopular with the authorities. Semmelweis saved so many lives that he became known to greater society as the “Savior of Mothers.” We don’t respect him because he followed the rules. We don’t remember his name because he fell in line and did as he was told. Today his face appears on coins and posters and his name on streets and libraries because he remained true to the Hippocratic Oath; because he exhibited courage by testing his hypothesis against existing dogma at the expense of his own reputation; because he gave his life in order that others might be saved. We could learn from Semmelweis’ example, put down the slogans and platitudes, question instead of believe, and stand up for what’s right, even if it costs us.

Semmelweis 50 Euro piece, introduced 2008, Austrian Mint

No wonder George Bernard Shaw proclaimed that all great truths begin as blasphemies. Doing what is right is not always popular and doing what is popular is not always right, but history tends to vindicate truth tellers. It wouldn’t kill us to lend an ear to controversial views that authorities deem as objectionable. Quite the contrary, our lives might very well depend on it. After all, according to Aristotle, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it.

Ignaz Semmelweis

The Spirit Of Taking: Fat Cat Miser Nick Checota Attempts to Pull Himself Up By YOUR Bootstraps

Dissatisfied with crippling the local music scene, transplant millionaire Nick Checota now demands Missoula’s charity so he can remain affluent. He appeared in multiple media spots last week to finally concede at last what his TIF opponents saw coming over a year ago: the imminent, systemic financial collapse of the entertainment industry.

“The industry as a whole is in almost catastrophic state right now, said Checota. “And without some support, coming within the next 6-to-8 weeks, you’re going to see venues collapse all over the United States.”

Framing his own financial emergency as a community problem, Nick alleges that Missoula area businesses have collectively suffered an estimated $100 million in losses:

One-dollar on a ticket has $10 of restaurants, bars beverage merchandise — all those different pieces. All of that’s lost,” Checota said.And if you think of Logjam, I mean, we sold $10 million worth of tickets last year. And if you follow that logic it is a huge number that is now absent from the economy and total spending — in total, multiplier.”

But Nick’s self-serving math doesn’t quite add up. Last year local restaurants were shutting down in droves despite record concert sales by Nick’s Logjam Empire.

Long before the economic effects of the pandemic began to manifest, more than a dozen Missoula institutions were forced to shut down due to property tax increases. Those exploding taxes are a direct result of the City’s misuse and abuse of public funds with elaborate Tax Increment Financing schemes that enrich wealthy developers like Checota at the detriment to and expense of the Missoula community. So while readers may appreciate Nick’s simplistic logic, the claim that concert goers are critical to keeping restaurants alive is clearly bogus.

While Checota gloats about how he did a whopping $10 million just in ticket sales last year, he simultaneously implies that anything less than that is unacceptable. But most Missoula businesses didn’t pull in anything close to that kind of profit last year. $10 million is a lot of money in Montana. And that figure, massive as it is already, does not include alcohol sales, which is the real cash cow in Nick’s industry.

Checota’s losses do not equate to Missoula’s losses, no matter how indispensable he thinks he is to the local economy. On the contrary, they signal a possible return to normal. In the absence of high-priced events Missoula’s dwindling local music scene might potentially recover. Local bands could again reclaim a prominent position in the limited attention span of post-pandemic entertainment.

Checota’s insatiable greed has made him a laughingstock of Zoo Town

With every act Nick’s reputation dives lower and lower to the point that the only friends he seems to have left are the local propagandists he pays for his PR spots. Checota has, after all, made a lot of enemies since he arrived in Missoula, and not without good reason. He’s inflicted measurable harm on the Garden City. This harm includes a widely-publicized incident where Logjam literally destroyed the Osprey stadium turf with an overcrowded Mumford and Sons concert (and made Missoula taxpayers pay for the damage), thus prompting litigation by Big Sky Professional Baseball for severe financial losses. But more important and pernicious is the day-to-day metastasis of the Checota Empire and all its affiliate shell companies. Monopolizing Missoula’s live music scene was just the beginning.

Unlike every other venue in town, Checota snubbed local talent in his blind obsession to maximize short-term profits. No public figure is more directly responsible for the evisceration of Missoula’s local music scene than Nick Checota. Missoula used to be home to literally hundreds of bands from every part of the musical spectrum. In fact, Missoula hosted numerous music contests, including the Zoo Music Awards, Sean Kelly’s Top Of The Mic and KbandGA. It’s no coincidence that all of these competitions began to disappear following Checota’s acquisition of the Top Hat. The renovation of that venue transformed 134 Front Street from an iconic Missoula institution into the ominous headquarters for Nick’s pillaging of greater Missoula.

After purchasing the Top Hat in 2012, he bought the Wilma Theater and began driving out competing clubs and local bands. While many avid concertgoers justifiably welcomed the Checota-funded restoration of the crumbling Wilma Theater, the renovation of the historic concert space hasn’t been without drawbacks.

Articles in the Missoula Independent and Montana Kaimin allude to a consistent and annoying theme that emerged at Wilma concerts following Checota’s takeover. Performers, particularly opening acts, are forced to compete with the wall of sound from obnoxiously drunk and absurdly loud concertgoers who drown out the very performances they paid to see. The renovation of the theater space included an expansion and relocation of the bar, allowing concert attendees to get dangerously smashed without having to miss a note of the performance (except, of course, the notes that can’t be heard over their own raucous shouting).

From “Earning An Encore” by Dan Brooks, The Missoula Independent 18 AUG 2016

After the double-whammy of the Wilma and Top Hat put the pinch on various other downtown music venues, Logjam expanded its assault to include a direct offensive aimed at Big Sky Brewing’s limited concert placements. Checota built the Bonner Amphitheater to set his sights on gargantuan high-level touring acts and massive crowds, and when Big Sky expressed concern over Nick’s encroachment, he declared a boycott on Big Sky’s products. He deflected The Knitting Factory’s allegations of “anti-competitive practices” on shady legal technicalities. And on top of it all, he tried to extract more than $16 million from Missoula’s tax coffers to build yet another concert venue on top of his existing three.

And while he didn’t get his fancy events center, he did manage to convince Governor Bullock to give him a million dollars in “relief” this year. Checota’s behavior aligns with that of the super-rich nationwide as he attempts to fail upward. Another initiate of The Art of the Steal.

But perhaps the most revealing indication of Nick’s true feelings about the Missoula community comes through in his handling of our criticism. On facebook, Checota regularly bullies opponents of his projects, regardless of the validity of their concerns:

Life experience? Here’s betting Nick has never experienced the scourge of poverty.

And now Mr. Checota wants help from the community that he’s been fucking over ever since he slithered into town? Doesn’t he know he can’t go around antagonizing and threatening everyone without a single atonement and then ask us for help? Even Ebenezer Scrooge had to repent for his greed and cruelty before receiving redemption, and as you may recall from A Christmas Carol, Scrooge’s act of redemption was to SPEND money from his considerable fortune to help those around him; not stick his head out the window and demand even more money from a passing orphan.

The Missoula locals who expressed skepticism over the feasibility of the Riverfront Triangle were absolutely right in their appraisal of the situation last year. They warned that taxpayer-subsidized condos and theaters constitute the wrong direction in today’s volatile economic climate. And it’s becoming increasingly difficult for the wealthy to ignore that volatility any longer. Yet despite Nick Checota’s abysmal track record and detestable reputation, he still has the temerity to extend his hand out and beg for cash-strapped Missoulians to help line his silk pockets.

Be careful if you decide to drop a dollar in the Salvation Army’s bucket at the grocery store this Christmas. That fat bearded man ringing the bell for your charity could be Nick Checota in disguise.

Despite Logjam’s desperate attempts to depict itself as The Fountainhead at the top of Missoula’s trickle-down economy, of all the business closures in Missoula, Checota’s seems the least important – by far. After all, concerts are a luxury industry, particularly concerts for big-name acts. More to the point, while Nick whines about the music industry this holiday season, tens of millions of Americans are still staring down the barrel of foreclosures and evictions while millions more are packing into food banks just to feed their children. Call me crazy, but big-name concerts don’t seem to top the list of society’s priorities.

But even if all restrictions were lifted and concerts were suddenly allowed tomorrow, which bands are playing the Northwestern circuit right now? Why would any band tour when all the other venues around the country are likewise closing down? What exactly does this Tyrant of Tapas expect locals to do? Choke down some shit food at a dingy restaurant so he can stay in business? Elbow our way through an overcrowded bar so we can pay an absurd markup on locally brewed beers to further enrich this Miser of Moonshine? Drop a whole paycheck’s worth of our hard-earned cash on a single concert so Missoula’s smarmy Sultan of Sound can continue his corporate Jihad against the Missoula music scene? (In fairness, that “Sultan of Sound” joke might be a bit of a low blow, alluding as it does to the alleged shady origins of the Checota fortune from the scandalous activities of the Kuwaiti Finance House, but that’s a whole other Kettlehouse of fish.)

After everything this greedy Wisconsin millionaire has done we’re supposed to lend a generous ear and ask our representatives in Congress for an entertainment industry lifeline? That’s literally what Nick asked for on KPAX. This despite the fact that Checota already has more wealth than most of us could spend in a lifetime and it’s somehow never enough for him. He doesn’t care about the local music scene because he single-handedly kneecapped it. Like many big city types, Nick only cares about his precious money.

But Missoula is not a big city, no matter how much Checota and the other developers and their cronies in City Council want it to be. It’s still a small town. And in a small town, one cannot behave like a corporate scumfuck for very long before that reputation starts catching up with them.

And now, after years of unrepentant skullduggery, the shit chickens are finally coming home to roost. Could there be anyone less deserving of our charity and good will this holiday season than Mr. Checota?

Enjoy your retirement, Nick. Maybe it’s time you learned to code.