The PsyOp Cyclops

a conversation with A Midwestern Doctor

Here’s my premise: it takes a network to undermine an empire. We all need to be sharing information, hunches, gut-feelings, discrepancies, observations, and disagreements. The empire is like a Cyclops, the eye in the pyramid. The PsyOp is when you think it’s not the “I” speaking but “we”—someone speaking for all of us, the little people—but really it’s the Cyclops in disguise.

Maybe someone is being fooled into speaking for the monolidded monolith but they sincerely believe they’re taking the side of us peasants. In that case, facts and logic can be presented, discussed, refuted, based on the foundation that none of us is better than anyone else. If the person doesn’t answer with new facts and logic—and the rules for this go back to ancient Greece—yet they disagree with your conclusion, you’ve probably hit a wall, a blind spot, a paradigm they’re not willing to question.

It doesn’t mean they’re working for the Cyclops. It does probably mean you’ve learned as much as you can from them on this topic and they from you. The PsyOp Cyclops is, by definition, an influencer, a public figure who’s consciously misleading their followers for pay or prestige in the present or the future. They answer to someone else. They’re not mistaken but are lying for a covert purpose. They’re part of a conspiracy to thwart any rebellion by leading it, as Lenin instructed.

PsyOp agents don’t come out of nowhere. They’re not recruited with ads posted at the coffeeshop, although their marks might be, or whatever the internet version is. In the one war of empire vs. sovereignty, their history, family or ambitions will be on the side of empire. The first two are easiest to prove because the third might not be evident until after they’ve succeeded.

As nymusicdaily commented, “there's no shame in welcoming and capitalizing on any positive development, even if the source is ultimately malign. on the other, that tends to put us in a smallball mindset. am i the only one whose patience is wearing thin? where is the drive to be as utopian as the evil ones are dystopian?”

I replied that, in my experience, even if good intentions don't have good results in the short term, they'll still win out. But good results from imperial intentions are just a set-back in disguise. Sooner or later, they'll lead to worse outcomes than before and you'll have to do the additional work of sorting out the deception before you can deal with them. The 'lesson' you'll have learned from the last time will be a false one so you have to go back and unlearn it before you can move forward on the next crisis.

So that’s why I’m staying in pursuit of the PsyOp Cyclops, so we don’t have to go through this again.

---

Yesterday the anonymous and ungendered blogger who writes as A Midwestern Doctor posted The Downward Slide of America’s Healthcare Apparatus. They wrote:

Over the last two years, we have watched the public become progressively more upset with the COVID-19 response. I believe we have now reached the point where the majority of the American population does not support what has been done, and a significant portion of them have lost their trust within the medical system. In parallel to this increasing public rejection of the COVID narrative, the media, which initially censored any claims dissenting from the narrative, has gradually been allowing that dissent to enter the public discourse.

AMD then did an excellent analysis of breaking down the means of coercion today:

When the Age of Enlightenment began in the 17th century, it became far more difficult for monarchs to continue to use the tools they had previously used to enslave the masses. In turn, Western culture gradually shifted towards a capitalistic democracy, where our faith in society came down to three beliefs:

•Leaders, who we elected by voting, represent our interests and are who we, through our own free will, chose to govern us.
•Money is important and we should do our best to prioritize accumulating it.
•If you are unhappy with anything in the system, you should address it by being financially or politically successful (in other words, you should work within the two previous beliefs rather than rejecting them entirely).

Once these beliefs were shared by the entire society, the ruling class became able to effectively control the population, as (especially with the help of monopolies and propaganda) they could easily influence the political and economic process to suit their needs. Most importantly, unlike rulers of the past, this could be done without needing to fund a large standing army to enforce compliance.

After this slingshot right into the eye of the Cyclops, AMD writes:

I have thought about this for a long time; I believe (in spite of its many shortcomings) the current system of governance, which revolves around those three beliefs (and a functional judicial system), represents the best option of governance available to our species and each member of society.

Huh? Being manipulated is our best option? The major takeaway from my book is that a capitalist democracy is a contradiction in terms. It’s a calibrated empire with competition to be on top, not a system of self-governance.

---

But the bulk of the article is about the new Scott Atlas memoir. AMD sees this as the real deal, the real story we’re finally getting, and has posted the first part on Pierre Kory’s Substack as The Media is Finally Beginning to Come Clean about Covid-19.

Atlas is, in AMD’s words, “a highly acclaimed neuroradiologist and health policy scholar who chose to dissent against the narrative and eventually, in July of 2020, ended up in the White House and then on the Coronavirus Task Force” as a Trump appointee. Since coming out with his memoir, he’s getting a lot of press with his opinion piece in Newsweek and interview on Tucker Carlson.

What is the big reveal the media’s coming clean about? It’s all Deborah Birx’s fault. Even Fauci and CDC Director Redfield deferred to her, enabled her to do all the damage by agreeing to whatever she wanted, and everyone else on the Task Force caved in surreal Idiocracy fashion except for our man Atlas. It’s the lone gunman theory except it’s a woman.

Birx is described as having “emotional immaturity that is so surreal I still have some difficulty believing it really happened.” Despite this, “the media was incredibly supportive of her and her fanatical advocacy for the lockdown narrative.” Her style was "autocratic" and "dictatorial." High-level technical staff adopted an approach of "just obey and move on. … Working in fear and a space where nothing is negotiable."

So Birx, the Covid dominatrix, called all the shots and shrugged off poor Atlas every time he tried to bring some science, goddamit, into the pandemic response. AMD ends by referring to Atlas’ proposals to address what happened and also says:

Additionally Robert Malone wrote an excellent series on what can potentially be done to fix these issues within the Department of Health and Human Services (part one can be viewed here, part two here).

---

I remember reading these two articles when I was a paid subscriber to Robert Malone’s article and they were two of my favorites. In the first, he writes:

Since the 2001 “Amerithrax” Anthrax spore “attacks”, HHS has increasingly been horizontally integrated with the intelligence community as well as with the Department of Homeland Security to form a health security state with enormous ability to shape and enforce “consensus” through widespread propaganda, censorship, “nudge” technology and intentional manipulation of the “Mass Formation” hypnosis process using modern adaptations of methods originally developed by Dr Joseph Goebbels.

In the second article on how to dismantle it, he continues:

Fascism is a political system which is otherwise known as Corporatism, that being the fusion of corporate and state power. And as previously discussed, currently the real power of the US Government lies in the Fourth Estate, the Administrative State. To break up these “public-private partnerships” which compromise the ability of HHS to perform essential oversight duties and truly protect the health of American Citizens from the rapacious practices and disgusting ethics of the medical-pharmaceutical complex (in which they behave as predators, and we have become the prey), we must sever the financial and organizational ties that bind the medical-pharmaceutical industrial complex to the HHS Administrative State.

I think it’s interesting to note that he quotes the title of the Breggins’ book, Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey. It would go along with the theory discussed in some threads that he gains trust by echoing our own words and even cartoons back to us to see which way the wind is blowing.

---

These posts provide very concrete steps for ending corruption in the HHS, using in-depth knowledge. Malone quotes an article called “From FDA to MHRA: are drug regulators for hire?” by reporter Maryanne Demasi. She documents five mechanisms by which agencies are coopted by for-profit companies in the US, UK, Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan, and shows how to change it.

His second post points to the absurd amount of funding:

… the President’s FY 2022 HHS budget proposes $131.8 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.5 trillion in mandatory funding. In contrast, President’s FY 2022 budget request for DoD is $715 billion.

Malone elaborates on what would fix the problem: First, a Trump-era executive order that would reclassify 88% of federal agency employees as Schedule F, so they could be fired at will. Second, modifying the Bayh-Dole Act so that HHS officers can’t receive royalties from patents licensed to corporations. He addresses ending the regulator-industry revolving door, pharma paying for its own regulation, and vaccine indemnification. His last point is that HHS shouldn’t be Too Big to Fail.

As a decentralist, my solution is a network of sovereign health organizations for commonwealths under 300,000 people. They might have agreements to share patents freely or at low cost. They would be funded through mortgage-backed carets. It would be a lowercase federal system.

But Malone makes excellent points and it’s clearly a topic which he has given serious thought. They would unquestionably make him enemies within the HHS and even at the top. It could make him enemies in Big Pharma. And it would certainly make the HHS less corrupt. Is he a reformer who’s retired and looking at the bigger picture? Or positioning himself to, not just replace Fauci, but perhaps be his boss?

---

To get A Midwestern Doctor’s thoughts, I posted:

I love your analysis of the three assumptions: democracy is good, money is good, power is good. In my book I go back 3500 years to the origins of democracy and money to show how they’ve co-opted us.

But I think, with respect, you're falling for another attempt to co-opt us. In this post, my seventh episode on Robert Malone, I look at how words and actions can indicate one direction but the intentions and motives are in another.

A Midwestern Doctor replied:

Thank you. One of the reasons I've avoided going public is because there is no position you can hold that everyone agrees with, and those who disagree with your current position will do everything they can to dig up reasons to attack and dismiss you.

In Malone's case, he initially tried to help fix the COVID mess from behind the scenes, then eventually took on a big risk to speak out publicly against all of this, got thrust into a very challenging role he (like most people) had no prior experience in, and has managed to make a massive impact in stopping the vaccine program (it's very possible he has done more than anyone else speaking on this issue). I understand that people feel differently about him, but I have no idea what I would have done if I'd been in his position, and I am fully aware of how many lives he has saved by speaking out.

Cynthia Bowers wrote:

Did Malone try to help the mess? This is a confusing topic and one that is widely debated in a number of substacks.

Peter and Ginger Breggin title this column about Malone ‘Could this Man Have Saved the World?’

‘In January 2020, Malone published on ResearchGate an elaborate scientific paper with MIT researcher Darrell O. Ricke as the first author in which the two concluded that all COVID-19 vaccines, including mRNA, were too deadly to be given even experimentally to humans.’ (2)

This was months before the Dec 2020 vaccine rollout and mandates. Why didn’t he say anything? He has had plenty of chances. Joe Rogan asked him point blank about ADE during their now famous interview. Malone, who loves to spout his credentials, didn’t bring up the findings in that Jan 2020 paper. Why?

The paper is linked at the end of the column just below. (BTW, Malone has filed a complaint in Va against the longtime vaccine and psychiatric drug educators Dr Peter and Ginger Breggin asking for $25 million for defamation.)

Could This Man Have Saved the World?

And this video by Mark Kulacz includes even more confounding background info. https://web.archive.org/web/20220925080346/https://www.bitchute.com/video/JvkXyUpr8Op2/

The column is worth a read and the video in the second link is extremely informative.

Don’t shoot the messenger.

Tereza Coraggio answered:

I really appreciate your reply, AMD, and taking the time to read my comment. My policy, which I put into my article, is that I'm 100% supportive of challenging ideas but that I will ban any commenter who attacks or insults people, individually or as a group. So whether you post anonymously or openly, I would never dismiss you or Robert Malone. But I will look at the consistency between what someone says and what someone does, and that's where my critique of RM comes in.

In this last episode, I address a conversation from Meryl Nass' comment thread with someone holding your pov: that RM has saved lives and should be thanked for his good words and actions without going to motive.

I quote Daniel Negase's Discrepancy Analysis that he applies after RM told him in Nov 2021 not to talk about his concern that reverse-transcribed RNA would integrate into the DNA, particularly causing the genetic alteration of children.

I cite the Breggins' discovery of a Jan 2020 paper by RM proving that mRNA was too dangerous to be used even for human experimentation.

And I look at the $21M given to the company where he was the Chief Medical Officer in April 2020 to find repurposed FDA-approved drugs so there would be no EUA for the vaccine. He tested Pepcid AC, an otc heartburn medication, and NEVER tested ivermectin or HCQ.

If any of these things had been different, there might never have been a vaccine because symptoms could have been treated inexpensively. I don't feel this is digging for dirt, this seems very relevant to examine for someone who you're recommending as someone we should trust to fix this. I'd love for you to look at my article and give me your thoughts, and please tell me where I'm wrong.

A Midwestern Doctor noted:

One thing I will add is that he was one of the early people who was pushing forward research Ivermectin and HCQ, which I know directly from people who worked with him. I also must respectfully decline your request; my policy has been to not get involved in this topic, I don't have enough time to cover most of what I want to cover and I can't see anything positive coming from doing a deep dive on it.

Tereza Coraggio continued:

Exactly, which is why there is a discrepancy btw his words and actions. In April 2020 he had $21M to do clinical trials showing that IVM or HCQ worked, making the vaccine unable to get EUA. That's not coming from a 'conspiracy theory,' that's from Branden Borrell and RM's own CV. His technology, DOMANE, is designed to select repurposed drugs. If he had run trials of either, not one of those vaccine injuries or deaths would have happened.

I understand if you don't want to do a deep dive on it but can you tell me where either my facts or logic are wrong on this point?

Kittykat: I doubt any study in ivermectin or HCQ would have changed the outcome.

Tereza Coraggio answered:

Oh that's not true, Kittykat. According to the gov't, they can only get Emergency Use Authorization if there's no FDA-approved drug that can be repurposed to be effective. Without EUA, they would have needed to show clinical data demonstrating that the vaccines were both safe and effective. So it would have stopped the entire fiasco in its tracks if Malone had used the $21M from Trump to test HCQ or IVM, drugs that we and RM already knew to be effective. The DOMANE system is seriously flawed if it didn't come up with these but at that point the FLCCC and many others were going strong in arguing their efficacy. Why didn't Malone, as the entity authorized and funded by the gov't to identify repurposed drugs, test the ones we knew were working?

A Midwestern Doctor wrote:

If I had been Trump, at the very start of the pandemic, I would have done tests in the military with repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19, and then once they were completed publicized them to the world. I think that is the only way we could have gotten around all the stonewalling against repurposed pharmaceutical treatment of COVID-19, but it's understandable why Trump did not understand the whole bureaucracy well enough to grasp this.

Tereza Coraggio replied:

From Borrell's account of the Pepcid-AC trial done by the company where RM was CMO: "The study's draft protocol was aimed only at evaluating famotidine's efficacy, but Trump's "game-changer" antimalarial drug was rapidly becoming the standard of care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. That meant investigators would only be able to recruit enough subjects for a trial that tested a combination of famotidine and hydroxychloroquine. Those patients would be compared with a hydroxychloroquine-only arm and a historic control arm made up of hundreds of patients treated earlier in the outbreak."

So it seems like Trump was already making HCQ the standard of care but RM's company tested famotidine (pepcid ac) both with and w/o HCQ, but not HCQ itself or IVM. Pepcid was deemed ineffectual and EUA was granted to the vaccines.

As a doctor and scientist, does this design methodology make logical sense to you? It seems to me designed to fail, because HCQ was already effective and there was no need to test Pepcid in combination with it, then call Pepcid ineffective.

A Midwestern Doctor concluded:

1) There is a good case to be made for using famotidine for COVID-19.

2) That was most likely what was available for him to do at the time.

3) Very few people were doing research in this area at the time, so I feel it is more productive to ask why 99.9% of physicians were not testing repurposed drugs to treat the pandemic when they had no available way to treat it rather than critiquing the methodolgy of someone who tried to do so.

I was on one of the teams that tried to push forward treatments for COVID-19, and I cannot begin to describe how difficult the FDA and IRBs/hospitals made it to try them out, in spite of the fact people were regularly dying because there was no treatment available to them.

Most of the attacks I've heard against Malone are things like this, where if you look at it for a while you can find a way to argue what he's doing was bad, but you can also step back and recognize that he's trying to do something with a chance to help while everyone else is standing by and not doing anything.

to which Tereza Coraggio wrote:

I agree that there's a good case to be made for famotidine but my question is about the design methodology. If you test fam+HQC against HQC only, if HQC is effective on its own, there won't be a significant difference adding famotidine. Since the effectiveness of Fam is all you're testing for, not HQC, it guarantees that your results will be nil, giving the EUA for the vaccine. Does that make sense? The more effective the 'neutral' position is, the more it will cancel out results for anything mixed with it.

You and the other 99.9% of doctors were forbidden to use these repurposed drugs--Daniel Negase lost his ability to practice because of giving patients IVM. As you say, the FDA made it impossibly difficult. But Malone was working for BARDA, for the FDA to find repurposed drugs. That was exactly what the contract was for, what his whole DOMANE system is supposed to do. He wasn't a lone doctor bucking the system--he was given $21M by the system to find out what worked. He wasn't going on anecdotal info and experimenting on individual patients at his own risk, he was authorized to run clinical trials for the gov't prior to EUA approval.

Every patient who died or was injured either from the vaccine or the prevention of early treatment with repurposed drugs goes back to this fork in the road. If Malone had tested HCQ or IVM, every patient of every doctor might well have been saved. It's not a little critique of methodology, although a first year stats student could see the flaw in it. The question is whether it was designed to fail, and is this who we're trusting to make sure it never happens again.

And that was the end of the thread.

---

To follow up, here is an old one on Truth-Telling in a Time of Catastrophe:

I begin this video with the story of my daughter's wedding, which I'm taking as an omen for the community we're going to build when the empire crumbles. Then I read my poem on the double bind of being a Cassandra during these troubled times, and my vision for how it's all going to turn around.

and here is an even older one, Calming the Fears of the Tyranny-Hesitant:

In response to viewer comments, I examine Norman Doidge's 4-part article, Needle Points, on how the Behavioral Immune System, as he terms it, creates hesitancy. He reframes the question as psycho-social rather than data-driven, which seems odd for a scientist. I look at recent data analyzed by he-who-must-not-be-mentioned (one of many). In conclusion, I ask how the tyranny-hesitant have been turned into early adopters.