Only connect; Black History Month; more Fabians; assisted suicide; PSSD again; missing minutes; medical corruption; pharma false claims; pardon; Lucy Letby; public character tests
I gave an example of a relatively easy question from the TV show Only Connect.
And in the footnotes section, I said that:
If you like a challenge, try solving this Only Connect wall, identifying the four groups of four connected clues (solution in the next Updates post if I remember…):
But the more I thought about it, the more it seemed to me that the solution to this particular puzzle was worth a post of its own. Not so much on its own merit, but for what it illustrates about how the mainstream media operates.
So, if you haven’t already done so, try solving the wall — looking up the clues if you need to — and watch this space…
Black History Month
In the Only connect post above, I stated that those who control the media seek to distract us and divide us. And so, not least in the context of February being Black History Month in the US, I thought it worth sharing this thought-provoking clip from an interview with Morgan Freeman (transcript below):
[Interviewer] Black History Month you find…
[Freeman] Ridiculous.
Why?
Do you want to relegate my history to a month? What do you do with yours? Which month is White History Month…? Come on, tell me…
I’m Jewish.
Okay. Which month is Jewish History Month?
There isn’t one.
Oh! Oh! Why not? Do you want one?
No. No.
No, I don’t either. I don’t want a Black History Month. Black History is American History.
How are we going to get rid of racism…?
Stop taking about it. I’m gonna stop calling you a white man. And I’m gonna ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman.
I am reminded of trends in the 2010s:
I wonder what was actually going on? And what the invisible governors were discussing around that time.
We are saying to the government, “You have got to get a grip.” And the government do need to take responsibility for what is happening and the spread of this virus. Keir Starmer, since he became leader of the Labour Party two months ago, has been calling for an exit strategy. What we’ve got now is an exit from the lockdown without a strategy to make it work. And that is really dangerous and very worrying.
Because to ease the lockdown restrictions in a way that is not going to cause a second spike in the virus or local spikes in the virus, we need to have measures in place to keep a grip on the virus, and that is what the government has failed to do.
That is why we are saying today, anyone with symptoms should be tested within 24 hours and get the results 24 hours after that. That local authorities need the data on what is happening locally. The testing data is still not shared in a proper way with local directors of public health. And that makes it very hard for local authorities to put in place measures to control the virus locally.
And this app that you asked… about earlier, the government can’t even say a month on what is happening in the Isle of Wight. We have been saying for some time, look at what other countries are doing around the world… the countries that have the most effective test, trace and isolate strategies, like in Germany or South Korea… They are using different technology, a different app.
The government have had a month now to trial what they thought was the best approach. If it’s not working, be honest about that. Everyone is going to make mistakes, be honest about… it and put in place something that will work. The government said we would have world-beating test, trace and isolate strategy. It would be nice right no just to have an effective one, because we don’t even have that yet.
And this from the Spring 2024 edition of Fabian Review, the quarterly magazine of the Fabian Society:
Reeves has declared her membership of the Fabian Society in the List of Ministers’ Interests. Others who have done the same include the Deputy Prime Minister; the Foreign Secretary; the Leader of the House of Commons; and the Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care; Business and Trade; Science, Innovation and Technology; Scotland; and Northern Ireland.
Reminder: the name Fabian Society was explained in the first Fabian pamphlet which carried the note:
For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless.
Stepping back, if you are disillusioned with LibLabCon, and think Reform would be an improvement, don’t forget that in early 2021 the “anti-establishment” Nigel Farage advocated putting Tony Blair in charge of the covid injections program. And that former leader Richard Tice, who in 2021 was advocating mandatory jabs for care workers, was still in favour of mRNA injections in 2023. How surprising would it be if Reform were to advocate the globalist Trojan horse of Digital ID — which would spell the end of liberty as we know it — under the guise of “tackling illegal immigration”?
…struck a chord, you might be interested in either or both of these articles I have since come across:
[1] Another of Jonathan Engler’s posts
An excerpt:
In the UK, usage [of antidepressants] is also startling. According to this BBC News article “from 2021-22, there was a 5% rise in the number of adults receiving antidepressants - from 7.9 million in the previous 12 months to 8.3 million” (out of a UK adult population of around 60 million).
The “umbrella review” referred to is this. It is published in Molecular Psychiatry, part of the Nature stable of journals, and is open access. The lead author is:
I must admit that, despite me having become cynical about most pharmaceutical products (especially the “blockbuster” drugs like statins and SSRIs), this particular story passed me by. But it is a truly astonishing one…
I often think that the way we approach rare and disabling but poorly understood adverse effects of medical interventions tells us a lot about the priorities of the medical community and who it really serves. If you have the misfortune of experiencing such iatrogenic harm, you are likely to have the further misfortune of being dismissed or disbelieved by medical providers.
Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD) is one such condition. A 2019 study by Healy et al. on patient experiences of engagement with healthcare professionals about PSSD reported:
“While some had received support and validation of their condition, many described a number of difficulties including a lack of awareness or knowledge about PSSD, not being listened to, receiving unsympathetic or inappropriate responses, and a refusal to engage with the published medical literature.”
The minutes published [by the MHRA] cover the ten months from August 2020 to May 2021, but the minutes from meetings from the subsequent two years remain unpublished, more than 18 months after the last of those meetings.
There have been two significant developments:
The remaining meeting minutes were published on 19th December:
And then all the minutes were withdrawn on 18th January:
The context is described here by MP Esther McVey, who has published “the full minutes” — complete with redactions — on her website (scroll down at the same link).
McVey’s comments in the 16th January debate on the need for reform of the MHRA can be watched here. She has also raised a point of order and tabled a Parliamentary written question to ask why the minutes have been withdrawn, but has not received any substantive response at the time of writing.
On a related note, I recommend:
[1] This article from Sonia Elijah in relation to the recent discussion at the UK covid inquiry about how the so-called Pfizer vaccine that was given to the public was made by a completely different manufacturing process from the one used in the clinical trials (which were fundamentally suspect in their own right):
What most people are shocked to find out is that the vaccines that you took never went through a clinical trial.
They did a big bait and switch.
They actually manufactured these vaccines [for the trial] using PCR. They could do that for 44,000 people. When they had to actually scale this up for production they decided that step was too expensive. They ripped it out and they used the DNA coming straight out of E. Coli. That comes along with some endotoxin and all this other DNA...
Normally in any pharmaceutical manufacturing process the process is the product. You change the process [and] you go through the trial again. And in fact the EMA… asked them to go though another trial with 252 patients and they never delivered the data and they decided it was too late to matter because they had already injected everybody. So what was the point on doing that trial on the vaccine [that] they never really did a trial on?
…it’s worth remembering — and reflecting on — the obvious fact that doctors and scientists are human beings. As such, they are susceptible to the same incentives as anyone else: money, status, career, power etc.
And so it should thus not surprise us to see corruption in the realms of science and medicine.
This is not new of course. It has been going on for a long time, as described in this post:
But it does appear to have got worse in recent years. I was recently reminded of two notable quotes:
In 2009, Marcia Angell, a US doctor, author, and the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of the once-respected New England Journal of Medicinewrote:
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 editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.
And in 2015, those remarks were echoed by a statement from Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, another once-respected research journal, who wrote:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
Does anyone seriously think that things have improved in the last ten years?
Moreover, the indications are that things are getting worse. And that whole studies are being fabricated to give the desired outcome. If that sounds far-fetched, try reading this recent article from a medical whistleblower:
How do we restore trust? Well, a good start would be to require anyone submitting a study for scientific publication to provide (anonymised) raw data that is open to public scrutiny.
Some acknowledgement and apologies might also help.
…in the context of which I noted with interest that Anthony Fauci, who led America’s covid response, and was Biden’s chief medical office during the covid era, has been given a pardon…
…the second of which features some of those who for a while have been courageously pushing back against the Lucy Letby verdict, I noted with interest this recent comment from Dr Shoo Lee, a top neonatal doctor reporting on the case:
We did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care... In our opinion… the medical evidence doesn’t support murder in any of these babies…
A question:
If our invisible governors wanted to discredit, and ultimately dismantle the jury system — e.g. in favour of expert panels — what strategies might they consider…?
One of the benefits of the last 10 years has been the number of widespread character tests.
Public tests of gullibility, courage, critical thinking, complicity, authoritarianism, and other traits.
Everyone participated in the experiments too.
As I see it, those character tests are far from over.
Thank you for reading. You are welcome to subscribe for free to receive new posts.
