Quick and dirty report from Läkaruppropets Stockholm conference, Jan. 21-22

Second day of the Swedish doctors’ appeal’s conference on the pandemic politics and coutermeasues (yeah, mainly the vaccines), so I thought I’d do a little off-the-cuff reporting while I’m here.

Trying to be the punk kids at the back of the bus/classroom (with John, Gunnhild, Lotta and Rob), but that’s a bit hard since you not only agree with most of what’s on the agenda - it’s also a really cozy and amicable gathering.

Yet maybe too much so. The content of the presentations is overall good and the intentions are of course commendable, but the entire event is a perhaps little bit lacking in terms of critical debate, a little bit too self-congratulatory.

But that’s probably inevitable. Just meeting real people in meatspace that are not only open to entertain the critical perspectives (that you’ve been maligned for holding over the last three years) but actually support them seems to be quite cathartic for many of those in attendance. Just being able to speak openly about these things without risking being ostracized apparently means a lot to people, and spirits are high. This is not unimportant in facilitating open and critical debate, especially in our situation of unprecedented censorship and societal atomization.

So just to summarize, yesterday, we opened with Aseem Malhotra’s excellent presentation mainly relating to the connections between the mRNA jabs and the incidence of heart disease, and the chilling suppression of hard medical evidence due to the narrative rigidity and centralized control of the legacy mass media.

Malone and Meryl Nass both continued on this latter topic and had many excellent points, but Malone maybe went a bit out of his depth in dissecting phenomena relating to propaganda and the control of information. I loathe the cult of expertise and am all for interdisciplinarity, but I think this also necessitates meticulous discussions and much deep thinking across disciplinary borders, otherwise, the analyses risk being somewhat superficial.

Meryl Nass’ presentation focused heavily on the recently suggested WHO amendments which I wrote about a few days back, yet brought certain issues out in much greater detail.

Jonathan Gilthorpe unveiled the failure of regulation and organizational oversight in relation to the mRNA products, and Sasha Latypova presented compelling research on the connections between the defense industry and the mass production and marketing of the mRNA products.

Seems there was some planning beforehand here.

Slide of Latypova’s

The rest of Saturday’s content mainly focused the Swedish situation in particular, save for John Steppling’s excellent summarizing overview of how certain deep political and cultural structures are made manifest in the developments of the last three years. He ended with the question how the actual processes of decision behind this globally synchronized pandemic response really looked like, and emphasized that this both can and should be explored by proper investigations – there should be a paper trail in the public record.

Sunday is more heavily focused on the minutiae of biomedical research. I unfortunately missed Ryan Cole’s bit since I slept like a baby zombie (there was a fire adjacent to the church where I’m staying, to the night before last, we had to suddenly evacuate the entire premises. Somebody had left an industrial pizza oven on max for five hours), but Läkaruppropet’s Ann-Catrin Engwall brought a helpful overview on the manifold potential pathological mechanisms connected to what she calls the mRNA “pre-vaccines”, something which Jessica Rose will hopefully add to later today. I’m pretty curious to hear about developments pertaining to the class switch immune suppression debacle.

Arne Burkhardt’s histopathological review of the mRNA-induced spike protein expression in various tissues is… Disturbing. It’s all over the place. Inflammation-induced necrosis of blood vessel linings, blood-brain-barrier transference and associated haemmoraging, inflammation in the gonads &c.

Burkhardt

A relevant question posed by Latypova is why every major pharmaceutical corporation produced a pharmaceutical product targeting exactly the same modality in a similar manner, i.e. the mRNA-induced auto-generation of the spike protein. There were several much safer, tried & true options, which reasonably would have been preferred over the untested mRNA mechanism, not least from the perspective of a private for-profit operation. They normally would not risk designing and marketing a product quite likely to fail (look at the track record of mRNA products), and that all of them did is almost inconceivable.

Her argument is that these products were actually custom-ordered by the defense industry.

+++

We’re not really getting anything out in the mainstream media. There’s only attendance by minor alternative outlets, conspicuously excluding the left-wing ones. These perspectives and lines of critique are rather firmly fixed in connection to the Trumpist & neo-fascist brand of Q-anonesque conspiracism, and apparently will remain so for the foreseeable future. It’s sort of a self-reinforcing spiral by now, the structure of censorship and the liberal identity politics forces a sort of symbiotic relationship between the radical right and the underground research community, which serves to further discredit the entire movement.

There was apparently also an Estonian documentary filmmaker in attendance, and I think there was a paper from Iceland, but I know nothing about them.

Of course, we’re recording the conference ourselves and will post much of the material online in the weeks ahead, so feel free to share them around when we get them up and running.

Ryan Cole: these products should be under the rigorous protocols for approval pertaining to gene-based pharmaceuticals. We’ve got to stop this mRNA platform.