WADE FRAZIER : A Healed Planet

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Let me clear out my COVID links. When will I stop writing about it? Probably when it stops being headline news every day and I am not facing the specter of forced vaccination to live my life. I cannot remember another event that dominated the news for this long. 9/11 and the “war on terror” coverage were sporadic, depending on who we were invading. Just now, I hit Yahoo!, and this was the headline, on Russia’s COVID situation. Interestingly, Putin is more about the freedom to choose to be vaccinated than Biden is, in The Land of the Free.

Yahoo! has a new feature, of a weekly AP article that debunks “fake news,” and this week’s offering is almost all about COVID. As I wrote about conspiracism recently, much of what makes the conspiracist rounds is gossip and disinformation, and AP is having a field day debunking it. It sure would be nice if AP’s debunkery extended to the lies in the mainstream media. Ed’s last article published to the Internet was about 100 years of fake news on Russia, as its punching-bag status has been revived in the past decade. I see articles on Asian nations and COVID (1, 2), and it is all about vaccination. There are articles on American COVID hot spots, and what the variants mean.

Before the vaccines even came out, astute voices warned that the vaccinated would jump on another vaccine treadmill, and that is in fact happening today (1, 2, 3), as the cheap form of quasi-immunity that vaccination confers quickly wears off, while the war on Ivermectin continues. In Israel, a third shot is now mandatory to retain vaccinated status, and a fourth shot is on its way. The mainstream finally published an article on Pfizer’s bullying tactics with the world’s governments over its vaccine, but it was public information about three months ago. The mainstream always drags its feet on issues like that.

I was surprised to see this relatively balanced article at Yahoo! on people who will quit their jobs rather than get vaccinated, and the article focused on a nurse. Of course, it came from a Medford newspaper, not the big media. Similarly, the Washington Examiner is a conservative publication, and Yahoo! runs some of their articles, such as how Biden’s vaccination mandate will seriously harm businesses, and companies are balking, as they cannot afford to lose employees who refuse to be vaccinated. A fired football coach in my home state plans to sue. But articles like those are the rare exceptions.

Many articles at Yahoo! take on the “anti-vaxxers” (1, 2, 3). Some articles from the right will run articles on how Fauci misled Trump on his role in gain-of-function research, for instance, but more are about Fauci’s defending himself (1, 2). We’ll see what mainstream coverage RFK, JR.’s book on Fauci gets next month, but I predict that it definitely will not be some kind of watershed moment in the media. The Boston Globe never reviewed anything by South End Press when it was in business, and favorable reviews of RFK Jr.’s book will likely be rare in the mainstream.

Colin Powell was one of the greatest war criminals in the 21st century, and definitely made his criminal dent in the 20^th century, going back to Vietnam. I wrote that his COVID status was unremarkable, and was not really interesting to me, but it has created a small media firestorm (1, 2) among the hagiographic tributes to Powell that are pouring in. This is how our world works: criminals get hagiographies, while the true saints are smeared.

So, that is what the mainstream media served up. As usual, RFK Jr.’s site is my primary clearinghouse of information that the mainstream won’t report or twists, and I am well aware of that sites’ bias, too, but it is far less biased than the mainstream is.

In Israel, some are fighting back against the vaccination insanity, calling Israel’s citizens the “lab rats of the world.” There is far more fighting back in the USA than is being reported, such as in aviation and healthcare (what do they know that the rest of us don’t?), the police, a rally in New York and elsewhere, and by Florida’s governor, while MDs risk their careers for bucking the government narrative. The Nebraska attorney general called out the federal government for its war on early treatments such as Ivermectin and HCQ. Rand Paul called for a criminal investigation into Fauci (the USA’s highest-paid federal employee), and took on the HHS’s head for denying natural immunity (here are 81 studies that show how effective it is). This so-called supply-chain problem is being used to coerce Americans to get vaccinated, and the government seems to be running a PSYOP against the American people, creating a vaccination cult, which is one reason why I am somewhat sympathetic to “technocracy” concerns. It almost seems conspiratorial.

Not only has Pfizer strong-armed governments, it is raking in money hand over fist. The race is on to vaccinate children, who are at minimal risk from COVID, but even the FDA is putting the brakes on, at least a little. As I have written plenty, it seems that the vaccines are causing vascular damage, such as the blood clots that killed this woman. What you are not seeing in the media is that the highest level of vaccine hesitancy is at the PhD Level.

As I wrote, Merck’s new pill is more than 1,000 times as expensive as Ivermectin, which Merck also invented. Ivermectin’s patent ran out, so it is a generic drug, and nobody will pay to go through the FDA approval process for using it for COVID. The issue is purely about money. As I have long stated, capitalism and medicine make very poor bedfellows. Only the arrival of the Fifth Epoch will cure this evil state of affairs.

I am attaching two Mercola articles. One is on how vaccination and COVID levels appear unrelated across the USA and world, and the other asks if the vaccines are causing mortality rates to rise.

I think that the medical racket can sell anything to the public (just like the food processors can), no matter how ineffective and deadly (1, 2), and they will line up for it. But, it is really easy to bury the chronic effects of their interventions, such as fluoridation and vaccination, and the public is never the wiser. Heaven forbid that people wean themselves off of processed food and get healthy. That would collapse the racket, and as I always say, these situations are 1% conspiracy and 99% complicity.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

The decks are cleared of personal projects, and today I start back on my essay work, after not writing on it for several months. I have been studying, however, which will be reflected in the essay work. First up is my fair hearing essay, which I plan to publish this year. Then, it is off to my big essay update. That will take all of next year, at minimum. It will be a very ambitious update, maybe the most significant revision that I will ever make to it. After that, it will be revising my entire site to align with the big essay revision. A book is planned to follow that. And then, I will embark on some serious choir-building effort, with a lot more public visibility in mind. We’ll see how those plans work out. I estimate a few years of work for that, five at the most.

I am such a fool when stating that I will slow down my posts, and events keep spurring me to write about them. It is mind-boggling, even to me, regarding how many subjects that I write about. But that comes with the comprehensive territory. But I am going to try really hard to slow down on the public posting, and see if I can mostly post up essay drafts. We will see how that goes.

This post will be a retrospective of my writings since the beginning of 2020.

On New Year’s Eve, as 2019 turned to 2020, I made some predictions on what lied ahead, and it turned out to be an understatement.

As I look back at the nearly two years since then, here are some of the topics that I wrote about:

• I wrote about my dear friend, Brent, whose death still devastates me.
• I wrote about the passing of Ralph McGehee and my editor, Pam Hanna – they had good runs. I wrote about my pal Steve Meyers, who may have been a casualty of this journey.
• I wrote about the NASA Nazis. I was contacted by a university professor about my NASA Nazi writings, and I am considered some kind of expert in some corners on the subject, but I am just a space brat whose life has had many intersections with those Nazis, and I’ll probably always be dealing with that aspect of my life.
• I documented key events in my life.
• I wrote about the cast of characters of my journey, including the heroes and villains.
• I’ll probably always write about the JFK hit, and I made a thread on its relationship to the CIA, ETs, and free energy.
• I wrote about the human afterlife and the journey of our souls.
• I made an update to Ed’s bio, and published a new essay on Wikipedia and the Propaganda Model. I may always write about Ed. It comes with the territory of being his first and so far only biographer. I have had to study more of Noam’s work as part of that project.
• I wrote about so-called history and related topics, especially the lies that abound in the USA, particularly around our repeated and continuing genocides.
• I have written about many social trends in the USA, such as identity politics, the highly regressive laws being passed in Texas and elsewhere, police brutality and battles with the cops.
• I have written a great deal on this so-called pandemic, and likely will until it finally stops impacting my life, if it ever does. I have been writing about vaccines for more than 20 years, but the subject has gained new salience lately. The medical and media rackets have gone into high gear.
• 2021 is probably the last year that anybody can honestly deny Global Warming, and we are likely just getting started on it. Global Warming deniers today must be considered idiots, insane, or dishonest. The fire seasons are insane now in my home state, and that record-shattering heat wave was very ominous.
• I wrote about the billionaire “philanthropists” who are going to save the world!
• I was working on my big essay update, before events waylaid me.
• I finally identified that libelous essay on Dennis that has been a thorn in my side for 20 years. Its continued popularity, particularly amongst people in the free energy field, highlights the field’s state of arrested development and why I don’t want to have anything to do with the field today.
• I began several threads on the subject that really interests me the most: helping manifest the arrival of the Fifth Epoch, such as the issue of human consciousness, reaching financials bloggers and the left, managing the attendant risks, and why I can’t appear in all-comer’s forums, as the trolls swarm me.
• This past year, I have been doing a lot of study on the Scientific and Industrial revolutions, and those topics will be among the first that I deal with in my essay updates, and there is a lot of ground to cover with them, including the current state of science.
• And, as always, I wrote plenty about hiking! 2021 has been the second-best hiking year of my life, and it looks like I am going to have 30 good years ahead of me, of hiking and trying to make a dent.

Some of those threads are largely wrapped up, but some have only begun.

I am putting my head down now and working on my fair hearing essay, but in the coming weeks, I am going to address some of those topics above.

OK, time to get to work!

Best,

Wade

[Reinhard]

Wade, ...........Noam must be out of his mind...... or is this consistant with his take on 9/11?
Just listen to this:https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/new...ideo-v236b20a8
Reinhard

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Reinhard:

Your link does not work. If you are referring to his stance on the unvaccinated, I plan to write about that one day. Noam is very orthodox in many of his stances.

I found it, here. Noam and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues.

Best,

Wade

[Reinhard]

Hi Wade,
sorry my link didn't work....glad you found it anyway.
Yes, I'm referring to his remark about gulaging the unvaxxed and let them starve to death.
For me orthodoxy doesn't include cynical left/right fascism.
Best regards, Reinhard

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Reinhard:

Noam did not say anything in that video about letting people starve to death, and even said that they should not be forced into isolation. That idea of starving to death came from the far right, I believe, in their standard tabloid style. Noam’s position is actually very reasonable, if you accept that the unvaccinated pose some kind of threat to society. I don’t accept that idea, but Noam understandably does, along with most of the rest of Western societies.

I am currently reading this book, as well as this one. Virus Mania is a bit uneven, and I’ll have more to say when I am finished, but it takes on the entire germ theory of disease, for starters. I have long written that I am open to the idea that the germ theory is flawed and may well be invalid. Virus Mania makes the case for it, and a pretty strong one, IMO.

I didn’t want to discuss it right now, but since you brought it up, I will a little. If you study Ed and Noam’s Propaganda Model, it is a structural model, which means that the structure of how society operates produces the outcome, without there needing to be any kind of conspiratorial activities. Ed emphasized in later writings that the Propaganda Model did not preclude conspiratorial elite activities to manipulate the media, but noted that they were not really needed to explain most of how the media functions. That is along the lines of my statement that these situations are 1% conspiracy and 99% complicity. I saw it in the free energy field, first, before I ever heard of Noam and Ed. Later, I began seeing it in all areas. The enemy is us. The radical left still blames the elites for our situation, as the right does. It is only their emphasis that is different. The left tends to see it as 100% structural and 0% conspiratorial, and the right tends to see it as 100% conspiratorial and 0% structural. Both camps miss the boat of how our world really works.

I am onboard with structural analysis, but I also bore the brunt of global conspiratorial activities, so I know that those conspiracies exist, and they have an important, if minor, impact. The GCs are real, not a figment of fevered conspiracist imagination, but they are not going to come into the open and announce themselves. Hiding in the shadows is an understandable strategy for what they do, and you won’t encounter them unless you do stuff that threatens to upend the rackets, as we did, rather unwittingly, I might add. Dennis thought that he would get the tickertape parade, as have others. Where the left misses the boat is denying that important conspiratorial activities even happen. That is a matter of faith amongst many in the left, which is ironic, as they are supposedly clear-thinking scientific types with a healthy amount of skepticism toward officialdom. As I have long written, structuralists and conspiracists tend to have lopsided thinking, which is rooted in fear. Love is always the answer.

Noam does not deny that conspiracies exist, and stated that MLK was likely killed by a high-level conspiracy. In his Rethinking Camelot, Noam stated that JFK may well have been taken out by a conspiracy, but that the CIA was not motivated to be involved. Well, Noam is wrong about that, IMO, but I can understand why he feels that way. Ed, on the other hand, was onboard with the idea that JFK was taken out in a conspiracy.

On 9/11, Noam took the position that the Bush administration would not have been involved with 9/11, as it was fantastically dangerous for them to. Well, I understand that, too, and am sympathetic to that idea, although plenty about 9/11 smells funny. I have the benefit of having a friend who knew three weeks after the JFK hit that Oswald did not do it. That gave me one hell of an advantage over almost everybody else who peeks into the JFK hit issue, and Gary’s testimony was always my center-of-gravity when I studied the JFK hit evidence. Testimonies such as Doug Caddy’s were just icing on the cake. If not for Gary’s testimony, my JFK work would likely be pedestrian, and I would be far less certain today of what happened. You can take it to the bank: Oswald did not do it.

As Noam was one of the first Vietnam protestors, and helped lead the resistance in the USA, I get his take on how the JFK administration began the escalation that LBJ completed (which did not end until Ford). However, there was a big difference between the JFK administration and JFK himself. JFK was constantly battling his Strangelovian hawk advisors. As one pal who studied the Cuban Missile Crisis told me recently, if it had been any other president besides JFK, we would have had a nuclear holocaust in 1962. JFK was a lukewarm imperialist and capitalist, for various reasons, and for that, he had to go.

In Noam’s excoriations of the JFK administration, I have never seen him discuss how JFK was very friendly with the Non-Aligned Movement, his stance on Africa was diametrically opposed to Eisenhower’s, his Alliance for Progress was at least an attempt to use the carrot instead of the stick on Latin America, and similar topics. Again, that is a big issue that I don’t have time to discuss right now, but JFK the man was not nearly the imperialist that Noam thinks. JFK tried in earnest to end the Cold War, and that was the final straw in taking him out, Allen Dulles led the cover-up of JFK’s murder, and set the pattern for all such investigations, all the way to the 9/11 commission. All such American government “investigations” are farces from the outset.

Anyway, this is a big topic, and because Noam is a scientist, he has a faith in what I’ll call retail science, or “white science,” that I do not share, so he is onboard with the orthodox perspective of this so-called “pandemic” and the vaccination response. It is a misguided stance, IMO, but I am actually sympathetic to it, as I am with all who drink the Kool-Aid, whatever flavor it is. Noam is a man of his time, like we all are, and he has his limitations, like we all do, but the right has called him a “left gatekeeper” and other terms, which are wacky ideas, IMO. Noam has always been highly consistent with his positions, not all of which I share. Nobody is going to agree with me on everything, too, and I have my own limitations.

I’ll finish by stating that I understand Noam’s positions, if I don’t always agree with them (he had a little falling out with Ed late in their lives, as Ed took on the imperial “liberals,” which Noam thought “divided” the left), but the representation that he advocates starving people to death is tabloid right stuff, and on a different planet. Noam is usually smeared far more by the so-called “liberals.” The right’s zaniness he pretty much ignores, because it is way out there, and I get it.

Best,

Wade

[Reinhard]

Hi Wade,
thank you for your elaborate answer and fair argumentation.
I agree that he seems consistent within his "retail science" frame of mind, which leads him to say that unvaxxed people should isolate themselves (not: being gulaged by the powers) and be responsible for their own accomodations. This consistency gives me the shivers, though. I guess, that's because I grew up in a country, after the war, but still infiltrated with inhumane Nazi-ideology AND its inhumane communistic counterpart right across the border. ---- Believe me, 'they' are already suggesting to force unvaxxed people to label themselves!
And yes, you are right, 'they' consist of 1% powerholders and 99% people at the grocery markets etc.

Well, seems like I, finally, found a topic I don't quite agree with you

Best regards, Reinhard

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Reinhard:

I think that I made it clear that I don’t agree with Noam’s position that the unvaccinated are some kind of threat to society, but if that is his premise (which is the official premise), then I understand his position. It is like saying that people should not be allowed to walk down the street, with guns in hand, and begin shooting at random targets.

As Noam is Jewish, this is one of the many areas where he could be considered one who did not learn the Holocaust lessons, as you suggest, such as when he defended Faurisson’s freedom of speech. Noam has taken all sorts of unpopular positions in his lifetime, and I like I wrote, I sure don’t agree with everything he says. About the only time that Noam is in the mainstream media is when he says something that the Establishment wants the public to hear, like every four years, when Noam makes the rounds stating, “Vote Democrat.” So, I see his pandemic statements as being blown way out of proportion, as usual, and Noam is sure not going to influence any government policy.

Noam has advocated violence before, as many big guns on the left have, and I shuddered when I saw that. Ed never did, and that is one reason why I am his biographer. The fact is that Noam did not advocate starving people to death, which you asserted. He suggested something like imprisoning them. Well, I have kind of been in prison since March 2020, as have many millions of others.

Noam is not going to waver from his orthodox perspective on the pandemic and vaccination, as he drank that Kool-Aid long ago. That is one reason why I don’t try to enlist him for the choir.

Best,

Wade

[Dennis Leahy]

Hi Wade,

Your loyalty to Chomsky (the present) is honorable, but unfortunately misplaced. With the clip that Reinhard mentioned and the warmongering duet Chomsky did with Amy Goodman (an evil wolf in sheep's clothing, a traitor to the people) where he showed that he had fallen hook, line, and sinker to the American Empire imperialist propaganda about Syria and especially Assad, shows objectively that the current manifestation known as Noam Chomsky is now a doddering, possibly unwitting, disintegrating, quasi-intellectual-sounding apologist for the propaganda that he once exposed.

People change. Evolve. Devolve. Noam Chomsky (past) wrote and said some important truth, exposing linguistic/lexicon appropriation and twisting, exposing think-tank-refined propaganda. However, even back then, if memory serves me, he never really named names, always spoke in nebulous terms about the people and the agenda behind the propaganda. He stayed safe even then (though I respect what he showed us.) That guy doesn't exist any more, as is obvious if you listen to him in the last several years. The Chomsky that you are referring to in your writing has devolved into a caricature of himself.

The imperial warlords behind the real deep state curtain, the sociopathic militarists that have controlled a steady agenda of US-led imperialism (geo-strategic as well as resource-based imperialism) disguised as foreign aid, from one US presidential administration to the next US presidential administration - for at least the last 80 years - had to be thrilled to have Chomsky on-air echoing Israel's and US Empire's bullsh!t accusations about Assad and Syria. What a coup for the bad guys, to break down Mr. Propaganda Model Exposer into a US Empire propagandist! And now, he's not intelligent enough to realize that the "vaccine" doesn't confer immunity and those who refuse it (like me) he calls a danger to society. Sorry. He's done. I hope when you refer to this (now) creep, this imperial tool, that you'll refer to Chomsky 1.0, because Chomsky 2.0 is not the same guy - and not someone to "hitch your star to."

(I wasn't sure I should post this publicly or not, but I have felt for a while that your frequent mentions of Chomsky dilute, or rather pollute, your BIG message. I have such a huge respect for you, as well as a belief in what you are trying to accomplish (5th Epoch), that I feel like I have to do all I can to support you and your credibility. Publicly supporting Chomsky 2.0 for what Chomsky 1.0 said a long time ago isn't helping establish credibility. Love ya, bro!)

[DASDBIL]

All I know for sure is that Chomsky is now very close to being 93 years old (born 7 DEC 1928). Sooner or later his brain will begin misfiring on some subjects, as will mine and everyone else's. Perhaps it is time for this one ascended master to keep his mouth shut and fingertips away from the keyboard, but as you (Wade), anything he might utter when seriously out to lunch that agrees with the STATE's agenda will be seized upon as more propaganda for the STATE. He retired from MIT a few years ago, moved to Arizona, began teaching at Arizona State University's linguistic department, and also became remarried some time in these same last few years. His first wife died about 10 years ago, I think. I am still reading things for my first time that he wrote long before now; e.g., I am almost finished now with the Fateful Triangle, first published around 1983. I haven't found anything in this excellent book yet that makes me wonder about his mental fitness. I close with my latest email auto-signature:
Instead of complaining about all the current turmoil, we should be thankful that we who are alive today have the rare opportunity to witness first-hand the end of the world's mightiest empire and the death of the entire Western Civilization!  Think of the amazing stories we'll be able to tell our grandchildren! (if any of us lives that long).

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Dennis:

I admit that I have not paid a lot of attention to Noam in recent years, so I watched this. That’s the Noam I know, the 1.0 version (I hope that I look better at age 92, if I get there ). I strongly suspect that your Noam 2.0 is a fantasy, but you are welcome to try to change my mind, and please do it on this thread, where you made your charges. I have watched Noam and Ed get smeared for many years, and Ed is being posthumously smeared at Wikipedia.

If you want to change my mind, it has to be from Noam’s actual words, in context, not what someone said that Noam said, or some creative interpretation of what he said. Noam has always been an artful and ironic speaker, which he does in that interview with Chris Hedges. You might notice that it is on Russian TV, as Noam is rarely interviewed in the American mass media. Noam can be so artful and subtle that people often don’t get the point of what he said, and then misrepresent his words to attack him.

On Syria, I found this and this and this. That still looks like Noam 1.0 to me.

Best

Wade

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
Hi Dennis:

I admit that I have not paid a lot of attention to Noam in recent years, so I watched this. That’s the Noam I know, the 1.0 version (I hope that I look better at age 92, if I get there ). I strongly suspect that your Noam 2.0 is a fantasy, but you are welcome to try to change my mind, and please do it on this thread, where you made your charges. I have watched Noam and Ed get smeared for many years, and Ed is being posthumously smeared at Wikipedia.

If you want to change my mind, it has to be from Noam’s actual words, in context, not what someone said that Noam said, or some creative interpretation of what he said. Noam has always been an artful and ironic speaker, which he does in that interview with Chris Hedges. You might notice that it is on Russian TV, as Noam is rarely interviewed in the American mass media. Noam can be so artful and subtle that people often don’t get the point of what he said, and then misrepresent his words to attack him.

Best

Wade

I tried in vain before to find the video that I watched, that had Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky waxing on about Assad the evil dictator. Maybe someone more astute than me at searching can find that video. The other example I cited was the video linked above, where we see a man who is unable to discern the truth that the covid-19 "vaccine" doesn't confer immunity. I don't think he faking it, he's really totally ignorant on the subject. Nothing artful or ironic there. He doubles down on his lack of discernment (and lack of even a modicum of research, which you'd think someone aware of corporate propaganda might do) by then cogitating that the lepers should all go quietly to the leper colony, and society's police would only use force if they don't volunteer. I'm sorry, it's indefensible from someone held up to be intelligentsia. You're kinda giving him the 'he fixed my bike chain when I was a kid' sort of pass. I'm not here to put on a tear-down on him. He has already "outed" himself as a supporter of Israel and belief in a "Jewish State", shrugging off the Palestinians upon whose land the "state" of Israel is occupying. So, his badmouthing Israel's enemy (Syria and Assad) is predictable, but just because it's predictable, it's still heinous. As I said, he did good work - before. If you or someone can find that FULL clip of him and Goodman, so you'll hear exactly what I heard about Assad (and it was after we knew that the White Helmets were intelligence contractors and that the "gas attack on his own people" ruse had already been proven false), and you still don't see what I'm saying then I'll just drop it. It's a distraction from your work anyway. I'm probably an idiot for trying to defrock someone you have held as heroic for so long. As you have said, there's almost no one with integrity, so why should I be surprised to discover a lack of it (or paucity of it) in anyone. It really doesn't matter in the big picture.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
I tried in vain before to find the video that I watched, that had Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky waxing on about Assad the evil dictator. Maybe someone more astute than me at searching can find that video.

Here it is:

• “The Assad Regime is a Moral Disgrace”: Noam Chomsky on Ongoing Syrian War
  https://democracynow.cachefly.net/de...0.0&end=1874.0

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Dennis:

I added the clips to my post, one of which is what you were referring to, I believe, on Assad. Noam does not shrink from calling Assad a war criminal, just as he does not shrink from calling Saddam Hussein or every American president one. He does not cater to any national leaders. He shrugs off the Palestinians? Noam has never done that that I have seen or heard of. He has constantly taken on Israel, as Ed did, particularly over its treatment of Palestinians.

Dennis, I have seen nothing of substance on Noam becoming Noam 2.0 other than he does not veer from the orthodox position on COVID, which I will write more on. One of the clips I linked to had Noam discuss the suppression of the evidence that Syria did not mount a chemical attack. I really don’t know where you get your “imperial tool of the USA and Israel” ideas from. I have never seen anything, ever, that remotely supports such a charge, and that is the opposite of the stance I have always seen Noam make.

Best,

Wade

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
Hi Dennis:

I added the clips to my post, one of which is what you were referring to, I believe, on Assad. Noam does not shrink from calling Assad a war criminal, just as he does not shrink from calling Saddam Hussein or every American president one. He does not cater to any national leaders. He shrugs off the Palestinians? Noam has never done that that I have seen or heard of. He has constantly taken on Israel, as Ed did, particularly over its treatment of Palestinians.

Dennis, I have seen nothing of substance on Noam becoming Noam 2.0 other than he does not veer from the orthodox position on COVID, which I will write more on. One of the clips I linked to had Noam discuss the suppression of the evidence that Syria did not mount a chemical attack. I really don’t know where you get your “imperial tool of the USA and Israel” ideas from. I have never seen anything, ever, that remotely supports such a charge, and that is the opposite of the stance I have always seen Noam make.

Best,

Wade

Yes, you found the clip, Wade. (and Bill too) The first one you linked, Wade. (Maybe when I saw it it was live or very recent, and it had not yet been uploaded to youtube. I could not find it on the Democracy Now website, youtube, or anywhere else, when I went looking months later.)

It's not nuanced. It's very direct.

In context, the US Empire's imperial machine was in the process of framing Assad, the CIA had created and was arming Isis and alQaeda - an actual moral bankruptcy - that were actually killing Syrians, and the US Empire Imperial Force wanted absolution for destroying Israel's regional enemy, Syria, and its president, Assad. The (MI6?) dance troupe known as the White Helmets had just performed a fake gas attack to blame on Assad, but were immediately outed by on the ground observers and the ruse was busted wide open when the OPCW inspectors wouldn't play along. Now, cue the talking "liberal", to back the US Empire up.

So, when the US imperialists need a recognized member of the intelligentsia to support the US imperial agenda of regime-changing ("soft assassinating") Assad, get 'ol Noam to underscore the US Empire's accusations. And you don't see that as heinous? Why do you think they filmed and broadcast Noam's accusations? Why Noam? Why not one of the scores and scores of right-wing war-hawks on their propaganda team? Because then it appears to come from "the Left", of which Noam is supposed to be. You don't see the power of using Noam, echoing the imperial agenda? Do you think Noam doesn't know it too?

As I said, I'll drop it now. Apologies for the disruption to your thread and distraction to your mission.

[Reinhard]

Sorry, Wade...........I didn't mean to disrupt your work with my intermezzo on Noam. His take on the unvaxxed just struck me 'out of the blue', because I had admired his steadfastness in his earlier years, and I hadn't followed him nearly as close as you have.
So, I suggest: back to more important topics.
Reinhard

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I see that I need to do this. Those that I seek can understand this. I am the only accountant that I ever heard of who has publicly challenged the central conceit of my erstwhile profession. People almost always defend their in-groups or overlook their flaws. That comes with being a social animal in a world of scarcity and fear. Very few educated white American men have ever written anything like this or this or this or this or this or this, and probably nobody has ever done all of them. I am holding my profession, race, sex, and great nation to account. I am a freak. Dennis is one in billions, Brian was similar to me on the freak scale, and those in my pantheon were all freaks, to one degree or another. People who really care, who want to do the right thing, even if it costs them something, are exceedingly rare on Earth today, and it has always been this way, which was my journey’s primary lesson.

That stated, we are/were all human, and I have publicly written about our limitations and foibles, including mine. Dennis will never entirely shake his agrarian roots, believing the Bible to be some magical word of God, and he prays for my benighted non-Christian soul, bless his heart. Dennis, Ralph, and Brian never quite relinquished all of their nationalistic conditioning, even though all of them suffered greatly at the hands of their home nation, when they began trying to make a dent.

I planned to become a scientist, but my “friends” had different plans for me, and I lived through events that I have never heard the like of, for anybody. My life, as with my fellow travelers, was one of drinking the Kool-Aid and eventually finding out how deeply I had been lied to. Noam and Ed is/was Jewish, growing up during the days of Hitler, so they really never quite drank the Kool-Aid that my other pals did. Probably the closest that I saw to us, who was Jewish from that era, was Uncle Howard. He wrote about eagerly signing up to defeat Hitler, enthusiastically bombing Europe with napalm, to eventually learn that he killed the innocent and harmless. Dennis’s journey of awakening was similar in that way. What a terrible way to awaken. Dennis nearly did not survive his awakening, like Ralph nearly didn’t. Dennis gave the GCs some interesting days in the office, but nobody else in my pantheon did, with the partial exception of Greer and friends.

I am the only survivor of the free energy wars that I know of who is writing about it today. I don’t mean free energy enthusiasts and scientists with their theories. Surviving the free energy wars means stuff like: life ruined, bankrupted from the attacks, prison, billion-dollar bribes, murder attempts – that sort of thing, and many didn’t survive. If people survive events like those with their sanity intact, like soldiers who have been in battle, most do their best to forget it. Very few Holocaust survivors wrote about their experiences and, frankly, nobody around them wanted to hear about it, anyway. Extremely few decided to use those experiences as touchstones in writing about hardships, triumphs, healing, and the like.

I have always stated that if I had not met Dennis, I would likely not have much worth saying. It took my ride with Dennis to awaken me. Without that odyssey, I would have remained naïve, maybe eventually realizing that the daily Kool-Aid did not taste that good, but maybe never quite giving it up, either.

Here is why I can do what I do:

• I was almost unbelievably blessed – a member of history’s most privileged demographic group, a genius-level IQ, and I had a world-class mentor.
• I was in training to be a scientist when I unexpectedly had my mystical awakening, which ruined me as a mainstream scientist before I began, but it set me on my path and helped keep me there.
• I am allegedly an Old Artisan, and my work is a classic Old Artisan undertaking. I am not sure about what else I have been told about my soul’s pedigree, but it sure seemed to help explain my lifetime’s “obsession.” Thinking comprehensively and creatively is what Artisans specialize in, which the other soul roles have a harder time achieving, if at all.
• I was young and idealistic enough to survive my ride with Dennis with my health and sanity intact.
• I have incessantly studied ever since my harsh awakening, have been writing continuously for more than 20 years, both in my profession and publicly, and had a lot of help from my friends, such as Pam.

Brian’s path and mine had many overlaps before we met. Brian became a scientist and astronaut, and his preposterous life was quite an odyssey. But the exercise that ruined me as a scientist before I began my career also ruined Brian’s career. Brian did not leave science behind, but explored its fringes, and advocated using the scientific method on paranormal phenomena. Brian’s defrocking happened on several levels, for leaving the orthodox fold, and I had to run the gauntlet to get his NASA biography published.

But my first awakening experience was on the health front, when my family changed our diet from processed to whole food, which saved my father’s health. Even though the person was a charlatan, the gist of his health advice was the last advice that I ever really needed. In recent years, I have given up the processed food that crept into my diet, and by Christmas, I will be back at my college weight, my diet is the best it has ever been, I can tell that my regimen changes are going to add ten or more good years to my life, and we’ll see how big of a dent I can make with my remaining years.

I believe in the ideal of science, although I also know that science in the Fifth Epoch will bear only a faint resemblance to the current version of it. I see three dynamics in particular that will radically alter science in the Fifth Epoch:

• The principles behind the technologies that my friend was shown upend many of today’s more prominent scientific theories, and physics in particular will have to start over.
• The end of materialism, which is the Fourth Epoch’s religion, and the recovery of humanity’s innate psychic abilities.
• The end of conflicts of interest, as nobody in the Fifth Epoch will be vying for status, wealth, and power.

Fifteen years ago, I heard from a college professor who used my Columbus essay in his classroom, and he remarked that if I had gone through the standard liberal scholar training that professional historians receive, my historical writings would likely not have the power that they do. I have heard from MDs and those with scientific doctorates on my medical racket essay, and it seems that my lack of formal medical training helped me write what I did. I heard from a scientist, whose opinion I respected more than anybody else’s on Earth, on the first half of my big essay, which was all scientific writing, who said that it was one of the best efforts that he ever saw. Similarly, I heard from Ed’s pals regarding my bio of him, and it got rave reviews, which was a huge relief, as I so wanted to do justice to Ed’s life.

I had professional training as an accountant, and I understand the benefit of the process of thinking professionally, as that takes self-discipline. But with that training comes the Kool-Aid, and that is the challenge that professionals have, whether they are scientists, attorneys, historians – what have you – the mental disciplinary benefits have to be weighed against the brainwashing, and keeping the mental discipline while discarding the Kool-Aid is far from easy, which brings me to Noam.

History will treat Noam as one of the greatest thinkers that the West ever produced, who also took on his home nation’s power structure and, to a degree, the world’s. There is nobody in history with his level of dual stature. Albert Einstein outranks Noam on his scientific contribution, but Noam outranks Albert on the political front. While studying for and writing Ed’s bio, I read a lot more of Noam’s work, which I had not read much of for many years, and I gained a new appreciation of it.

For those not familiar with Noam’s life and work, he is an anarchist of sorts, which means that he challenges all authority figures to establish their legitimacy. Noam has said that enforcing traffic laws saves lives, so the authority to regulate traffic is legitimate. Noam does not really think that any national government is fully legitimate, but is largely a power grab by that nation’s elite, with figurehead “leaders” who take their orders from the oligarchy that really runs the show. Noam says that all political-economic systems are human creations and do not arise from some kind of law of nature, can be deconstructed for something better, but power structures always resist such changes. Noam has said that politics is not rocket science, can be understood by the layman, and Noam has great faith in the common sense and decency of normal humans to figure out the basics of how political-economic systems operate and to try to change them for the better. That is Noam’s political philosophy in a nutshell.

Noam and Ed always primarily took on their nation’s power structure, because they were Americans, so could influence their home nation, and they felt particularly obligated to expose their nation’s crimes, to help prevent further crimes. Noam called that the responsibility of intellectuals.

This is going to be a pretty long effort, so it will take more than one post, and I am going into a communication hibernation until I finish it, maybe today.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Before I write more on Noam, I want to write about Ed some. I believe that Dennis was still in jail when I first heard of Noam, in early 1989. The next year, I heard of Lies of Our Times, and subscribed before the year was out. I didn’t subscribe because of Noam, but when I got my first issue, there he was, that guy I heard about the previous year, and I began studying his work. Sometime in those two years of studying his work, along with a wide array of material, I became aware of Ed’s work. By the time that Lies of Our Times went out of business in 1994, I might have been a bigger fan of Ed’s work than Noam’s. I considered Ed to be a better writer than Noam, and Ed was very witty, too. I first wrote to Noam in 1992, and did not write to Ed until 2001. Ed and I soon began a correspondence that lasted until his death.

Ed was an economist, and he admitted to me that he neglected the connection between energy and economy. I tried to introduce him to Brian a few times, but Ed was not interested. I finally gave up, and never brought up the energy issue again with Ed. He was arguably the best media analyst on Earth, so I readily forgave his tight focus on the media. I looked forward to reading his articles in Z Magazine each month. Oh, how I miss his voice. He was my Uncle Ed.

While Noam still excoriates the JFK administration, Ed was onboard with the idea that JFK was taken out by a conspiracy, and he was interested in Gary’s account of the John Tower conversation. As Michael Parenti stated, the Left is generally conspiracy-phobic, and Parenti thought that JFK was likely taken out by a high-level conspiracy, which was then covered up. Mike was right. The Right is conspiracy-philic, and both are lopsided perspectives. Ed and Noam’s Propaganda Model is structural, but as Ed later wrote, that does not preclude elite conspiratorial manipulation of the media, but it is rarely necessary. Ed was not big on conspiracies. For instance, while Ed wrote that denying Milosevic the treatment he needed helped lead to his death, he did not think that Milosevic was poisoned, as Milosevic claimed just before he died. But Ed’s collaborator, Chris Black, led Milosevic’s defense effort and thought that Milosevic presented a surprisingly vigorous defense. In the book that he co-authored just before Wikipedia deleted his biography, Chris wrote that autopsy evidence supported the idea that Milosevic may well have been poisoned.

Those are just some examples of how leading figures on the Left have their differences of opinion on conspiratorial matters, and other topics, too.

While Noam is “only” a social scientist, he began a revolution in linguistics, and brought analytical rigor to the field. Even computer languages owe a debt to Noam’s work. Noam was a colleague of Thomas Kuhn’s at MIT, and while Noam has been credited with bringing a scientific revolution to linguistics, Noam does not see it that way. He sees only one Scientific Revolution, which began in the 1500s with Copernicus or Brahe, flowered with Galileo, and ended with Newton. Noam said that he only brought the Scientific Revolution to linguistics. Few people have ever been credited with beginning a scientific revolution like Noam has.

Noam has discussed how scientists get their training, in a kind of apprenticeship program, which he witnessed during his career at MIT, and he trained scientists himself. Noam said that while philosophers of science debate the ideology of science, scientists themselves do not get wrapped up in that, and just do the science. Karl Popper got his ideas on science from Einstein himself, and the Einstein/Bohr conflict over quantum physics was perhaps the greatest philosophical debate in science’s history, up there with the debates over evolution. The typical quantum mechanic was famously described to be no more of a philosopher than a car mechanic. Quantum mechanics simply crank out the numbers.

In that light, I must seem like quite the fool to discuss the limitations on Noam’s scientific thought, but I am about to. Maybe I can get this issue wrapped up this weekend. We’ll see.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

As I get into the limitations of mainstream medicine, conspiracies, and the like, know that I am telescoping several decades of experience and study into a few posts. I can only sketch the terrain for my readers. Each of us has to do the work, if we really want to learn, which takes time and effort.

Ed and Noam’s Propaganda Model (it is really Ed’s creation, not Noam’s, although he likely had some input) is essentially a conflict-of-interest model, and Noam made the case that the Propaganda Model was really only a special case of the constraints that all intellectuals in capitalist societies are subjected to. If you are an intellectual professional in capitalist societies, you had better either serve the elite cause or at least not get in the way, or you will have hell to pay. What spared Noam and Ed’s careers, particularly in Noam’s case, was their professional stature before they began their political work. The “Einstein of Linguistics” was not going to get defrocked for his political activities, although Noam thought that he would go to prison for his Vietnam protests, and had his wife earn her doctorate so that she could feed the family in case he was taken out. He was at the top of Nixon’s enemies list. Intellectuals such as Ward Churchill were not as fortunate.

Noam has long taken on economists, whom he considers mere intellectual cover for capitalism, and I agree. Ed spent his academic career pointing out the conflicts of interest in financial institutions. So, in the social sciences, Noam and Ed kind of specialized in calling out conflicts of interest. To my knowledge, they almost never did, if they ever really did, in the biological and physical sciences. And, as I see it, that is the crux of the issue with Noam and his recent pandemic talk, which many think is outrageous. Well, Noam is well-known for his “outrageous” stances. His stance on the pandemic is related to why he will never sing the song of abundance.

When I wrote Ed’s bio, the only area where I think that I could have been accused of taking some editorial liberties was when I provided illustrations of the Propaganda Model’s filters in action. For the ownership filter, I provided some examples from the first Gulf War, which happened a few years after Manufacturing Consent was published. For the advertising filter, I provided an example of the influence of cigarette advertising. I was piggy-backing off of work that I had already done in my lies essay. However, I took it one step further than I saw anybody in the Left go, and I think that their ideology about science prevented them from going there. This will take a little discussion.

I want to discuss the Global Warming issue, first, and it will make the other issues that I will discuss clearer. On physics, it is relatively easy to get at some of the phenomena, and study them in isolation. The rudiments of quantum theory are not difficult to understand. Energy comes in packets, called quanta. A photon is a quantum of light. Electrons absorb and emit photons, but they only do it for those photons that have compatible energies. Electrons can only reside at certain energy levels in atoms, and only photons with the precise energy to allow a leap to a level will be absorbed, and they will be emitted with the energy it takes to move that electron down a level.

Chlorophyll is green because it does not absorb light in the green part of the spectrum of visible light, for evolutionary reasons. The photons of sunlight are absorbed by electrons, and when they are emitted back, the photons have less energy in them, so they emit a lot of infrared energy. It turns out that infrared-wavelength photons are absorbed by gases in our atmosphere that have three or more atoms in their molecules. So, water, methane, and carbon dioxide in particular absorb infrared-wavelength photons. They don’t absorb them forever, but long enough so that the absorption increases their temperature (movement), and that is why greenhouse gases warm Earth’s atmosphere. That was discovered nearly two centuries ago, and nobody with any scientific literacy denies that.

The basics are really not difficult to understand. It is also indisputable that mining and burning Earth’s hydrocarbons to power our industrial societies is increasing our atmosphere’s carbon dioxide levels, and that is going to warm Earth’s atmosphere, which we are seeing today, and some of it is getting very dramatic, such as the record-shattering heat wave this summer in my home state. No scientist with any credibility disputes those very clear relationships. But, amazingly, a handful of scientists who sold their souls to the hydrocarbon interests created a fraudulent “controversy,” and our corrupt media gave them a hearing far in excess of the merits of their arguments. Fred Singer led that charge, and Brian was livid with his former mentor.

So, something as simple as that had a bogus “controversy” in the media for a generation. It is far, far worse in medical science, which I will get to, but time to revisit the smoking issue. That issue of carbon dioxide and infrared-wavelength photon capture is very simple, and the only question that climate scientists really had was how much and how fast the atmosphere would warm in our hydrocarbon age.

But biological science is an infinitely more complex issue than Global Warming is. As I studied biology, the complexity was bewildering. Kind of like how Richard Feynman said that nobody really understands quantum theory, nobody on Earth really understands biology. Life is a miracle, and at the cellular level alone is a complexity that today’s science has barely scratched the surface of. A generation ago, there was a great expectation that the secrets of life would be revealed when DNA was sequenced, but today DNA is acknowledged as a very small piece of the puzzle of how life works, which science has barely begun to explore.

That said, there are aspects of biology and health that are obvious. In 1604, King James I campaigned against tobacco, and among his arguments was the lung damage it caused. In 1661 John Evelyn remarked on how London’s ever-present coal smoke wrecked Londoner lungs. It is a rather bizarre contrast, but while Jews such as Edward Bernays and Morris Fishbein were actively working to addict Americans to cigarettes, German scientists had long since discovered that tobacco addiction was deadly. Hitler led an anti-smoking campaign in Germany at the same time that the Journal of the American Medical Association ran cigarette ads, which actually made health claims! Fishbein, a quack if there ever was one, helped the cigarette companies design their “research” so that they could make their health claims. Fishbein ran the show for the last ad campaign his Journal ran, when he designed the “research” to support an ad blitz for an asbestos cigarette filter. You could not make this up if you tried. Because of that corruption, the first scientific paper in the Journal on lung cancer and smoking did not appear until 1950, the year after Fishbein was finally deposed as the dictator of American medicine. But I have never seen a peep about that mind-boggling situation in the Left media.

In Merchants of Doubt, for instance, it picks up the story in the 1950s, when scientific evidence of smoking’s harm began to get documented, in the United States. The king himself campaigned on the harm that smoking caused centuries earlier, and German scientists were a generation ahead of the USA, while the leading medical journal promoted cigarettes, as a way to make its editor rich.

In this book, the author discussed the “Legend of science.” That so-called “Legend” is about inflating science into some kind of heroic search for the truth. The book’s author stated that scientists themselves fall for the “Legend,” and that science loses its way when scientists begin believing self-serving legends like that.

I have never seen the situation with cigarettes and American medicine dealt with by the Left, and for years, I wondered why. It eventually began to dawn on me that because the Left tends to worship science, which is called scientism, they are not going to spend their time exposing the flaws in institutional science, particularly medical science. It seems that they think that science is above the fray.

If you think about the Global Warming issue as portrayed by books such as Merchants of Doubt, Fred Singer and a handful of others were the bad actors, and the rest of climate scientists were doing their best. So, the scientists get a pass, and the blame is cast on Singer and friends, the media, the world’s governments, and the hydrocarbon interests. The climate scientists themselves, however, get a pass. And they probably deserve a pass, to some degree, but that story is one that does not besmirch science in general. The cigarette story in the USA, however, does, and I suspect that that is why the Left won’t touch it. You can easily find lots of pictures of Noam smoking his pipe in the 1960s, such as here.

Ed wrote at length about “junk science,” but it was about how corporations and a compliant media abused scientific findings, not how the findings themselves had been corrupted.

The corruption of science itself has never, to my knowledge, been adequately addressed by the Left. Maybe somebody can point me to where it has been, but I have never seen it. And even among the defenders of science, medical science is universally declared to be the flimsiest and most corrupt branch of science. What I find rather incredible is that how science has been corrupted aligns perfectly with the Propaganda Model, as various interests corrupt science, and conflicts of interest are a key way that it happens.

It took me many years to begin to understand this. What has happened, I believe, is that the Left has given up organized religion for the religion of the Fourth Epoch, which is materialism, scientism, and rationalism. So, medical science is a key area where “intellectuals” have been captured by the capitalists, and rather spectacularly, but Noam can’t go there, and neither can hardly anybody else on the Left. This dynamic is also why the Left’s most prominent members are Level 3s if the subject of free energy is ever broached. Brian was beside himself at the crazed reactions that he received from the tops of the world’s scientific, academic, and “progressive” institutions when he brought up free energy.

This situation has a lot to do with Noam’s COVID stance, and a lot more is coming.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

This so-called “pandemic” has been so in my face for nearly two years that when I update my medical racket essay in a few years, it will get a significant makeover. As with all of my writings, my medical racket writings are primarily rooted in my experiences, not study. My awakening to the failures of Western medicine began when I was 12, and my family changed its diet from processed food to whole food. The booklet that woke us up was banned in the USA in the next decade. Today, the advice in that banned booklet forms the medical establishment’s first line of defense against artery disease. Several years after changing our diets, I began a fasting regimen, which everybody around me thought was insane. Today, fasting is mainstream, and the scientist who did pioneering work on the process that fasting triggers won a Nobel Prize. A few years after beginning my fasting regimen, I went vegan, and again was considered crazy. Today, vegetarian diets are all the rage. I am amazed that I lived to see those changes.

When Dennis was in jail and I was bankrupted, amongst other joys, I got a job at a medical lab in LA. Within weeks of my joining it, a government-media alliance tried to put it out of business, in a dynamic that was almost identical to what I saw happen to our companies in Seattle and Ventura. The officials lie out of both sides of their mouths, the media parrots it, and away you go.

That all happened before I ever began studying the medical racket, when I began to hit the books in late 1990. I had been awakened by my odyssey, and was hungry for the truth. Ed and Noam’s work immediately resonated, as I had already repeatedly borne the brunt of the media’s lies, but I studied many other subjects in those days. Several of them could go under the heading of alternative medicine and the medical racket. By the end of 1990, I had read books on Rife and Naessens, Ralph Hovnanian’s Medical Dark Ages, and several other alternative medicine books. What may have been the most impressive to me was that Rife and Naessens had independently developed microscopes that achieved resolutions that are considered “impossible” to this day, but Naessens’s scopes are still around and there are surviving micrographs that demonstrate the Rife’s microscope indeed achieved those “impossible” resolutions. Those microscopes were invented nearly a century ago, and medical orthodoxy pretends that they do not exist, while calling Rife and Naessens criminals.

I am very familiar with that kind of treatment. Dennis put the world’s best heating system on people’s homes for free, in the most brilliant and benevolent business strategy that I ever saw or heard of, and he was universally reviled as a criminal, even by so-called “allies” in the field. Those are all just examples of my journey’s primary lesson.

My studies in those days were not only about how the media lies, but also about how the history I was taught was a pack of lies. It was Uncle Howard’s work that gave me my first inkling that the Columbus story I was taught had some problems, you might say. Then I read American Holocaust, and the seed of my American Empire essay had been planted. I discovered that I went to a grammar school named after a genocidal saint, and so on. Was anything taught to me while growing up true? I had already discovered that my profession was worthless. You might say that I was seeing a pattern.

In Christopher Bird’s Naessens book, a mention was made of Pasteur’s theoretical rival, Antoine Béchamp. Years later, I got my books on Béchamp, one of which he authored (his magnum opus has not been translated to English, to my knowledge), and the other was about the Béchamp/Pasteur divide at the roots of microbiology. But they were both key books that helped me write my medical racket essay. I read books on Pasteur, too, generally the hagiographic kind, and it was an education.

Not sure what to make of it all, I dug up a book on the spontaneous generation controversy by a Harvard professor. Pasteur supposedly settled the issue with his “brilliant” experiment, but that book clearly showed how Pasteur really didn’t have anything to do with it. Pasteur was far more of a showman and promoter than scientist, and sought fame and wealth above all. That book is nearly 50 years old. I then dug up four microbiology textbooks written a generation after that book, and they all told the same fairy tale about Pasteur and spontaneous generation, and my guess is that microbiology textbooks tell the same story today. It is like Ed said about the media: even after exposure, the lies get enshrined as truths, and it does not matter what the evidence is.

In 1995, a book was published on Pasteur’s private notes. It mentioned Béchamp only long enough to dismiss him, but two issues were really telling:

• The author’s impression of Pasteur was that he was a self-promoting scoundrel;
• Pasteur actually cooked his data on his anthrax vaccine to vanquish a rival, which wrecked his rival’s life.

Foreshadowing the Nazis, Pasteur proposed human experiments on condemned prisoners, to give them the choice of execution or being subjects for experiments.

The germ theory of disease came from that awesomely corrupt milieu, and I have seen many excuses for Pasteur’s behavior. The question that I had was: “Was he right?” Was his germ theory valid? I am doubtful. Today, I believe that the germ theory of disease is flawed, perhaps fatally. One logical outcome of the germ theory was vaccination. Pasteur did not invent vaccination, but he was the great commercializer of it, making a fortune for himself.

Béchamp or Pasteur will be a century old next year, it discussed the vaccination issue, the results of vaccination campaigns, mainly smallpox, and the data did not show some kind of success; in fact, the opposite.

The primary upshot of Béchamp’s work was his “microzymas,” which were little bodies that initiated fermentation, and Béchamp’s conclusion was that disease seemed to come from within the organism, not externally. In his The Blood and Its Third Element, Béchamp charged Pasteur with serial plagiarisms of his work, and felt that Pasteur needed to be exposed, as he was marching medical science off in the wrong direction.

If that had been the end of it, that tawdry chapter of biology might have been a minor curiosity, but in the 20^th century, Rife and Naessens documented pleomorphism like Béchamp did, with their “impossible” microscopes. A good germ one day becomes a bad germ the next. Nancy Appleton’s book takes on the germ theory altogether. I am currently reading this book, which also takes on the germ theory, and there are a bunch more like it, by MDs and scientists.

I wrote about vaccination in my medical racket essay. I have been doing a lot more reading on the issue in the past couple of years, and these two (1, 2) books, by MDs, are perhaps the best that I have seen on challenging vaccination. Those books, as have others, amassed the official data on infectious disease and vaccination. Long ago, it was actually taught in medical schools that vaccination, antibiotics, and other medical interventions had virtually nothing, if anything, to do with conquering infectious disease. As I have repeatedly written, the data itself provides no evidence whatsoever that vaccination had anything to do with the decline in infectious disease (1, 2, 3, 4). Improvements in sanitation, hygiene, and nutrition get nearly all of the credit, and maybe all of it.

I am attaching several graphical representations of the numbers, which I have done before. Look at the data. I have seen a great deal of this data over the years, and it always looks the same. Diseases that were not vaccinated for disappeared at the same time as the others did. Vaccination and antibiotics usually came along after a huge drop in the death rates, such as 99%. And I know that I will never reach those who drank the medical racket’s Kool-Aid. I have known that for 30 years. People will embrace certain death over questioning their faith in Western medicine. It took watching that a few times before it sunk in with me.

I am not going to convince the masses of anything, but nobody can say that I don’t have good cause for my position on not getting these new Frankensteinian vaccinations. The hospitals are filling up with the vaccine-injured today, and it is all being covered up. Here is a story from my home county. I have seen many reports like that in recent months, but those stories will never be featured by the mainstream media.

I have written at great length on the prodigious conflicts of interest for nearly every talking head in the media on vaccination (Offit, Hotez, Fauci, etc., etc.) and all pro-vaccine organizations, and don’t need to belabor it.

The structural corruption is stunning, with the revolving door, the private profit opportunities are immense and rarely ever remarked on, and no conspiracy theory needs to be invoked to explain this situation. This is just how capitalism works.

Am I a threat to my community because I am not vaccinated? That position has no validity that I can see, but Noam takes that position as gospel, and I can understand why people are very unhappy with his position. He is proposing that people like me be locked up. I definitely have some skin in this game, and the next post will discuss Noam and his COVID position, as well as other positions he has taken in recent years.

Best,

Wade