offguardian--2020-07-30--The White Black Nationalist Color Revolution

So , the White Black Nationalist Color Revolution ( “ made possible in part by GloboCap ” ) appears to be going extremely well .
According to Foreign Policy magazine , the Trump regime is clinging to power , but it ’ s only a matter of time until the identitarian moderate rebels drive the Putin-backed fascists out of office and restore democracy to the Western world .
Yes , that ’ s right , just when it looked like the corporate-sponsored , totally organic , peaceful uprising against racism was over , and the Russo-fascist Trump regime had survived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other militant “ Resistance ” cells have launched a devastating counter-attack against assorted fascist building facades , fascist fences , and stores , and so on , and are going mano-a-mano in the streets with heavily-armed Putin-Nazi goon squads .
According to The Guardian , and other elements of the underground “ Resistance ” media , peaceful protesters in Portland have been attacking the fascists with rocks , bottles , improvised explosive devices , and various other peaceful anti-racist projectiles .
In Oakland , they peacefully set fire to the courthouse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ protester armed with an AK-47-style rifle was shot to death by a suspected fascist whose car was peacefully swarmed by a mob after he “ tried to aggressively drive past protesters.
” In Los Angeles , peaceful anti-racism protesters have been whipped up into such a frenzy of righteous anti-fascist fervor that they are performing flying tackles on the cops , who then promptly beat the snot out of them .
And so on … I think you get the picture .
Portland , Oregon ( where just under 6 % of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been at the vanguard of the revolution , as it has since the Russians stole the election from Hillary Clinton in 2016 by “ influencing ” gullible African-Americans with a handful of ridiculous Facebook ads , and then installed Donald Trump and the rest of the Putin-Nazi Occupation Government in office .
Not only have local Antifa militants been tirelessly fighting gangs of neo-nationalist boneheads you ’ ve probably never heard of more or less around the clock since then , Portland is also the headquarters of most of the militant Antifa intelligentsia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an anti-fascist geography lecturer who inculcates kids with his paranoid theories about the international Duginist-Red-Brown conspiracy to take over the whole world and mass-murder the Jews .
So , naturally , Portland is now the epicenter of the White Black Nationalist Color Revolution .
But this isn ’ t just the usual Portlandia silliness .
This White Black Nationalist Color Revolution has been in the works for the last four years .
Since the moment Trump won the Republican nomination , the global capitalist ruling classes have been fomenting racialized polarization , Putin-Nazi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hysteria , in anticipation of the events of this summer .
The propaganda has remained consistent .
Both the liberal corporate media and the alternative left media have been predicting that Trump is going to go full-Hitler , impose martial law , proclaim himself Führer , and perpetrate some sort of racialized holocaust … for reasons they ’ ve never quite been able to explain .
He hasn ’ t , of course , so the global capitalist ruling classes had no choice but to unleash a shit-storm of civil unrest to goad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise , he was stupid enough to do .
Ordering the goon squads into the streets might delight his hardcore right-wing base , but it will alienate the majority of “ normal ” Americans , who aren ’ t especially fond of goon squads ( unless they ’ re doing their thing in some faraway country ) .
Most importantly , it will motivate all those non-Clinton-voting Obama voters to go out and vote for “ Slappy ” Joe Biden , or whichever corporate puppet the Democrats have replaced him with by November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general strategy .
Now , regardless of whether they can pull this off ( and whatever your feelings about GloboCap as a de facto hegemonic empire ) , you have to at least admire their audacity .
The part where the mayors of major cities stood down and otherwise hamstrung their cops , and let the “ peaceful protesters ” run amok , was particularly audacious , in my opinion .
That was a serious gamble on GloboCap ’ s part .
Trump could have resisted the urge to go totalitarian and called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a speech explaining to Americans exactly how these color revolutions work , how this one is going right by the book , and why he wasn ’ t going to take the bait , and left the cities in question to their own devices ( until the mayors were forced to restore order themselves ) .
But no , tactical genius that he is , he had to order in the goon squads , which , of course , is exactly what the “ Resistance ” wanted .
Now he ’ s got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police to confront and attempt to arrest the federal agents … I assume you see where this is heading .
The other part that was particularly tricky was sequeing from the original protests following the murder of George Floyd by the cops , most of which were authentic expressions of frustration and outrage by actual Black people about systemic racism and police brutality ( both of which are very real , of course ) to the orchestrated civil unrest that followed , most of which is being coordinated , funded , and carried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also an extremely bold move , but , as the generous folks at The Ford Foundation put it in July of 2016 , when they announced that they would be overseeing the funneling of $ 100 million to organizations in the Black Lives Matter movement : Oh , and speaking of bold experiments , what better setting could there be for a White Black Nationalist Color Revolution than a fake apocalyptic plague that has wrecked the economies of most Western countries , terrorized the masses into mindless obedience , and destabilized whole societies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brownshirts are macing people in the face for not wearing masks at outdoor picnics and wishing death on entire families if the mothers won ’ t put masks on their kids ?
No , credit where credit is due to GloboCap .
At this point , not only the United States , but countries throughout the global capitalist empire , are in such a state of mass hysteria , and so hopelessly politically polarized , that hardly anyone can see the textbook color revolution that is being executed , openly , right in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually , most Trump supporters see it , but most of them , like Trump himself , have mistaken Antifa , Black Lives Matter , and the Democratic Party and their voters for the enemy , when they are merely pawns in GloboCap ’ s game .
Most liberals and leftists can not see it at all…literally , as in they can not perceive it .
Like Dolores in the HBO Westworld series , “ it doesn ’ t look like anything ” to them .
They actually believe they are fighting fascism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , word-salad-spewing , former game show host , is literally the Return of Adolf Hitler , and that somehow ( presumably with the help of Putin ) he has staged the current civil unrest , like the Nazis staged the Reichstag fire !
( The New York Times will never tire of that one , nor will their liberal and leftist readers , who have been doing battle with an endless series of imaginary Hitlers since … well , since Hitler . )
I ’ ve been repeating it my columns for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m going to repeat it once again .
What we are experiencing is not the “ return of fascism.
” It is the global capitalist empire restoring order , putting down the populist insurgency that took them by surprise in 2016 .
The White Black Nationalist Color Revolution , the fake apocalyptic plague , all the insanity of 2020 … it has been in the pipeline all along .
It has been since the moment Trump won the election .
No , it is not about Trump , the man .
It has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no more than the Obama presidency was ever about Obama , the man .
GloboCap needs to crush Donald Trump ( and moreover , to make an example of him ) not because he is a threat to the empire ( he isn ’ t ) , but because he became a symbol of populist resistance to global capitalism and its increasingly aggressive “ woke ” ideology .
It is this populist resistance to its ideology that GloboCap is determined to crush , no matter how much social chaos and destruction it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of my essays from last October , Trumpenstein Must Be Destroyed , I made this prediction about the year ahead : OK , I didn ’ t see the fake plague coming , but , otherwise , how ’ s my prediction holding up ?
CJ Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright , novelist and political satirist based in Berlin .
His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing , Inc. His dystopian novel , Zone 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy , Swaine & Cormorant .
Volume I of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Consent Factory Publishing , a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content , Inc .
He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

CJ Hopkins
So, the White Black Nationalist Color Revolution (“made possible in part by GloboCap”) appears to be going extremely well. According to Foreign Policy magazine, the Trump regime is clinging to power, but it’s only a matter of time until the identitarian moderate rebels drive the Putin-backed fascists out of office and restore democracy to the Western world.
Yes, that’s right, just when it looked like the corporate-sponsored, totally organic, peaceful uprising against racism was over, and the Russo-fascist Trump regime had survived, the Global Capitalist Anarchists of Portland and other militant “Resistance” cells have launched a devastating counter-attack against assorted fascist building facades, fascist fences, and stores, and so on, and are going mano-a-mano in the streets with heavily-armed Putin-Nazi goon squads.
According to The Guardian, and other elements of the underground “Resistance” media, peaceful protesters in Portland have been attacking the fascists with rocks, bottles, improvised explosive devices, and various other peaceful anti-racist projectiles.
In Oakland, they peacefully set fire to the courthouse. In Austin, Texas, a peaceful protester armed with an AK-47-style rifle was shot to death by a suspected fascist whose car was peacefully swarmed by a mob after he “tried to aggressively drive past protesters.”
In Los Angeles, peaceful anti-racism protesters have been whipped up into such a frenzy of righteous anti-fascist fervor that they are performing flying tackles on the cops, who then promptly beat the snot out of them. And so on … I think you get the picture.
Portland, Oregon (where just under 6% of the population is Black) has of course been at the vanguard of the revolution, as it has since the Russians stole the election from Hillary Clinton in 2016 by “influencing” gullible African-Americans with a handful of ridiculous Facebook ads, and then installed Donald Trump and the rest of the Putin-Nazi Occupation Government in office.
Not only have local Antifa militants been tirelessly fighting gangs of neo-nationalist boneheads you’ve probably never heard of more or less around the clock since then, Portland is also the headquarters of most of the militant Antifa intelligentsia (characters like Alexander Reid Ross, an anti-fascist geography lecturer who inculcates kids with his paranoid theories about the international Duginist-Red-Brown conspiracy to take over the whole world and mass-murder the Jews. So, naturally, Portland is now the epicenter of the White Black Nationalist Color Revolution.
But this isn’t just the usual Portlandia silliness. This White Black Nationalist Color Revolution has been in the works for the last four years. Since the moment Trump won the Republican nomination, the global capitalist ruling classes have been fomenting racialized polarization, Putin-Nazi paranoia, and other forms of mass hysteria, in anticipation of the events of this summer.
The propaganda has remained consistent. Both the liberal corporate media and the alternative left media have been predicting that Trump is going to go full-Hitler, impose martial law, proclaim himself Führer, and perpetrate some sort of racialized holocaust … for reasons they’ve never quite been able to explain.
He hasn’t, of course, so the global capitalist ruling classes had no choice but to unleash a shit-storm of civil unrest to goad him into overreacting … which, no surprise, he was stupid enough to do. Ordering the goon squads into the streets might delight his hardcore right-wing base, but it will alienate the majority of “normal” Americans, who aren’t especially fond of goon squads (unless they’re doing their thing in some faraway country).
Most importantly, it will motivate all those non-Clinton-voting Obama voters to go out and vote for “Slappy” Joe Biden, or whichever corporate puppet the Democrats have replaced him with by November 3. That seems to be the general strategy.
Now, regardless of whether they can pull this off (and whatever your feelings about GloboCap as a de facto hegemonic empire), you have to at least admire their audacity. The part where the mayors of major cities stood down and otherwise hamstrung their cops, and let the “peaceful protesters” run amok, was particularly audacious, in my opinion. That was a serious gamble on GloboCap’s part.
Trump could have resisted the urge to go totalitarian and called their bluff. He could have made a speech explaining to Americans exactly how these color revolutions work, how this one is going right by the book, and why he wasn’t going to take the bait, and left the cities in question to their own devices (until the mayors were forced to restore order themselves). But no, tactical genius that he is, he had to order in the goon squads, which, of course, is exactly what the “Resistance” wanted.
Now he’s got cities like Philadelphia threatening to order their police to confront and attempt to arrest the federal agents … I assume you see where this is heading.
The other part that was particularly tricky was sequeing from the original protests following the murder of George Floyd by the cops, most of which were authentic expressions of frustration and outrage by actual Black people about systemic racism and police brutality (both of which are very real, of course) to the orchestrated civil unrest that followed, most of which is being coordinated, funded, and carried out by White people. That was also an extremely bold move, but, as the generous folks at The Ford Foundation put it in July of 2016, when they announced that they would be overseeing the funneling of $100 million to organizations in the Black Lives Matter movement:
We want to nurture bold experiments…”
Oh, and speaking of bold experiments, what better setting could there be for a White Black Nationalist Color Revolution than a fake apocalyptic plague that has wrecked the economies of most Western countries, terrorized the masses into mindless obedience, and destabilized whole societies to the point where fanatical, GloboCap-brainwashed brownshirts are macing people in the face for not wearing masks at outdoor picnics and wishing death on entire families if the mothers won’t put masks on their kids?
No, credit where credit is due to GloboCap. At this point, not only the United States, but countries throughout the global capitalist empire, are in such a state of mass hysteria, and so hopelessly politically polarized, that hardly anyone can see the textbook color revolution that is being executed, openly, right in front of our faces.
Or…OK, actually, most Trump supporters see it, but most of them, like Trump himself, have mistaken Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the Democratic Party and their voters for the enemy, when they are merely pawns in GloboCap’s game. Most liberals and leftists cannot see it at all…literally, as in they cannot perceive it. Like Dolores in the HBO Westworld series, “it doesn’t look like anything” to them.
They actually believe they are fighting fascism, that Donald Trump, a narcissistic, word-salad-spewing, former game show host, is literally the Return of Adolf Hitler, and that somehow (presumably with the help of Putin) he has staged the current civil unrest, like the Nazis staged the Reichstag fire! (The New York Times will never tire of that one, nor will their liberal and leftist readers, who have been doing battle with an endless series of imaginary Hitlers since … well, since Hitler.)
I’ve been repeating it my columns for the last four years, and I’m going to repeat it once again. What we are experiencing is not the “return of fascism.” It is the global capitalist empire restoring order, putting down the populist insurgency that took them by surprise in 2016.
The White Black Nationalist Color Revolution, the fake apocalyptic plague, all the insanity of 2020 … it has been in the pipeline all along. It has been since the moment Trump won the election. No, it is not about Trump, the man. It has never been about Trump, the man, no more than the Obama presidency was ever about Obama, the man.
GloboCap needs to crush Donald Trump (and moreover, to make an example of him) not because he is a threat to the empire (he isn’t), but because he became a symbol of populist resistance to global capitalism and its increasingly aggressive “woke” ideology. It is this populist resistance to its ideology that GloboCap is determined to crush, no matter how much social chaos and destruction it unleashes in the process.
In one of my essays from last October, Trumpenstein Must Be Destroyed, I made this prediction about the year ahead:
2020 is for all the marbles. The global capitalist ruling classes either crush this ongoing populist insurgency or God knows where we go from here. Try to see it through their eyes for a moment. Picture four more years of Trump…second-term Trump…Trump unleashed. Do you really believe they’re going to let that happen, that they are going to permit this populist insurgency to continue for another four years? They are not. What they are going to do is use all their power to destroy the monster, not Trump the man, but Trump the symbol. They are going to drown us in impeachment minutiae, drip, drip, drip, for the next twelve months. The liberal corporate media are going to go full-Goebbels. They are going to whip up so much mass hysteria that people won’t be able to think. They are going to pit us one against the other, and force us onto one or the other side of a simulated conflict (Democracy versus the Putin-Nazis) to keep us from perceiving the actual conflict (Global Capitalism versus Populism). They are going to bring us to the brink of civil war…
OK, I didn’t see the fake plague coming, but, otherwise, how’s my prediction holding up?
CJ Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volume I of his Consent Factory Essays is published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.


offguardian--2020-07-30--Assange Indictment: Old Wine in Older Bottles

The book of hours on Julian Assange is now being written .
But the scribes are far from original .
Repeated rituals of administrative hearings that have no common purpose other than to string things out before the axe are being enacted .
Of late , the man most commonly associated with WikiLeaks ’ publication project can not participate in any meaningful way , largely because of his frail health and the dangers posed to him by the coronavirus .
Having already made an effort to attend court proceedings in person , Assange has come across as judicial exotica , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s harsh version of Judge Judy .
He was refused an application to escape his glass commode when he could still attend in person , as permitting him to descend and consult his defence team in a court room would constitute a bail application of some risk .
This reading by the judicial head was so innovative it even puzzled the prosecutors .
What we know to date is that restrictions and shackles on Assange ’ s case are the order of the day .
Restricted processes that do nothing to enable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good brief to be exercised are typical .
Most of all , the ceremonial circus that we have come to expect of British justice in the menacing shadow of US intimidation has become gloomily extensive .
On July 27 , that circus was given yet another act , another limping performance .
As before , the venue was the Westminster Magistrates ’ Court in London .
During the proceeding , Assange did appear via video link from Belmarsh Prison , albeit it an hour late , and only at the insistence of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his presence reads like an account of a sporting engagement .
Others were alarmed .
During his call-over hearing , noted Martin Silk of the Australian Associated Press , “ neither the Australian , nor his guards , were wearing face masks .
I don ’ t understand the reason for that given we have to wear them inside shops.
” This point was also made by Assange ’ s partner , Stella Moris : WikiLeaks supporter Juan Passarelli also felt that Assange “ was having trouble following the proceedings due to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and into the microphones.
” Arrangements for the hearing for observers proved characteristically sloppy .
Freelance journalist Stefania Maurizi was unimpressed by being on the phone for two hours during which she “ couldn ’ t understand more than 20 percent of what has been discussed.
” She was adamant that “ UK authorities don ’ t care at all about international reporters covering ” the Assange proceedings .
“ Dial in system is , as usual , ” agreed Passarelli , “ a shambles !
” The topic of discussion during this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US Department of Justice on June 24 , namely the second superseding indictment .
That document proved to be a naked exercise of political overreach , adding no further charges to the already heavy complement of eighteen , seventeen of which centre on the US Espionage Act .
The scope of interest , however , was widened , notably on the issue of “ hacking ” and conferencing .
Assange is painted as devilish recruiter and saboteur of the international secret order , a man of the conference circuit keen to open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for doing so .
Edward Fitzgerald QC , in representing Assange , fulfilled his norm , submitting that the recently revised document did little to inspire confidence in the nature of clarified justice .
Fitzgerald reminded the court that US President Donald Trump had “ described the defence case as a plot by the Democrats.
” This should have been obvious , but Baraitser ’ s court would have none of it .
To admit at this point that Assange is wanted for political reasons would make it that much harder to extradite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that bar noted in the US-UK Extradition Treaty .
Whilst it was good of Fitzgerald to make this point , he should know by now that his audience is resolutely constipated and indifferent to such prodding .
Assange is to be given the sharpest , rather than the most balanced , of hearings .
Accordingly , Baraitser insisted that Fitzgerald “ reserve his comments ” – she , in the true tradition of such processes , had not been supplied , as yet , with the US indictment .
This made the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Westminster Magistrates ’ not merely meaningless but decidedly absurd .
Assange ’ s defence team could draw some cold comfort from Baraitser ’ s comments that July 27 was the deadline for any further evidence to be adduced by the prosecution before the September extradition hearing .
One exception was permitted : psychiatric reports .
The current chief publisher of WikiLeaks Kristinn Hrafnsson had a few choice words for the prosecutors of Wikileaks .
The scrapping of the previous indictments suggested that they were “ flagrantly disregarding proper process.
” Assange is facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together by any state that claims itself to be free .
Should this stratagem work , the publisher will find himself facing the legal proceedings of a country that boasts of having a free press amendment but is keen on excluding him from it .
What is even more troubling is the desire to expand the tent of culpability , one that will include press outlets and those who disseminate classified information .
To the next circus instalment we go : a final call-over hearing in Westminster Magistrates ’ Court on August 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to be held at the Central Criminal Court most of us know as the Old Bailey .
Will justice prove blind , or merely blinded ?
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College , Cambridge .
He lectures at RMIT University , Melbourne .
Email :

Binoy Kampmark
The book of hours on Julian Assange is now being written. But the scribes are far from original. Repeated rituals of administrative hearings that have no common purpose other than to string things out before the axe are being enacted.
Of late, the man most commonly associated with WikiLeaks’ publication project cannot participate in any meaningful way, largely because of his frail health and the dangers posed to him by the coronavirus. Having already made an effort to attend court proceedings in person, Assange has come across as judicial exotica, freak show fodder for Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s harsh version of Judge Judy. He was refused an application to escape his glass commode when he could still attend in person, as permitting him to descend and consult his defence team in a court room would constitute a bail application of some risk. This reading by the judicial head was so innovative it even puzzled the prosecutors.
What we know to date is that restrictions and shackles on Assange’s case are the order of the day. Restricted processes that do nothing to enable him to see counsel and enable a good brief to be exercised are typical. Most of all, the ceremonial circus that we have come to expect of British justice in the menacing shadow of US intimidation has become gloomily extensive.
On July 27, that circus was given yet another act, another limping performance. As before, the venue was the Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London.
During the proceeding, Assange did appear via video link from Belmarsh Prison, albeit it an hour late, and only at the insistence of his legal team. The Guardian report on his presence reads like an account of a sporting engagement.
Wearing a beige sweater and a pink shirt, Assange eventually appeared from Belmarsh prison after an earlier attempt was aborted.”
Others were alarmed. During his call-over hearing, noted Martin Silk of the Australian Associated Press, “neither the Australian, nor his guards, were wearing face masks. I don’t understand the reason for that given we have to wear them inside shops.” This point was also made by Assange’s partner, Stella Moris:
Belmarsh hasn’t provided Julian with a face mask throughout this covid crisis. The prison guards he interacts with don’t wear them either.”
WikiLeaks supporter Juan Passarelli also felt that Assange “was having trouble following the proceedings due to the Judge and lawyers not speaking loud enough and into the microphones.”
Arrangements for the hearing for observers proved characteristically sloppy. Freelance journalist Stefania Maurizi was unimpressed by being on the phone for two hours during which she “couldn’t understand more than 20 percent of what has been discussed.” She was adamant that “UK authorities don’t care at all about international reporters covering” the Assange proceedings. “Dial in system is, as usual,” agreed Passarelli, “a shambles!”
The topic of discussion during this administrative hearing was what was announced by the US Department of Justice on June 24, namely the second superseding indictment. That document proved to be a naked exercise of political overreach, adding no further charges to the already heavy complement of eighteen, seventeen of which centre on the US Espionage Act.
The scope of interest, however, was widened, notably on the issue of “hacking” and conferencing. Assange is painted as devilish recruiter and saboteur of the international secret order, a man of the conference circuit keen to open up clandestine governments and make various reasons for doing so.
According to the charging document, Assange and others at WikiLeaks recruited and agreed with hackers to commit computer intrusions to benefit WikiLeaks.”
Edward Fitzgerald QC, in representing Assange, fulfilled his norm, submitting that the recently revised document did little to inspire confidence in the nature of clarified justice.
We are concerned about a fresh request being made at this stage with the potential consequences of derailing proceedings and that the US attorney-general is doing this for political reasons.”
Fitzgerald reminded the court that US President Donald Trump had “described the defence case as a plot by the Democrats.”
This should have been obvious, but Baraitser’s court would have none of it. To admit at this point that Assange is wanted for political reasons would make it that much harder to extradite him to the United States, given that bar noted in the US-UK Extradition Treaty.
Whilst it was good of Fitzgerald to make this point, he should know by now that his audience is resolutely constipated and indifferent to such prodding. Assange is to be given the sharpest, rather than the most balanced, of hearings.
Accordingly, Baraitser insisted that Fitzgerald “reserve his comments” – she, in the true tradition of such processes, had not been supplied, as yet, with the US indictment.
This made the entire presence of all the parties at the Westminster Magistrates’ not merely meaningless but decidedly absurd.
Assange’s defence team could draw some cold comfort from Baraitser’s comments that July 27 was the deadline for any further evidence to be adduced by the prosecution before the September extradition hearing. One exception was permitted: psychiatric reports.
The current chief publisher of WikiLeaks Kristinn Hrafnsson had a few choice words for the prosecutors of Wikileaks.
“All the alleged events have been known to the prosecution for years. It contains no new charges. What’s really happening here is that despite its decade start the prosecution are still unable to build a coherent case.”
The scrapping of the previous indictments suggested that they were “flagrantly disregarding proper process.”
Assange is facing one of the most disturbing confections put together by any state that claims itself to be free. Should this stratagem work, the publisher will find himself facing the legal proceedings of a country that boasts of having a free press amendment but is keen on excluding him from it.
What is even more troubling is the desire to expand the tent of culpability, one that will include press outlets and those who disseminate classified information.
To the next circus instalment we go: a final call-over hearing in Westminster Magistrates’ Court on August 14, then the September 7 extradition hearing, to be held at the Central Criminal Court most of us know as the Old Bailey. Will justice prove blind, or merely blinded?
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]


offguardian--2020-07-31--Crossing the Rubicon: The UK Slips into a Repressive State

Julius Caesar ’ s crossing the Rubicon River in 49 BC in defiance of Roman law placed him and his army on a direct collision course with Rome , leading to the Civil War which established him as Roman dictator .
It is a well-established metaphor for a point at which there is no going back and at which things will never be the same .
I predicted a few weeks ago that the UK Government would in the near future try to force everyone to wear facemasks in public .
Leave aside the plethora of information that makes it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit in everyday circumstances , and may in fact be dangerous , the forced wearing of facemasks is a transgression so fundamental and of such significance that it is difficult to adequately express .
It implicitly hands your body over to state control , and renders one of your most basic existential freedoms subject to state interference .
For the first time , the right to exercise a choice of whether you should inhibit your respiratory faculties and hide your face in public is taken out of your hands .
If you doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember the public outcry that followed a debate regarding banning the wearing of burkhas and hijabs in the face of Islamic terrorism , and the connotations this had for civil liberties at the time .
Facemask wearing is the visible hallmark of Asian states perceived in the West as repressive and authoritarian .
It is a badge of serfdom , akin to the yellow star that Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany .
There is no greater invasion of your person possible short of tattooing you with a number .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overnight or without preparation .
It has been preceded by a cleverly-orchestrated media campaign which seeks to bizarrely turn established professional and scientific research on its head , making virologists , infection-control bodies and academics who have published papers for the medical profession into liars and charlatans .
This campaign has included editorials and blogs which talk in disapproving and accusatory tones of “ mask-shirkers ” and “ mask-deniers ” allegedly “ refusing ” to wear face masks .
Leave aside the obvious fact that refusal can not take place without a demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give you an instruction to which you reply , “ No , thanks.
” Absent such a demand , you are not refusing anything , merely making a choice .
And until now there has been no such demand .
But those making this choice are now psychopaths and enemies of humanity without a shred of integrity , respect or regard for their fellow human beings .
When I returned from Asia early this year the advice was clear : face masks do not protect you from infection and it is not advised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more , face mask wearing was actively discouraged because of limited supplies required for hospital environments , where infection control is king and every precaution makes sense .
Above all the only situation in which it is appropriate to wear a facemask in public is if you are unwell and have a cough , in which case why not stay at home ?
But this piece of simple logic has been covered by the mask-advocates whose logic runs like this : “ You may have coronavirus without knowing it , and may infect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distances so you need to wear a mask.
” This covers all bases despite the evidence for this being at best negligible and at worst manipulated and dishonest .
It is part of the greater logic that renders every societal value worthless unless it contributes to the impossible task of making sure that not one single individual anywhere , ever , is infected with Covid-19 .
None of this means I think we should do nothing about this pandemic .
But there is now a growing awareness that the cure proposed is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse than the disease .
The virtue-signalling of face-mask advocates is easily refuted .
Facemasks have been available for decades for use in industry and ideas generally considered good are taken up by the public .
Nobody needed the government to tell them to go out and buy a car or a television set .
So if you ’ re so convinced face masks are a good idea why has it taken the State to tell you before you came to this Eureka moment ?
And for how many years or decades have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow human beings by going out without a mask when you had a cold or the flu ?
However , apparently all the established research is now wrong and face mask wearing is essential .
It is a vast game of “ Simon Says , ” in which we only do anything when Simon says .
And it won ’ t stop there .
Expect newspapers like the Guardian to run sanctimonious editorials demanding that face-mask wearing be extended to pubs and restaurants , and eventually to every departure from your home .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy : indeed , the British public will do what they are already doing , gleefully embracing this perverse doctrine , boasting of buying colourful face masks for their children , and showering anyone who has a different point of view with disapproval .
I ’ m forced now to doubt that we , the British people value our freedom as much as we profess to .
We take to the streets in droves to embrace new forms of repression , such as an anarchistic movement that seeks to rewrite history and dismantle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death cult that seeks to suppress all human activity by frightening us all into believing we are destroying the Earth by existing .
But in the face of mounting attacks on our liberty and our freedom , we are silent .
We have had our liberty taken away from us .
Our movements are monitored .
Our discussions are censored via social media .
We are no longer free even to make fundamental choices about our bodies .
A public that will silently accept these things has learned nothing from history , will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is a dystopian world-state .
We are no longer entitled to lecture other nations about being repressive states .
Their representatives , quite rightly in my view would laugh in our faces .
There is a growing fear in the minds of many of us that Western lockdowns may be permanent .
The spectres of identity cards , martial law and forced vaccination now hover over us .
Dismissing this as “ conspiracy theory ” and accusing those who feel this way of an inhuman disregard for life is the rhetoric of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the face of a perceived threat .
I believe forced face-mask wearing in British streets is a brutal act that crosses the Rubicon , and finally signifies our descent into a de facto repressive state .
Mark Chapman is an artist and educator based in the UK .
His work is often concerned with questioning established narratives where evidence is contrary to these .
You can read more of his work at his blog Humanism

Mark Chapman
Julius Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon River in 49 BC in defiance of Roman law placed him and his army on a direct collision course with Rome, leading to the Civil War which established him as Roman dictator. It is a well-established metaphor for a point at which there is no going back and at which things will never be the same.
I predicted a few weeks ago that the UK Government would in the near future try to force everyone to wear facemasks in public. Leave aside the plethora of information that makes it clear face masks are of practically zero benefit in everyday circumstances, and may in fact be dangerous, the forced wearing of facemasks is a transgression so fundamental and of such significance that it is difficult to adequately express.
It implicitly hands your body over to state control, and renders one of your most basic existential freedoms subject to state interference. For the first time, the right to exercise a choice of whether you should inhibit your respiratory faculties and hide your face in public is taken out of your hands. If you doubt the significance of this, try to remember the public outcry that followed a debate regarding banning the wearing of burkhas and hijabs in the face of Islamic terrorism, and the connotations this had for civil liberties at the time.
Facemask wearing is the visible hallmark of Asian states perceived in the West as repressive and authoritarian. It is a badge of serfdom, akin to the yellow star that Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany. There is no greater invasion of your person possible short of tattooing you with a number.
This astonishing about-turn in policy has not happened overnight or without preparation. It has been preceded by a cleverly-orchestrated media campaign which seeks to bizarrely turn established professional and scientific research on its head, making virologists, infection-control bodies and academics who have published papers for the medical profession into liars and charlatans.
This campaign has included editorials and blogs which talk in disapproving and accusatory tones of “mask-shirkers” and “mask-deniers” allegedly “refusing” to wear face masks. Leave aside the obvious fact that refusal cannot take place without a demand: in other words someone has to give you an instruction to which you reply, “No, thanks.”
Absent such a demand, you are not refusing anything, merely making a choice. And until now there has been no such demand. But those making this choice are now psychopaths and enemies of humanity without a shred of integrity, respect or regard for their fellow human beings. When I returned from Asia early this year the advice was clear: face masks do not protect you from infection and it is not advised that you wear them.
What is more, face mask wearing was actively discouraged because of limited supplies required for hospital environments, where infection control is king and every precaution makes sense. Above all the only situation in which it is appropriate to wear a facemask in public is if you are unwell and have a cough, in which case why not stay at home?
But this piece of simple logic has been covered by the mask-advocates whose logic runs like this: “You may have coronavirus without knowing it, and may infect others with your breath even at unlimited distances so you need to wear a mask.” This covers all bases despite the evidence for this being at best negligible and at worst manipulated and dishonest.
It is part of the greater logic that renders every societal value worthless unless it contributes to the impossible task of making sure that not one single individual anywhere, ever, is infected with Covid-19. None of this means I think we should do nothing about this pandemic. But there is now a growing awareness that the cure proposed is not indefinitely sustainable and may in fact be worse than the disease.
The virtue-signalling of face-mask advocates is easily refuted. Facemasks have been available for decades for use in industry and ideas generally considered good are taken up by the public. Nobody needed the government to tell them to go out and buy a car or a television set.
So if you’re so convinced face masks are a good idea why has it taken the State to tell you before you came to this Eureka moment?
And for how many years or decades have you been going around disrespectfully infecting your fellow human beings by going out without a mask when you had a cold or the flu?
However, apparently all the established research is now wrong and face mask wearing is essential. It is a vast game of “Simon Says,” in which we only do anything when Simon says. And it won’t stop there. Expect newspapers like the Guardian to run sanctimonious editorials demanding that face-mask wearing be extended to pubs and restaurants, and eventually to every departure from your home.
Following this such a move will become policy: indeed, the British public will do what they are already doing, gleefully embracing this perverse doctrine, boasting of buying colourful face masks for their children, and showering anyone who has a different point of view with disapproval.
I’m forced now to doubt that we, the British people value our freedom as much as we profess to. We take to the streets in droves to embrace new forms of repression, such as an anarchistic movement that seeks to rewrite history and dismantle our police forces, or an anti-human death cult that seeks to suppress all human activity by frightening us all into believing we are destroying the Earth by existing.
But in the face of mounting attacks on our liberty and our freedom, we are silent. We have had our liberty taken away from us. Our movements are monitored. Our discussions are censored via social media. We are no longer free even to make fundamental choices about our bodies. A public that will silently accept these things has learned nothing from history, will accept anything and deserves its fate if that is a dystopian world-state.
We are no longer entitled to lecture other nations about being repressive states. Their representatives, quite rightly in my view would laugh in our faces. There is a growing fear in the minds of many of us that Western lockdowns may be permanent. The spectres of identity cards, martial law and forced vaccination now hover over us.
Dismissing this as “conspiracy theory” and accusing those who feel this way of an inhuman disregard for life is the rhetoric of fascism, a force that always thrives in the face of a perceived threat. I believe forced face-mask wearing in British streets is a brutal act that crosses the Rubicon, and finally signifies our descent into a de facto repressive state.
Mark Chapman is an artist and educator based in the UK. His work is often concerned with questioning established narratives where evidence is contrary to these. You can read more of his work at his blog Humanism


offguardian--2020-07-31--Open Letter: Refuting Politifact’s “fact check”

On the 27th of June OffGuardian published an article by Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter titled “ COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless ” , on July 7th Politifact published a “ fact check ” response to this article , without contacting either OffGuardian or the authors for comment .
Below is the author ’ s response , an email to which no member of the PolitiFact team has yet responded .
My name is Torsten Engelbrecht and I am journalist in Hamburg , Germany .
On July 7 , you claim in a piece that my OffGuardian article “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( co-authored by Konstantin Demeter ) is “ inaccurate.
” Unfortunately , your piece is unsubstantiated from start to finish .
This is a very serious issue , not least because Facebook has flagged our article as false news .
To clarify this issue please answer the following questions ( at least in short ) : 1 .
You claim that our assertion that “ The existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith , not fact ” is “ inaccurate.
” To compare the DNA of the alleged father and the child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extracted from the bodies of the alleged father and the child .
This entails forensic precautions to identify two separate individuals prior to obtaining their blood or other tissue samples for analysis .
The same standard applies to the identification of virus particle RNA and proteins .
When cells , cellular debris and particles are mixed in a culture , the only way of determining which RNA and proteins are viral is by separation of the particles from all the non-viral material .
In a paternity suit the genome can be obtained from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
However , since the viral genome can not be procured from a single particle , one must obtain it from a large mass of identical , that is , purified particles .
Or at least material that does not contain extraneous RNA .
This is an extremely simple concept readily understood even by the layman .
That is to say , if there is no evidence for purification ( as we outline in our OffGuardian article ) , how is it possible to claim that the RNA obtained is a viral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widely used for the diagnosis of infection with a new virus ?
And then , how can the PCR test be “ eminently suitable for viral detection ” ?
2 .
You claim that our “ article is inaccurate ” because “ polymerase chain reaction ( PCR ) tests are among the most common and reliable ways to test for the coronavirus.
” Do you really want to say that “ common ” is proof for accuracy ?
As outlined in our article , so-called SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests are meaningless because… • … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ calibrated ” with a sequence coming from the genome of a new pathogenic virus , because such virus has never been purified .
• … they do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with .
• … in April the WHO changed the algorithm , recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as “ positive ” even if just the E-gene assay gives a “ positive ” result ; but according to Corman et al .
( who developed the assay ) propably reacts positive to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well ) * • … many tests have a Cq well above ( up to 45 ) of what is regarded as reliable in the MIQE guidelines .
In which ways are these statements wrong ?
3 .
To back your claim you are citing a fact sheet of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) saying “ the test is ‘ designed to detect the virus that causes COVID-19 in respiratory specimens , for example nasal or oral swabs . '
” Why should a statement of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct ?
Do you have complete faith in what the CDC says ?
In our article we cite instruction manuals of RT-PCR tests which say exactly the opposite , among them the “ CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus ( 2019-nCoV ) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel ” file in which it says : Does that not contradict what you claim ?
Why does the CDC test , as well as all others , have a “ Research Use Only ” approval if they supposedly are so reliable ?
As we also mention in our article , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advised that all tests using the E-gene assay ( which usually is one of two or three assays used in many tests ) should be regarded as positive even if just the E-gene assay resulted positive .
But how can one draw that conclusion when one considers alone that the E-gene assay likely detects all Asian viruses , as stated in Corman et al.
, for example ?
4 .
As outlined in our article : So how can so-called SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests be “ not scientifically meaningless , ” as you claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 35 or even 45 ?
5 .
You claim that our assertion that inventor of the PCR test , Kary Mullis , “ regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection ” is “ false.
” And to back this claim you write : How can a so-called “ fact-check ” by Reuters based on a 1996 article as source show that our assertion about Mullis is false when the source of the mentioned statement in our article is not the source your quoted Reuters piece is based on ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corona Simulation Machine : Why the Inventor of The ‘ Corona Test ’ Would Have Warned Us Not To Use It To Detect A Virus ” written by Celia Farber ) ?
We write that Kary Mullis “ regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection , ” while you claim that the Reuters piece on which your claim is based on “ does not say PCR tests are ineffective for detecting viruses.
” But “ to detect a viral infection ” and “ to detect viruses ” are not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imprecise your reasoning is .
You don ’ t seem to know that to detect a viral infection , you need to find millions and millions of viral particles , not just one or a few viruses or fragments of them .
And the Reuters piece you are referring to states very well and clearly what we write , that Mullis said that “ the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection ” because in the Reuters article it says [ emphasis added ] : So why is it not correct to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection ” ?
Against this background we also state in our article that the term “ viral load ” is deception ” and also that the experiment “ to prove beyond any doubt that the PCR can measure how much a person is ‘ burdened ’ with a disease-causing virus…has not yet happened.
” Do you know of any such solid experiment ?
6 .
You claim that we lay “ out several ( inaccurate ) theories about PCR tests .
None of them prove that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' ” But in fact , we lay out technical facts .
Which “ inaccurate theories ” are you referring to ?
7 .
You claim that our assertion that “ There are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19 ” is “ inaccurate.
” Which are the distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19 that has never been observed in another known disease ?
8 .
You claim that in our OffGuardian article we make In contrast to your claim , we never stated that “ Between 22 % and 77 % ‘ of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positives . '
” Instead , we just cited two hypothetical scenarios presented in the orthodox publication Ärztezeitung .
Would you rate their article as “ Pants on Fire ” as well ?
If yes , what exactly is wrong with the calculation of the Positive Predictive Value with the different scenarios presented by the Ärztezeitung ?
One scenario outlined in the Ärztezeitung using a prevalence of 20 % is most probably higher than the prevalence of what is called SARS-CoV-2 in the general population .
Hence , presuming a specificity of 95 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 22 % would be more than realistic .
Don ’ t you think so ?
Why are you are confusing the “ positive rate ” with the “ positive predictive value ” , i.e .
inversely the percentage of the false positives among all the positive results , the latter being 8 % in your source ?
9 .
In our OffGuardian article we write : Doesn ’ t this alone seriously undermine the validity of the tests ?
10 .
As an argument for the fact that our article in which we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaningless is incorrect , you also state that “ Health care providers have also used them for detecting viruses like HIV.
” But in fact , the PCR test is not sufficient to detect an HIV infection , so why should it be good enough to detect a SARS-CoV-2 infection ?
11 .
You claim the “ OffGuardian has a track record of publishing conspiracy theories.
” Are you not aware of the fact that the term “ conspiracy theory ” has been introduced by the CIA in 1967 with the sole purpose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do you use this term which is nothing else than an ad hominem reasoning instead of focussing on what is factualy right or wrong ?
12 .
You write , “ There are three main coronavirus tests : diagnostic , antibody and antigen .
Diagnostic tests , also known as PCR tests , … ” This is not correct .
Didn ’ t you know that any test to determine the cause of a disease is a “ diagnostic test ” –and that PCR tests are also called “ molecular tests ” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests are also known as PCR tests ” is not correct ) ?
13 .
At the very beginning of your article you write “ Bloggers stated on June 27 , 2020 in an article.
” How do you get round naming us “ bloggers ” ?
I am first of all a journalist , and my co-author Konstantin has never acted as blogger .
And this term “ blogger ” has not been mentioned in the brief curriculum vitae on our OffGuardian article , either !
[ NB .
This question was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few days later – ed . ]
… please allow me to add another question : 14.How can you deliver unbiased results if you are financed by major corporations such as Facebook or the The E.W .
Scripps Company ( see here ) and if even the Poynter Institute which acquired you in 2018 can not , with all the will in the world , be described as unaffected by major capital interests ( see here ) ?
I am looking forward to receiving your answers .
This e-mail was originally sent on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow up on the 28th .
Since then , neither OffGuardian nor the author have received any reply .

On the 27th of June OffGuardian published an article by Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter titled “COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless”, on July 7th Politifact published a “fact check” response to this article, without contacting either OffGuardian or the authors for comment. Below is the author’s response, an email to which no member of the PolitiFact team has yet responded.
Dear Angie Drobnic Holan, Daniel Funke & Aaron Sharockman
My name is Torsten Engelbrecht and I am journalist in Hamburg, Germany. On July 7, you claim in a piece that my OffGuardian article “COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless” (co-authored by Konstantin Demeter) is “inaccurate.”
Unfortunately, your piece is unsubstantiated from start to finish. This is a very serious issue, not least because Facebook has flagged our article as false news. To clarify this issue please answer the following questions (at least in short):
1. You claim that our assertion that “The existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact” is “inaccurate.” To compare the DNA of the alleged father and the child one must ensure that the DNAs are extracted from the bodies of the alleged father and the child. This entails forensic precautions to identify two separate individuals prior to obtaining their blood or other tissue samples for analysis. The same standard applies to the identification of virus particle RNA and proteins.
When cells, cellular debris and particles are mixed in a culture, the only way of determining which RNA and proteins are viral is by separation of the particles from all the non-viral material. In a paternity suit the genome can be obtained from a single “particle” (father/child).
However, since the viral genome cannot be procured from a single particle, one must obtain it from a large mass of identical, that is, purified particles. Or at least material that does not contain extraneous RNA. This is an extremely simple concept readily understood even by the layman.
That is to say, if there is no evidence for purification (as we outline in our OffGuardian article), how is it possible to claim that the RNA obtained is a viral genome?
How can such RNA be widely used for the diagnosis of infection with a new virus? And then, how can the PCR test be “eminently suitable for viral detection”?
2. You claim that our “article is inaccurate” because “polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are among the most common and reliable ways to test for the coronavirus.”
Do you really want to say that “common” is proof for accuracy?
As outlined in our article, so-called SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests are meaningless because…
… there is no proof that they are “calibrated” with a sequence coming from the genome of a new pathogenic virus, because such virus has never been purified.
… they do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.
… in April the WHO changed the algorithm, recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as “positive” even if just the E-gene assay gives a “positive” result; but according to Corman et al. (who developed the assay) propably reacts positive to all Asian viruses (see point 3.3 as well)*
… many tests have a Cq well above (up to 45) of what is regarded as reliable in the MIQE guidelines.
In which ways are these statements wrong?
3. To back your claim you are citing a fact sheet of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) saying “the test is ‘designed to detect the virus that causes COVID-19 in respiratory specimens, for example nasal or oral swabs.'”
Why should a statement of the CDC be evidence that anything is factually correct? Do you have complete faith in what the CDC says?
In our article we cite instruction manuals of RT-PCR tests which say exactly the opposite, among them the “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” file in which it says:
Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”
Does that not contradict what you claim?
Why does the CDC test, as well as all others, have a “Research Use Only” approval if they supposedly are so reliable?
As we also mention in our article, on April 4 2020 the WHO officially advised that all tests using the E-gene assay (which usually is one of two or three assays used in many tests) should be regarded as positive even if just the E-gene assay resulted positive.
But how can one draw that conclusion when one considers alone that the E-gene assay likely detects all Asian viruses, as stated in Corman et al., for example?
4. As outlined in our article:
Another essential problem is that many PCR tests have a ‘cycle quantification’ (Cq) value of over 35, and some, including the ‘Drosten PCR test’, even have a Cq of 45… The inventor himself, Kary Mullis… stated: ‘If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.’… In a recent podcast interview [Stepehn. A.] Bustin points out that… a Cq in the 20s to 30s should be aimed at and there is concern regarding the reliability of the results for any Cq over 35.”
So how can so-called SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests be “not scientifically meaningless,” as you claim, if they have a Cg of over 35 or even 45?
5. You claim that our assertion that inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, “regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection” is “false.” And to back this claim you write:
In a fact-check, Reuters rated that claim false — the source is a 1996 article about HIV/AIDS. It does not say PCR tests are ineffective for detecting viruses.”
How can a so-called “fact-check” by Reuters based on a 1996 article as source show that our assertion about Mullis is false when the source of the mentioned statement in our article is not the source your quoted Reuters piece is based on (which is the 2020 article “The Corona Simulation Machine: Why the Inventor of The ‘Corona Test’ Would Have Warned Us Not To Use It To Detect A Virus” written by Celia Farber)?
We write that Kary Mullis “regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection,” while you claim that the Reuters piece on which your claim is based on “does not say PCR tests are ineffective for detecting viruses.”
But “to detect a viral infection” and “to detect viruses” are not the same thing.
This also shows how imprecise your reasoning is. You don’t seem to know that to detect a viral infection, you need to find millions and millions of viral particles, not just one or a few viruses or fragments of them.
And the Reuters piece you are referring to states very well and clearly what we write, that Mullis said that “the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection” because in the Reuters article it says [emphasis added]:
PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all.”
So why is it not correct to state that Kary Mullis “regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection”?
Against this background we also state in our article that the term “viral load” is deception” and also that the experiment “to prove beyond any doubt that the PCR can measure how much a person is ‘burdened’ with a disease-causing virus…has not yet happened.”
Do you know of any such solid experiment?
6. You claim that we lay “out several (inaccurate) theories about PCR tests. None of them prove that the tests are ‘scientifically meaningless.'” But in fact, we lay out technical facts.
Which “inaccurate theories” are you referring to?
7. You claim that our assertion that “There are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19” is “inaccurate.”
Which are the distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19 that has never been observed in another known disease?
8. You claim that in our OffGuardian article we make
several…inaccurate claims…including:… Between 22% and 77% ‘of the ‘positive’ tests are false ‘positives.’ Currently, about 92% of tests in the United States produce negative results.”
In contrast to your claim, we never stated that “Between 22% and 77% ‘of the ‘positive’ tests are false ‘positives.'” Instead, we just cited two hypothetical scenarios presented in the orthodox publication Ärztezeitung.
Would you rate their article as “Pants on Fire” as well?
If yes, what exactly is wrong with the calculation of the Positive Predictive Value with the different scenarios presented by the Ärztezeitung?
One scenario outlined in the Ärztezeitung using a prevalence of 20% is most probably higher than the prevalence of what is called SARS-CoV-2 in the general population. Hence, presuming a specificity of 95%, a false positive rate of 22% would be more than realistic. Don’t you think so?
Why are you are confusing the “positive rate” with the “positive predictive value”, i.e. inversely the percentage of the false positives among all the positive results, the latter being 8% in your source?
9. In our OffGuardian article we write:
Moreover, among other factors that can alter the result, before starting with the actual PCR, in case you are looking for presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase… But this transformation process is “widely recognized as inefficient and variable, as Jessica Schwaber from the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine in Toronto and two research colleagues pointed out in a 2019 paper. Stephen A. Bustin acknowledges problems with PCR in a comparable way.”
Doesn’t this alone seriously undermine the validity of the tests?
10. As an argument for the fact that our article in which we outline that COVID19 PCR tests are scientifically meaningless is incorrect, you also state that “Health care providers have also used them for detecting viruses like HIV.”
But in fact, the PCR test is not sufficient to detect an HIV infection, so why should it be good enough to detect a SARS-CoV-2 infection?
11. You claim the “OffGuardian has a track record of publishing conspiracy theories.”
Are you not aware of the fact that the term “conspiracy theory” has been introduced by the CIA in 1967 with the sole purpose of discrediting politically unpopular views?
Why do you use this term which is nothing else than an ad hominem reasoning instead of focussing on what is factualy right or wrong?
12. You write, “There are three main coronavirus tests: diagnostic, antibody and antigen. Diagnostic tests, also known as PCR tests,…” This is not correct.
Didn’t you know that any test to determine the cause of a disease is a “diagnostic test”–and that PCR tests are also called “molecular tests” (and that to say that “diagnostic tests are also known as PCR tests” is not correct)?
13. At the very beginning of your article you write “Bloggers stated on June 27, 2020 in an article.”
How do you get round naming us “bloggers”?
I am first of all a journalist, and my co-author Konstantin has never acted as blogger. And this term “blogger” has not been mentioned in the brief curriculum vitae on our OffGuardian article, either!
[NB. This question was added in a follow-up email sent a few days later – ed.]
… please allow me to add another question:
14.How can you deliver unbiased results if you are financed by major corporations such as Facebook or the The E.W. Scripps Company (see here) and if even the Poynter Institute which acquired you in 2018 cannot, with all the will in the world, be described as unaffected by major capital interests (see here)?
I am looking forward to receiving your answers.
Best wishes,
Torsten Engelbrecht
This e-mail was originally sent on the 23rd of July, with a follow up on the 28th. Since then, neither OffGuardian nor the author have received any reply.
*This sentence is amended for the sake of clarity, and slightly different from the version in the original email.^