Today, I hit a minor milestone (for me, anyway). I now have over one million followers on Twitter. That means in less than two months I went from a yearlong Twitter ban, to coming back on with under a half million followers, to this new milestone (thanks Elon). If you add in GETTR, GAB, and Truth Social, the total sums to 1,658,300 followers. Who cares? Why does this matter?This is an army. We are all or can be PsyWar Soldiers. Twitter is one of our battlegrounds. Twitter has become the domain where political opinion is shaped. Where the boundaries of Overton window are defined, for the US and the world. There is no one "leader" in FifthGen Warfare- this type of modern war requires a decentralized battle landscape. I do not seek to be "the leader" and never have, and I suggest that any who seek that role are (by definition) both not qualified to assume it and intrinsically dangerous to the whole. The logic of a centralized command structure is obsolete, 20th century thinking. We can all be leaders, and we can all be warriors. The success of one on any particularly day does not diminish the success of others or of the overall enterprise. We must all stand together, or if divided we shall hang separately. The more people we reach, the more opportunities we have to wake up the hypnotized, to alert the persuadable middle of the peril faced by themselves and their children. Every voice matters, and if we are aligned we can become a powerful choir which can only be silenced through the most crude, ham-handed censorship methods. Only about 10% of the population in the original thirteen American colonies became active in the War of Independence from a mad British king and his Imperial monarchy, but that was enough. What are we fighting for?We are fighting for free speech, individual sovereignty, national sovereignty, medical freedom; this is a worldwide freedom movement, or a better description might be a Worldwide Freedom Alliance and the objective may be defined as NWOexit (pronounced: noexit). An offramp from the "New World Order" expressway which the WEF, G20 and UN seek to lock us into driving down at breakneck speed. Never forget what they have done to us "for our own good", in the name of public health. Our coalition keeps building. Yesterday, Jill ran the statistics for the Substack readership for the month of January. (Yeh, my wife likes numbers -pretty cool, huh?). Although we had a pretty good "idea" what our viewership is, it was nice to see some hard data. Her summary numbers represent totals of two groups: 1. direct email subscribers and 2. readers from other tech platforms (excluding other news sites and email shares).
Not included in these totals are the are known republishers of our work, which include The Brownstone Institute, USSA News, Daily Skeptic and others (these not included in the total or average views analysis above). When these sites republish, the substack essays probably reach another 200,000 people a day reading via these outlets. Just to say it once again, Jill and I thank every single one of the outlets and organizations who republish our work with attribution to myself and this Substack. We are a free people. A proud people. A hard-working people. We demand to be left alone to live our lives, raise our families, and to worship how we wish. What is most amazing to me about those summary numbers is that Jill and I, working together with a few associates and part time employees, are now reaching more pairs of eyeballs (on average), more daily reads on our Substack essays than CNN had (average) daily viewers for the first week in January (BTW our first week numbers also beat theirs). Let that sink in. With no advertisers, no commercials, almost no staff, no support - Jill and I beat CNN. Some might say, is this a competition? And the answer is - Damn right it is! And yet we have no sponsorship, no advertisements, and almost no outside recognition. On our Substack, we built this viewership without the help of Google and big tech. Worse, they impeded our progress. Most browsers make it hard to find our Substack essays. Facebook, Linked-in censor and shadow ban even my name. For the most part, a Google search using "Robert W. Malone" generates filth and lies. The first Google search page has "National Enquirer" type articles written by the legacy news media in the early days of the Pandemic. They don't update with anything new - just keep the fake fact check articles and smears up front and center. However, we owe a big thank-you to the following aggregators who have highlighted our essays and directed traffic our way:
The resulting modest funding stream is pretty much all that we live on now, and we plow the funds back into our efforts to help the world make sense out of what we have all experienced. After deducting travel expenses, the cost of our part time labor, and the expense involved in continuously upgrading our broadcasting infrastructure, we are left with a modest net revenue stream for a senior physician, similar to what we used to pull in from our consulting business. Jill essentially works as an uncompensated volunteer. So you can appreciate why the accusations of "grift" based on these activities are unjustified, and really just yet more "chaos agent" hate. And the stream of constant hate (much of it grounded in jealousy) is truly amazing. We get up at 5 or 6 AM and start talking, reading, analyzing. We usually stop at 8:00 PM. We like to work - and we are on a mission to save the world. I think everyone who subscribes to this Substack is on that same mission. Last year, we each travelled around 400,000 miles on commercial airlines. We paid out $130,000 to airlines, restaurants and hotels, most of which we were not reimbursed for. Then there are costs of operating a farm remotely. So, we paid a lot, and I mean a lot, to do what we do. But we get so much in return, and we are able to provide our essays with a depth of global insight that I think is important. The travel is both a burden and a blessing. Then there are the podcasts and interviews. I do three to five (sometimes up to eight) podcasts and interviews a day during the weekdays. These podcasts and interviews are really important to get our message out. Those probably reach at least another 200,000 - to (occasionally) 1M people per day, with significant overlap with our social media followers. Green room (prep and casual interview). Main studio So, with the studio now in hand and already broadcasting, I am proud to announce that in March we intend to launch two podcasts a week under the production banner of: The second weekly podcast will be in-depth interviews, discussions, interviews and monologues on current topics, politics, news and cultural trends. The focus on both of these podcasts will continue to be from a US constitutionalist framework, with a particular focus on resisting corruption (including fascism), censorship, propaganda, and supporting sovereignty, Worldwide Freedom and NWOexit being important touch-points. From where I sit, it looks to me like 2023 is off to a great start. I am optimistic that the truth is getting heard. That the numbers are shifting. That people all over the world are finally waking up. Thank you my friends. It will take an army of PsyWar soldiers to win both this battle and the overall War for our freedom, and I am glad to have this group in the trenches with me. Our globalist overlord opponents thought that they could deploy modern military grade fifth generation warfare methods, technologies, tactics and strategies on all of us with impunity. But we are still standing. Damaged by their pathogens, drugs, "vaccines", censorship, gaslighting, chaos agents, lies and intentional efforts to divide us. But still standing. Now is the time for us to walk forward, decentralized but together, towards a bright future that we choose for ourselves and our children rather than the dark, transhuman, forth industrial revolution-driven fusion of man and machine which they seek to shape for us. One in which they believe they can optimize their computer algorithms to finally make a command economy in which each contributes according to their abilities and receives the benefits of that economy according to their needs (excepting the Overlords, of course). Their 21st century Marxist workers paradise. The gross mismanagement and pigs-at-the-trough opportunism of the last three years clearly foreshadow how that will work out if we let them have their way with us. Let's prove them wrong. Let's see if we can transform this disorder into an opportunity to build a Great Awakening that can move us forward towards fulfilling the full potential of the Human Species. A new morning. Together. Beyond resiliency. Antifragile. Never forget what they have done to us, what they continue to seek to do to us. And never forgive what they have done to our children. |
Saturday, February 04, 2023
Fwd: One Million Strong
Wednesday, February 01, 2023
C0V!D Patients Died for Profit
By May 2020, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation with ventilators was a death sentence.1 As early as April 9, 2020, Business Insider reported2 that 80% of COVID-19 patients in New York City who were placed on ventilators died, which caused a number of doctors to question their use.
The Associated Press3 also publicized similar reports from China and the U.K. A U.K. report put the figure at 66%, while a small study from Wuhan, China, put the ratio of deaths at 86%. Data presented by attorney Thomas Renz in 2021 showed that in Texas hospitals, 84.9% of patients died after more than 96 hours on a ventilator.4
The lowest figure I've seen is 50%.5 So, somewhere between 50% and 86% of all ventilated COVID patients died. Compare that to historical prepandemic ratios, where 30% to 40% of ventilated patients died.
Making matters worse, many of the doctors treating these patients were not trained in critical care. One of the "doctors" on the COVID floor was a dentist. Residents (medical students) were also relied on, even though they were not properly trained in how to safely ventilate, and were unfamiliar with the potent drugs used.
At the time, Olszewski blamed financial incentives for turning the hospital into a killing field. Elmhurst, a public hospital, received $29,000 extra for a COVID-19 patient receiving ventilation, over and above other treatments, she said.
If Elmhurst had infection control in mind when ventilating patients, they certainly didn't follow through, as COVID-positive and negative patients were comingled — a strategy Olszewski suspected was intended to drive up the COVID case and mortality numbers.
Others have also highlighted the role of financial incentives. In early April 2020, Minnesota family physician and state Sen. Scott Jensen explained:15
"Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you'll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much."
Former CDC director Robert Redfield also admitted that financial policies may indeed have resulted in artificially elevated hospitalization rates and death toll statistics. As reported August 1, 2020, by the Washington Examiner:16
"… Redfield agreed that some hospitals have a monetary incentive to overcount coronavirus deaths … 'I think you're correct in that we've seen this in other disease processes, too.
Really, in the HIV epidemic, somebody may have a heart attack but also have HIV — the hospital would prefer the [classification] for HIV because there's greater reimbursement,' Redfield said17 during a House panel hearing … when asked by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer about potential 'perverse incentives.' Redfield continued: 'So, I do think there's some reality to that …"
In addition to receiving exorbitant payments for COVID admissions and putting patients on a ventilator, hospitals are also paid extra for:18
- COVID testing for all patients
- COVID diagnoses
- Use of remdesivir
- COVID deaths
- 1 Medscape April 6, 2020
- 2 Business Insider April 9, 2020
- 3 The Associated Press April 8, 2020
- 4, 18, 19 Citizens Journal December 20, 2021
- 5, 12 Wall Street Journal December 20, 2020
- 6, 7 Newswise April 23, 2020
- 8 The Dossier Substack September 30, 2020
- 9 WHO Clinical Management of Severe COVID-19
- 10 WHO Infection Prevention and Control for COVID
- 11 NBC News April 30, 2020
- 13, 20 Substack Popular Rationalism January 23, 2023
- 14 YouTube Perspectives on the Pandemic 2020
- 15 Fox News April 9, 2020
- 16 Washington Examiner August 1, 2020
- 17 Breitbart July 31, 2020
Monday, January 30, 2023
The Most Important Topics of Our Time
One of the most egregious crimes against humanity occurred October 20, 2022, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) unanimously (15-0) voted to add unlicensed COVID-19 shots to the U.S. childhood, adolescent and adult vaccine schedules.5
By adding the shots to the vaccine schedule, the CDC is securing Pfizer's and Moderna's permanent liability shield so that no one can sue them for damages for injuries and deaths occurring as a result of the shots. It also opens the door for states to mandate the jab for school children.
The very same day, Pfizer announced it will raise the price on its COVID jab by about 400%,6 from $307 per jab to somewhere between $110 and $130 once the current U.S. purchase program expires.
Pfizer has forecasted expected revenues into the foreseeable future and they're not going to let real-world market demands dictate its revenue stream. Instead, they're going to make up the difference through price hikes which, ultimately, will be paid by government and insurance companies
- 1 National Review June 14, 2017
- 2 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness captured September 2, 2009 (PDF)
- 3 The BMJ 2010;340:c2912
- 4 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness captured May 1, 2009 (PDF)
- 5 Rumble October 20, 2022
- 6 Daily Wire October 21, 2022
- 7 Reuters October 20, 2022
- 8 New York Times August 31, 2022 (Archived)
- 9 JAMA. 2000;284(4):483-485
- 10 Hopkins Medicine May 3, 2016
- 11 NIH. Medical Error. July 4, 2022
- 12 Food is Medicine Coalition
- 13 Health.gov Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health
- 14 Coreysdigs.com November 22, 2022
- 15 Illinois Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Task Force 2018
- 16 Food Compass
- 17 Tufts Now October 14, 2021
- 18 Twitter Nina Teicholz July 17, 2022
- 19 NPR April 8, 2022
- 20 National Interest April 11, 2022
- 21 Bloomberg March 22, 2022
- 22 NY Fed launches 12-week CBDC pilot program with major banks Nov 15, 2022
- 23 Diabetes 1982 Nov; 31(11): 957-963
- 24 N Engl J Med 1990; 322:223-228
- 25 Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2005, 37, 2047–2063
- 26 Frontiers in Physiology 2019; 10: 533
- 27 Int J Mol Sci June 2018; 19(6): 1672
- 28 Am J. Physiol Cell Physiol March 1, 2020; 318(3): c536-c541
- 29 Physiology February 5, 2020 DOI: 10.1152/physiol.00034.2019
- 30 Indian J. Exp Biol. May 1996; 34(5): 391-402
- 31 Frontiers in Pharmacology August 21, 2020 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.01220
- 32 Allergy Research Group, Melatonin, the Antioxidant Recycler
- 33 Cell Death & Disease 2019; 10 article number 317
- 34 Oncotarget June 13, 2017; 8(24): 39896–39921
Monday, January 23, 2023
Alzheimer's had universally high levels of Aluminum. . .
Monday, January 09, 2023
Billionaires meet in secret to discuss the 'Over-populated world'
Clandestine meetings, involving some of the richest people in the world, to discuss how the world is over-populated sounds like a good plot line for a new book or film, doesn't it? Some of the most powerful people in the world don't sit around a table discussing how to change the future of the planet. That's just a conspiracy theory.
Except it isn't.
Participants to the secret meeting, funded and attended by Bill Gates, included:
- George Soros
- Warren Buffett
- David Rockefeller
- Ted Turner (Founded CNN)
- Eli Broad
- Edythe Broad
- Michael Bloomberg
- Oprah Winfrey
- Peter Peterson
- Julian Robertson Jr
- John Morgridge (CEO of Cisco)
- Tashia Morgridge
- Patty Stonesifer
Odd, I'd want to be home if the richest people in the world were coming over for tea.
Sir Nurse is a British Nobel prize biochemist and, at the time, was president of the Rockefeller University. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for his joint discovery of protein molecules that control the division of cells in the cell cycle. A year later, Nurse became President of the Royal Society in the UK.
He is currently the Chief Executive and Director of the Francis Crick Institute. The Institute works closely with a number of organisations, including the Wellcome Trust and Imperial College London. (Coincidentally, the meeting occurred just as the Swine Flu crisis was kicking off and Mr. Gates was being advised by Neil Ferguson from Imperial College. Yes, that Neil Ferguson. Neil estimated that 65,000 people in the UK would die from Swine flu but in the end it only claimed 457 lives.)
Crick also thought that it is likely that "more than half the difference between the average IQ of American whites and Negroes is due to genetic reasons, and will not be eliminated by any foreseeable change in the environment." He also said "evidence for the equality of different races did not really exist. In fact, what little evidence there was suggested racial difference."
In another letter in 1970, Crick suggested that in an attempt to solve the problem of people who are poorly endowed genetically, "sterilization is the only answer and I would do this by bribery."
Anyway, I got distracted by eugenics, back to the meeting.
It was considered so secret that the billionaires' aides were told they were at "security briefings". Apparently, they didn't want to be seen as a global cabal, so discretion was of upmost importance.
Each participant was given 15 minutes to talk and then they discussed an "umbrella cause" that could harness all their interests. A number of issues were discussed but "taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority".
- Another guest said there was "nothing as crude as a vote" but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat. "This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers," said the guest. "They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming."
With such incredible wealth and with such amazing advancement in technology, the 'Good Club' should be feared. They can pretty much do anything they want and a great example of this is Bill Gates planning to block out the sun by spraying dust into the atmosphere.
For all we know they could all be a bunch of psychopaths or sociopaths (to get to the positions they have means it is quite likely). What if they are and believe the world is over-populated? It is a worrying thought. Surely, if all they were doing was planning on how to save the world, they would be transparent and encourage everyone to help them on their mission.
Perhaps they are part of a group of disparate thinkers that want humans to disappear all together? A recent "The Atlantic" article highlights this issue being discussed by an increasing number of people :
From Silicon Valley boardrooms to rural communes to academic philosophy departments, a seemingly inconceivable idea is being seriously discussed: that the end of humanity's reign on Earth is imminent, and that we should welcome it. The revolt against humanity is still new enough to appear outlandish, but it has already spread beyond the fringes of the intellectual world, and in the coming years and decades it has the potential to transform politics and society in profound ways. |
In the 21st century, Anthropocene anti-humanism offers a much more radical response to a much deeper ecological crisis. It says that our self-destruction is now inevitable, and that we should welcome it as a sentence we have justly passed on ourselves. Some anti-humanist thinkers look forward to the extinction of our species, while others predict that even if some people survive the coming environmental apocalypse, civilization as a whole is doomed. Like all truly radical movements, Anthropocene anti-humanism begins not with a political program but with a philosophical idea. It is a rejection of humanity's traditional role as Earth's protagonist, the most important being in creation. |
Transhumanism, by contrast, glorifies some of the very things that anti-humanism decries—scientific and technological progress, the supremacy of reason. But it believes that the only way forward for humanity is to create new forms of intelligent life that will no longer be Homo sapiens. Some transhumanists believe that genetic engineering and nanotechnology will allow us to alter our brains and bodies so profoundly that we will escape human limitations such as mortality and confinement to a physical body. Others await, with hope or trepidation, the invention of artificial intelligence infinitely superior to our own. These beings will demote humanity to the rank we assign to animals—unless they decide that their goals are better served by wiping us out completely. |
- The revolt against humanity has a great future ahead of it because it appeals to people who are at once committed to science and reason yet yearn for the clarity and purpose of an absolute moral imperative. It says that we can move the planet, maybe even the universe, in the direction of the good, on one condition—that we forfeit our own existence as a species. Both [anti-humanists and transhumanists] call for drastic forms of human self-limitation—whether that means the destruction of civilization, the renunciation of child-bearing, or the replacement of human beings by machines. These sacrifices are ways of expressing high ethical ambitions that find no scope in our ordinary, hedonistic lives: compassion for suffering nature, hope for cosmic dominion, love of knowledge. This essential similarity between anti-humanists and transhumanists means that they may often find themselves on the same side in the political and social struggles to come.
The simple question remains - if this group is an altruistic one, with ethical and virtuous ideals, why the secrecy? Even if it was a mistake at the time, why not come out once the meeting had been discovered and say 'hands up, we met in private for these reasons, probably not the best way to go about it but we are concerned about X and have proposed to do X to solve the problem. I hope you are all onboard and will come up with other ideas to help. This is a global problem so we need everyone on the planet to come up with solutions'.