Public embrace of vax certificates a technocrat’s paradise: the first step towards a biosecurity surveillance state

Digital surveillance technologies such as My Vaccine Pass are being used to extract personal data and to impose new forms of social control.


For the last month people all over the country have been busy downloading the new vaccine certificates that the Government is billing as a way to “unlock the things you love”.

But the promotional tagline for the passes is a psychological inversion of what the Government really means – that your rights have been removed and you can only have them back if you go along with certain conditions.

Yep, the Government has done a swifty – and so far people are going along with it without thinking much about what it means and what the consequences for our way of life will be.

On social media, people have been sharing with excitement their newly minted pass to freedom, and many have been actively using it since 3 December to access cafes and restaurants, hairdressers and shops of all kinds.

The immediate consequence of this is that there is now an underclass of people, the unjabbed, who have been barred from accessing certain goods and services. They can’t eat in restaurants or cafes, swim in public pools or sit driving tests. Unjabbed parents can’t volunteer in schools and unjabbed school kids can’t participate in sports.

But this is just the beginning of how a biometric identity system could be used to deny people access to normal life without strict compliance to Government’s conditions, which can change at any time according to its priorities and goals.

Alongside the introduction of vaccine certificates, there are a couple other things going on in the background in New Zealand (and a lot more at the global level) that should be brought to the public’s attention – The Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill and The Reserve Bank’s exploration of a Central Bank Digital Currency.

The timing of these point to a blending of public health initiatives with new digital technologies of surveillance that can be used to extract personal data and to impose new forms of social control.

New digital technologies of surveillance can be used to extract personal data and to impose new forms of social control.

Vaccination certificates

These dystopian digital passes did not appear out of nowhere, despite being introduced quickly in New Zealand and without public consultation.

Back in 2018, ID2020, the organisation that has been lobbying and working to achieve a biometric digital identity for every person on the planet, first suggested that immunisation was an “entry point for digital identity”. The NGO is closely tied to Bill Gates’ The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisations (GAVI).

“In order to enable digital identity at scale, we will need to identify and leverage many entry points. Immunization service delivery presents a tremendous opportunity to provide children with a durable, portable and secure digital identity early in life, enabling access to a wider range of social services, while also improving access to the health interventions all children need and deserve.”

Since 2018, GAVI has been pushing for the introduction of biometric IDs to be used when children come in for their first round of immunisations through its INFUSE 2018 programme.

“As the child grows, the digital child health card can be used to access secondary services, such as primary school, or financial services, serving as the foundation for a broadly recognised digital identity,” it stated on a promotional GAVI diagram.

ID2020 and Gavi partnered with the government of Bangladesh to pilot their use in 2019.

Similarly, The European Union has been preparing for the passports since 2018, with a timeline that sets 2022 as the year for their commissioning for EU citizens.

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, has been pushing digital identity and vaccine passports for many years, as has the World Economic Forum.

And then in August 2021, the Word Health Organisation provided technical guidance to governments on the implementation of vaccine certificates in a document that was funded not by member states but notably by the Rockerfeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. You can read it here.

A globally coordinated plan for vaccine certificates has been in the works for some time, then. At a minimum it can be inferred that it’s a topic of great interest to certain philanthropists, advocacy groups and global governance institutions.

The certificates were developed in New Zealand in recent months ready to be rolled out for the newly introduced traffic light system, which has the distinct whiff of punitive nudging rather than a public health imperative.

Under this system, regions that have a less than 90 per cent vaccination rate will operate under more restrictions than those that have reached the Government’s target.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says the vaccine certificates are a way for vaccinated people to feel safe in the knowledge they aren’t sharing a space with any unjabbed people and a way of rewarding them for “doing the right thing”.

She has also proudly admitted that the traffic light system is effectively removing certain rights from unjabbed people.

After the Government rammed through the legislation underpinning the certificates without due process on 23 November, a volley of responses from civil society was triggered.

The Civil Rights Council of New Zealand called it “disgraceful government secrecy”.

The Human Rights Commission expressed concern and produced a series of briefings on the issue. “The challenge is balancing the duty to protect peoples’ right to health and life while also protecting the right to freedom of movement and assembly,” said Chief Commissioner Paul Hunt.

“It is a difficult and at times contentious balance between competing rights, but we must not shy away from the fact that human rights and Tiriti obligations must not be undermined in times of national emergency.”

Amnesty International also urged the Government to rethink its approach on the legislation due to “serious concerns about the lack of opportunity for public consultation and scrutiny.”

The New Zealand Law Society wrote to the Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins on 26 November with a scathing admonishment for the Governments inscrutable law making and urging wider consultation.

“The Act is perhaps the most significant piece of amendment legislation since passage of the principal Act—the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 …

“The amendments do not specify any decision-making principles or criteria in relation to the implementation of requirements for vaccinations and testing. Instead, the legislation leaves this to be determined through the drafting of the Orders.

“As such, the amendments confer expansive powers that may be exercised with little or no democratic scrutiny. The Bill providing for these powers passed through the House in 24 hours,” wrote president Tiana Epati.

The Ministry of Justice told the attorney-general when advising on the bill’s consistency with the Bill of Rights Act 1990:

“We have not yet received a final version of the bill. This advice has been prepared in relation to the latest version of the bill (PCO 24238/9.5). This advice has been prepared in an extremely short timeframe due to late receipt of the bill that was not in compliance with cabinet office guidance.” It’s clear the vaccine passes sacrifice equality, privacy and liberty and have no public health benefit, because the jab does not prevent infection or transmission. They are largely about coercing compliance with the Government’s aim of getting a needle in every arm and later to issue digital identities.

Minister for Digital Economy and Communications, David Clark introduced the new Digital Identity bill. He is also in charge of a pilot programme in partnership with the World Economic Forum to co-design regulatory frameworks for the use of artificial intelligence by governments. Courtesy of Weirdgoingpro and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

Digital Identify Services Trust Framework Bill

This piece of legislation, the Digital Identify Services Trust Framework Bill, is currently at Select Committee phase after its first reading; it sets the rules for the delivery of digital identity services and is likely to pave the way for a cashless society in which citizens access goods and services through a centralised digital authority.

Australia is implementing a very similar piece of legislation with a very similar name. Comedian Russell Brand deftly unpacks the legislation and its marketing in this video.

As he points out, the language used to sell digital identities is framed as helpful, people-centred and trustworthy but comes at a time when trust in Government is being eroded due to disproportionate and harsh covid restrictions.

Just as with the traffic light law, no public consultation was undertaken on this significant piece of legislation. While the Government undertook “targeted consultation”, it did not disclose all of the individuals and organisations that were consulted, begging the question: Were the likes of Google, The World Economic Forum, ID2020 or global philanthropists such as Bill Gates, or Tony Blair’s think tank consulted?

As advocacy group Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility and grassroots activist group Voices for Freedom stated in their submissions on the bill, its stated purpose, “to establish a legal framework for the provision of secure and trusted digital identity services for individuals and organisations”, doesn’t take into account the potential for human rights violations, or anticipate new or existing threats from technological developments, such as artificial intelligence and data piracy.

The submissions also note that while the policy documents claim digital identity is voluntary and that citizens can opt-out, it’s clear from observing India and China, which have already adopted digital identity systems, that participating will increasingly become a requirement to do life – for example to receive welfare benefits, or to confirm identity when voting or registering at school.

“The passing of a considerable body of legislation during the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic has revealed that the government can and will swiftly enact draconian legislation removing the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders without appropriate consultation. In addition, when consultation has been undertaken, the state’s decision has not reflected the perspective or weight of public comment,” the VFF submission stated.

A recent essay from The Grey Zone’s Jeremy Loffredo and Max Blumenthal highlighted the dangers people face from such ID systems. In the long, but beautifully researched piece, the pair describe terrifying real world examples in which people have been denied access to food and even starved to death in India because their biometric identity wasn’t functioning correctly.

This important investigation lays out how digital vaccine passes are accelerating the establishment of global biometric IDs.

“For these elite interests, the digitisation of immunity passports represent a critical tool in a long-planned economic and political transformation,” it states.

In New Zealand, unjabbed people are already unable to access a number of goods and services by virtue of ‘My Vaccine Pass’.

Two other pieces worth reading are Rusere Shoniwa’s excellent three-part Open Letter to Those Not Yet Opposed to Vaccine Passports, which sets out the ethical case against such tools, and a Lithuanian man’s description of life as an unjabbed family in a country where vaccine passes limit access to just about everything for the unjabbed. It’s a heartbreaking read.

It’s also worth noting the New Zealand Government partnered with the World Economic Forum in 2019 to become the test case for building trust in artificial intelligence and its use by Government, which is now in the “scaling” phase.

Central Bank Digital Currency – the end game

Countries all over the world are looking carefully at Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), including the central bank of central banks, The Bank for International Settlements.

As society increasingly moves away from cash to adopt digital currencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, central banks have been looking for a way to get in on the action.

CBDCs differ from other crypto currencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum in one simple way – they are intended to be centralised, where crypto currencies are based on a decentralised blockchain that can’t be controlled by a central force.

Head of the Bank for International Settlements Agustín Carstens (in a moment of candour that was possibly not intended) explains:

“We don’t know who is using a $100 bill today … a key difference with the CBDC, is the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability. And also, we will have the technology to enforce that.” (See for yourself in this video at about the 24-minute mark).

There have been warnings from intellectuals and experts for some time about the threat of vaccine passports and CBDCs leading to a Chinese-style social credit system, under which your ability to move freely and do everyday things becomes contingent with your compliance with government rules. Access to funds can be flicked off any time the authorities are unhappy with you, or restrict where, how and when your money can be spent.

Journalist and public intellectual Naomi Wolf has been sounding the alarm at least since last year.

“The vaccine passport platform is the same platform as a social credit system, like in China, that enslaves eight billion people. In China the CCP can find any dissident in five minutes because of the 360-degree surveillance of the social credit system.”

“The vaccine passport platform is the same platform as a social credit system, like in China, that enslaves eight billion people. In China the CCP can find any dissident in five minutes because of the 360-degree surveillance of the social credit system.”

Financial and investment guru Catherine Austin Fitts has done likewise, saying vaccine passports alongside a digital control system will spell the end of human liberty in the west. She advocates for ‘cash Fridays’, asking people to use cash only in their transactions.

On 7 July, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand signalled it was looking at developing a CBDC.

Assistant governor Christian Hawkesby said at the time that government backed cash was an “unspoken promise” that helped to promote trust in banks and the financial system.

“The potential for a Central Bank Digital Currency to help address some of the downsides of reducing physical cash use and services is something we want to explore for New Zealand.  A CBDC, similar to digital cash, might well be part of the solution, but we need to test our assessment of the issues and proposed approach before developing any firm proposals,” he said.

The Reserve Bank ran a consultation on the issue that closed on 6 December and the public can expect the results to be announced by the end of the first quarter next year.

Read the Reserve Bank’s position paper on CBDCs here.

It’s not that simple, BJ!

HTL’s Roger Guttridge responds to claims that the unvaccinated are ‘aggressive and selfish idiots’

A reader identifying himself only as ‘BJ of Shaftesbury’ recently wrote to a digital magazine called The Blackmore Vale that it was ‘unbelievable’ that so many people are still refusing the Covid-19 vaccines (

BJ spoke of ‘aggressive and selfish idiots with no scientific and medical knowledge, who think they know better than the world’s leading medical professionals and scientists’.

So let’s consider the words of a few of these leading medical professionals and scientists.

Top US cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough, president of the Cardiorenal Society of America, said after changing his view on vaccine safety: ‘Covid-19 vaccines are killing huge numbers of people and the government is simply ignoring it.

‘The US government, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and health agencies around the world have all committed to vaccinating the global population while sitting on data showing the Covid-19 vaccines are turning out to be the most lethal vaccines ever created.’

More recently, he added: ‘If a vaccine can’t last a year, it’s a no-go, because all we are going to do is create a dependency on these boosters.

‘A mutant strain is going to find a vaccinated environment maybe more ideal to flourish. So the vaccines are failing those we most want to protect.’

World-famous Belgian virologist Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, who has worked with the World Health Organization, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and the Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team, has repeatedly warned that mass vaccination is driving the variants as the virus seeks ways around the vaccines by mutating.

‘This is not a problem when we vaccinate only a limited part of the population, such as the vulnerable and elderly for flu,’ he says.

‘But if you generate a background of high immune pressure, by vaccinating vast amounts of people in the population, you give a competitive advantage to those variants that are capable of overcoming this immune pressure.’

Dr Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA and author of 100 peer reviewed papers, has been censored by YouTube and Twitter after revealing that instead of staying near the injection site, as he and colleagues expected, the experimental mRNA vaccines are biologically active and lead to blood clots, bleeding disorders, heart problems and neurological damage as well as accumulating in women’s ovaries.

Britain’s Dr Mike Yeadon, long-serving former vice-president and chief scientist of Pfizer, said: ‘Everything your government has told you about this virus is a lie.

‘This systematic process of fear and control is going to culminate, I think, in some very horrible times, and I’m desperate to wake you up.

‘Children are 50 times more likely to die from the covid vaccine than the virus.’

Professor Joel S Hirschborn, medical adviser to the US Senate and House of Representatives, said: ‘The media is largely ignoring the thousands dying from the experimental covid vaccines.

‘A few thousand have died from breakthrough infections because the vaccines are not effective in preventing a new infection.

‘The other causes of vaccine deaths are complex blood problems, namely different kinds of blood clots, the loss of blood platelets and resulting bleed events that are lethal. Think in terms of brain bleeds, strokes and heart attacks.’

Such claims are borne out by official data, such as the UK’s Yellow Card, VAERS in the US and EudraVigilance in the EU.

According to Dr Joseph Mercola, these reports show the Covid-19 vaccines are ‘500 times as deadly’ as the flu vaccines.

They’ve already killed more people than all other vaccines put together over the last 30 years.

Thousands of young, fit and previously healthy people have suffered post-vax heart conditions, some of them fatally, many collapsing on sports fields.

Football’s world governing body FIFA reports a 500 per cent increase in myocarditis, pericarditis and other serious problems among players around the world.

Several Premiership matches have been halted after supporters collapsed with heart issues.

Recent studies have concluded that the risk of myocarditis in young men and boys is 14 times higher after vaccination than after infection.

Professor Brent Taylor, of the UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health and a former JCVI members, said: ‘I’m afraid the mass vaccination of healthy children is not based on sound evidence.

‘It is time for the JCVI, the chief medical officer and the government to reassess all the evidence now available and alter their recommendations accordingly.’

French virologist Dr Luc Montagnier, a Nobel Prize winner for his discovery of the HIV virus, has warned that mass vaccination is ‘a scientific and medical error’ which is ‘creating the variants’.

‘In each country the curve of vaccination is followed by the curve of deaths,’ he said.

Germany’s award-winning immunologist, bacteriologist and virologist Dr Sucharit Bhakdi warned: ‘Gene-based vaccines are an absolute danger to mankind and their use violates the Nuremburg codex, such that everyone who is propagating their use should be put before a tribunal.

‘The vaccination of children is so criminal that I have no words to express my horror.

‘We are horribly worried that there’s going to be an impact on fertility. And this will be seen in years or decades from now.’

I could fill many pages with similar quotes but let’s move on.

Another of the many little-known scandals of the Covid-vax saga is the suppression of cheap, safe and effective remedies such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

In October more than 12,000 doctors and scientists worldwide signed a ‘Physicians’ Declaration’ claiming that ‘thousands have died from Covid as a result of being denied life-saving early treatment’.

Doctors in India turned around an initially rampant pandemic through early use of ivermectin, but they had to defy the World Health Organization to do so.

Now the Indian Bar Association is suing the WHO’s chief scientist, who ordered doctors not to use ivermectin because former manufacturers Merck raised safety concerns.

How strange that Merck apparently had no such concerns during the 40 years when they handed out 3.7 billion doses of ivermectin to treat parasitic diseases.

The clue here is that ivermectin is out of patent so Big Pharma can no longer make much money out of it.

An entire course costs a few pounds.

Meanwhile Merck have fast-tracked a patented alternative treatment which, last I heard, was costing £500 a patient.

Funny that.

BJ of Shaftesbury also attacks shoppers who don’t wear masks and claims that ‘global research has found that masks can slash incidences of coronavirus by 53 per cent’.

While mask-wearing is not a life-or-death issue in the same way as vaccines are, it’s worth pointing out that the vast majority of studies conclude that the kind of masks that most people wear make little or no difference.

In a typical comment, the Center for Infectious Disease Research in Minnesota states: ‘Though we support mask wearing by the general public, we continue to conclude that cloth masks and face coverings are likely to have limited impact on lowering Covid-19 transmission, because they have minimal ability to prevent the emission of small particles [and] offer limited personal protection with respect to small particle inhalation…’

Viruses are, of course, 1,000 times smaller than bacteria – which are themselves pretty small.

A study of 350,000 people in Bangladesh concluded that mask-wearing cut transmission by just 9 per cent.

That’s better than nothing but has to be weighed against the downsides.

These include reduced oxygen intake, an accumulation of bacteria on the mask and psychological effects especially on babies and small children, who rely heavily on facial expressions.

As we all do to some extent.

One admittedly small study of masks worn by Florida schoolchildren found that five out of six were contaminated with bacteria, parasites and fungi.

A total of 11 dangerous pathogens were detected.

In December 2021, governments and the media were once again driving up the fear factor and threatening further restrictions and hugely damaging lockdowns.

And all because of a variant called Omicron, which Dr Malone described as a Christmas present from God and ‘as good as we could possibly want in terms of outcomes’.

He told Fox News as early as mid-December: ‘Omicron blows through the vaccines and through the triple jab. It’s very, very infectious. Both the double and triple vaccines are not protecting you from Omicron.

‘[But] the number of deaths worldwide from Omicron is less than 10 to my last count.

‘According to recent data from Hong Kong University, Omicron has shifted the targeting of where it affects – from the deep lung to the upper airway.

‘We know from influenza that when viruses do that, they are much more infectious but much less pathogenic.

‘So the good news with Omicron is: highly infectious, very low disease.

‘It looks an awful lot to the experienced vaccinologist like a live attenuated virus vaccine that you might design for purpose.

‘It’s going to elicit a strong immune response.

‘It’s good news. I think the media are disappointed with the good news.’

Despite evidence that the vaccines are now driving rather than preventing the spread of Omicron, governments continue to push their booster jabs, in some countries making jabs mandatory.

Meanwhile those of us who do our homework continue to be branded ‘anti-vaxxers’ and ‘selfish idiots’ by everyone from BJ of Shaftesbury to JB of Washington.

In November 2021, a writer in The Lancet criticised politicians (including Joe Biden) for referring to a ‘pandemic of the unvaccinated’.

He pointed out the increasing evidence that the vaccinated were not only being infected by covid but playing a major role in transmission.

One study, in Massachusetts, found that 74 per cent of people diagnosed with Covid in July 2021 were fully or partially vaccinated.

Meanwhile numerous studies have found that those who have recovered from Covid have a level of natural immunity that is vastly superior and many times longer lasting than that conferred by any vaccine.

Once recovered, they don’t spread it either. Unlike many of the vaccinated.

Another study in the US concluded that those who’ve had Covid and then ‘taken the shot’ are three times as likely to suffer an adverse reaction.

Yet the unvaccinated continue to be scapegoated by the ill-informed majority.

Politicians, journalists and celebrity doctors repeatedly imply that hospital wards are full of ‘unvaccinated’ Covid patients yet no-one asks how these statistics are collected or how the ‘unvaccinated’ are defined.

In the US, people have been classified as ‘unvaccinated’ until two weeks after their second jab – which on average is about six weeks after the first.

Those six weeks are the time when the vast majority of adverse vaccines reactions occur.

In other words, a large proportion (probably a big majority) of the sick and so-called ‘unvaccinated’ are in fact vaccine victims.

So what happens in the UK? Good question!

In a recent response to a Freedom of Information request, the Office for National Statistics stated: ‘We would be unable to provide you with Covid-19 hospitalisations by vaccination status in the UK.

‘To fulfil this request would require complex data linkage and to use a high level of statistical skill and judgement in order to create a bespoke analysis or table.’

Presumably, then, the claims about the unvaccinated clogging up hospital wards are anecdotal at best.

Which may explain why, in early January, the Prime Minister gave a figure of 90 per cent one day and 60 per cent the next day while others said the true figure was about 40 per cent – and even that comprised mainly under 18s with other conditions.

There is also a vast amount of evidence that doctors, nurses, care home staff and even funeral directors worldwide were ‘encouraged’ or even coerced to record deaths as ‘Covid’ whether they were or not.

There was a clear strategy to spread alarm by pushing up the figures.

In March 2020, the scientific advisory group SAGE specifically advised the UK government to ‘use media to increase [a] sense of personal threat’ among the public.

Have you ever wondered why news presenters repeatedly refer to Covid deaths as involving people who ‘tested positive within the previous 28 days’ or had Covid mentioned on their death certificates?

Another good question!

In Portugal they use a similar 28-day definition and someone forced the law courts to re-assess all 17,000 alleged covid deaths recorded between January 2020 and April 2021.

The Lisbon court concluded that of those 17,000, a mere 152 actually died of covid.

The remaining 16,848 died of just about everything imaginable including accidents.

If you apply that ratio to the UK statistics, it works out at about the same as the number of flu deaths in an average year.

Of course, officialdom tells us that flu was pretty much eliminated during the Covid pandemic, with social distancing, self-isolation and masks getting the credit.

Or could it be that the much-criticised PCR tests (recently abandoned in the US) could not distinguish between covid and flu, as is generally accepted?

It’s also worth remembering that the average age of these alleged covid deaths is 83 (higher than average life expectancy!) and that the vast majority in these death stats are elderly and have underlying health conditions.

For most people the Covid survival rate is about 99.85 per cent, and even higher for children.

Here’s another good question: how much of the above has appeared in The Times newspaper, which appears to be BJ of Shaftesbury’s main source of information?

The answer will be little or none. You won’t find much of it in any other newspapers either nor on the main TV channels with the notable exception in the UK of GB News on Freeview 236 and Sky 515.

GB News, launched in June 2021, have discovered a forgotten phenomenon called editorial balance.

As a young reporter 50 years ago, I was trained to believe there was another side to every story, that both sides should be covered and that those in authority should be regularly questioned and challenged.

To me as an experienced journalist, it’s shocking that most mainstream media continue to pump out government propaganda while largely ignoring the other side of the narrative.

‘We are following the science,’ we are repeatedly told, yet most of ‘the science’ is widely and hotly disputed.

The media are happy to challenge the government over Dominic Cummings’ lockdown visit to Barnard Castle and Westminster staff parties but overlook the tens of thousands being killed or maimed by vaccines (or more accurately experimental gene therapy) that were developed in months instead of years and not fully tested.

This chronic media imbalance prompted one of my newspaper colleagues to launch Holding the Line: Journalists Against Covid Censorship.

Since releasing our first press release in September, we’ve been joined by other journalists not only in the UK but the US, Canada, France, Italy, Croatia and New Zealand.

We’ve also received fan mail from many members of the public.

Sharon in Hampshire writes: ‘Just stumbled across your website after trying to make sense of the blanket censorship and outrageous propaganda of the mainstream media.

‘What a relief that there is some light in that well of darkness. Thank you for your courage and integrity. I’ll pass on details of your site when and where I can. Good luck and God speed.’

A guy in California says simply: ‘Thank you for being true journalists.’

We know of many journalists who are frustrated that editors, publishers and broadcast organisations will not allow them to present balanced reports.

Many – including some of our members – are under threat of losing their jobs if they fail to toe the line.

Many leading doctors and scientists are among those who’ve been censored by Big Tech companies like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google, whose algorithms bury sites that offend their covid-vaccine sensibilities.

I and many others now use the search engine, which does not track or censor.

Other uncensored sources include Bitchute, Rumble, Odysee, BrandNewTube and Telegram, as well as The Light, the UK’s fastest-growing newspaper, which comes out monthly.

Africa’s Covid lessons for the world


Something “mysterious” is going on in Africa that is puzzling scientists, said Wafaa El-Sadr, chair of global health at Columbia University.  “Africa doesn’t have the vaccines and the resources to fight Covid-19 that they have in Europe and the US, but somehow they seem to be doing better,” she told the Associated Press.

“Africa avoids Covid disaster – scientists are mystified and wary,” reads a headline in the New Zealand Herald, over an article that notes that the vaccination rate on the continent is under six percent.

Last June, according to Reuters, the WHO’s top emergency official Mike Ryan told a news conference that while the numbers look good for Africa – slightly over 5 percent of global cases and 2.2 percent of deaths were recorded in the previous week – they are likely underreported.

He concluded: “It’s a trajectory that is very, very concerning.”

Mainstream journalists have largely failed to challenge the prevailing narrative that mass vaccination is the key to ending the pandemic, but a cursory glance at the comparative figures should prompt questions about why Africa has emerged practically unscathed.

Are they missing truths that should be blindingly obvious?

Nineteen of the world’s 20 youngest countries are in Africa – the other is Palestine – with a median age in the teens, compared with over 40 in the West. The median age for all of sub-Saharan Africa was 18.7 in 2020, according to the UN. Might this be a factor in the continent’s vanishingly low Covid death toll, with the exception of South Africa? Even correcting for under-reporting, the numbers are irrefutable: 22 per 100,000 in Africa versus 160 per 100,000 in Europe.

Africans are also low on the world scales of obesity and diabetes, two of the main co-morbidities associated with Covid deaths. A study last year by the National Center for Health Statistics found that only 6 percent of the deaths studied were considered to be from Covid alone.

Obesity generally correlates with prosperity, so it is no surprise that the world’s poorest regions – sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia – are at the bottom of the world obesity scale, according to the online resource Our World in Data.

Africans are also least affected by diabetes, according to the 2019 Atlas of the International Diabetes Foundation. That year, the prevalence of diabetes in Africa (excluding North Africa) was estimated to be 4.7 percent of people aged 20–79, the lowest incidence of any region. This is half of the global prevalence which was estimated to be 9.3%.

And they are also on the bottom rung of human beings suffering from cancer. The rate is 45.9 per 100,000 in Africa, compared with 131.6 per 100,000 in Asia and 587.4 per 100,000 in North America.

Africans’ long exposure to malaria may also help explain the “mystery”.

Researchers in November 2021 presented findings from studies in Uganda and Mali at the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH) suggesting that exposure to malaria could lower the risks posed by Covid.

“We went into this project thinking we would see a higher rate of negative outcomes in people with a history of malaria infections because that’s what was seen in patients co-infected with malaria and Ebola,” said Jane Achan, a co-author of the Uganda study, published in The Lancet.

“We were actually quite surprised to see the opposite — that malaria may have a protective effect,” Achan, a senior research adviser at the Malaria Consortium, told the ASTMH’s annual meeting.

To conduct a meaningful study into the clinical interactions between SARS-CoV-2 and malaria, the researchers understandably chose a region with relatively high malaria exposure. One might also assume that a region with high exposure to malaria would correlate with prophylactic use of anti-malarial medications such as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).

While not denying the study’s findings, it is not clear from its methods and procedures section how or whether this potential confounding variable was controlled for. Indeed, whether one believes it merits any mention as a potential confounder depends on whether one believes there is evidence for its efficacy in the early treatment and prevention of Covid.

What is known is that by April 2020 early HCQ adopters around the world were experiencing dramatic success in the early treatment of Covid using HCQ-based combination treatments. In May 2020, Dr Harvey Risch, Professor of Epidemiology at Yale University and an illustrious world authority on the analysis of aggregate clinical data, published the most comprehensive study to date on HCQ’s efficacy against Covid. His meta-analysis concluded that the evidence is unequivocal for early and safe use of HCQ[1].  

Perhaps not so well known is Big Pharma’s war on HCQ to eliminate it as an alternative treatment to vaccines, thus protecting the Covid vaccines’ emergency use authorisation[2]. The widespread use for decades of chloroquine and HCQ, both safe and cheap off-patent drugs, to treat malaria in Africa is the elephant in the room of Western scientific puzzlement over Africa’s relative success with Covid.

Interestingly, the website (slogan: “Know More. Be Sure.”) lists both chloroquine and HCQ among treatments for malaria, but gives no rating for HCQ.

Africa gets infected with the virus of lockdown lunacy

In lockstep with the rest of the world, despite impressively low case numbers, one African government after another imposed lockdowns, depriving millions of their livelihood, as a huge majority of ordinary people work outdoors, living hand to mouth – market vendors and street traders, motorbike taxi drivers, subsistence farmers, and so on. The evidence for the destructiveness of lockdowns can no longer be ignored and their economic cruelty has arguably been most pronounced in Africa.

Some resisted, only to change tack. Tanzania’s late president John Magufuli, who held a PhD in chemistry, encouraged people to continue as normal, sparking widespread condemnation. He had secretly sent samples of engine oil, goat meat and fruit juice for PCR testing, and they came back positive for Covid.

Magufuli died in March aged 61, succeeded by his vice president Samia Suluhu Hassan, who became the country’s first woman president.

Reuters wrote, under a headline describing Hassan as a “team player”: “The calm, measured Samia Suluhu Hassan brings a striking change of leadership style as successor to John Magufuli, a brash populist who drew global attention by playing down the threat of the Covid-19 pandemic.”

Africa is being short-changed!

Instead of hailing Africa’s relative success in mitigating Covid, all we hear in the MSM is hand-wringing about its low vaccine uptake. It started early with commentators pointing out that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines required storage at extremely cold temperatures (minus 80-60 degrees Celsius for Pfizer, and minus 25-15 for Moderna), raising questions about whether the continent has the infrastructure to accommodate this highly unusual requirement.

Then we heard about vaccine hesitancy being one of the reasons why available doses languished beyond their use-by dates. This helped advance a narrative that we have seen elsewhere – for example, in France – that public awareness campaigns would resolve the problem.

Vaccine ‘hesitancy’ or legitimate wariness?

Africa still has raw memories of Big Pharma abuses in drug experimentation. For example, Nigerian authorities fought a decades-long legal battle against Pfizer following the death of four local children in the 1990s who had been enrolled in “an illegal trial of an unregistered drug” for meningitis by the drugs firm.

In addition, the rollout has been problematic, with significant doubts raised over the efficacy and safety data of China’s vaccine producers, Sinopharm and Sinovac. An article in the British Medical Journal in April pointed to an absence of phase III trial data.

The groupZimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights threatened to take the government there to court if it did not conduct clinical trials before offering Sinopharm to the public. 

On June 1, the WHO approved the Sinovac vaccine for emergency use, despite an efficacy rate of just 51 percent. The decision cleared the way for Sinopharm to be included in COVAX.

Many African countries that have rolled out vaccines have seen Covid cases and deaths surge afterward – a pattern that has emerged around the world, notably in vaccination champion Israel. In Africa, they include the Seychelles (dubbed “the most vaccinated nation on earth”), Namibia, Zimbabwe, Congo, Angola, Malawi, Kenya and Zambia.

Top of the class

One of the many paradoxes of the global response to Covid is that the continent that was expected to fare the worst has outperformed all other regions.

Two years on, to deny that the virus has spread across Africa and that the continent’s 1.3 billion people have achieved herd immunity is to ignore the basics of epidemiology and the natural history of respiratory viruses. Mass-vaccinating populations with herd immunity is not only unnecessary but could do more harm than good.

Now South Africa, the continent’s hardest-hit nation, has stolen the march on the rest of the world, turning the page on the pandemic. Its Omicron wave was billed by the fearmongers as a tsunami but turned out to be far less severe with ICU admissions 79% lower than their July peak and deaths at 8% of the July peak.

On 16th December, South Africa’s Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) on Covid, a similar body to UK’s SAGE, wrote to the South African Health Minister recommending that all contact tracing and self-isolation of contacts for Covid be stopped because it is unnecessary and ineffective.

On December 20, just in time for New Year’s Eve celebrations, a night-time curfew was lifted allowing bars to revert to their normal alcohol permit terms.

Africa has inadvertently led when it was expected to fail. Borrowing from the oratory skills of that famous American president felled before his time, we might intone: “Ask not what Africa can learn from the world but what the world can learn from Africa.”

[1] Robert F. Kennedy Jr, The Real Anthony Fauci, New York, Sky Horse Publishing, 2021, Ch 1, pages 21-36

[2] Robert F. Kennedy Jr, The Real Anthony Fauci, New York, Sky Horse Publishing, 2021, Ch 1, pages 24-34

A Tale of Two Omicrons. And what the future looks like if we don’t salvage our self-respect

By Rusere Shoniwa

The word ‘Omicron’ had barely fallen off the lips and pens of Big Media’s propagandists when the Mayor of London used it to declare ‘a major incident’ on 17 December.

Meanwhile, the PM and his Minister of Jabbing issued the usual thinly veiled threats to the citizenry to get ‘boosted’ or have the privilege of stepping outside your front door or allowing others to step inside it severely curtailed. Your elected leaders sincerely don’t want to do this, but you give them no choice unless you obey. Your freedom really is in your hands and yours alone: all you have to do to retain it is to continue being a slave to measures that haven’t worked, won’t work and weren’t intended to work. Assuming ‘work’ here means prevent the spread of the Covid virus.

To addicts of the official Covid narrative, it’s welcome to day 634 of ‘flattening the curve’ or ‘protecting the NHS’ or ‘not killing granny’. If you’ve got a prescription for the red pills, it’s welcome to the Christmas panto called ‘The End of the Illusion of Western Liberal Democracy.’

Omicron and shifting the vaccine goalposts

The Omicron variant is the latest fear tool being rolled out in the Western hemisphere and it’s a pretty lousy sequel to the scariant pantos that have come before it. Omicron was first reported on 24 November. Undeterred by the widely accepted fact that the vaccines don’t protect against transmission and infection, Pfizer moved at its customary ‘speed of science’, an imbecilic phrasing belched out by the Pfizer CEO, announcing a mere two weeks later (8th December) that getting boosted with a third jab is just the ticket for combatting the new variant.

The language it used – “protection against severe disease” – is in line with the new watered-down definition of a vaccine. So, not a vaccine that prevents infection and transmission of the target pathogen. If the new bastardised definition of vaccine sticks, vaccines will no longer have to perform that once foundational function – foundational at least in principle if not always in practice. This choice of language is, I will argue, important, but equally important is that no reliable scientific inquiry (in vivo peer reviewed clinical trials) could possibly have taken place between 24th November and 8th December to confirm Pfizer’s claim about the ‘protective’ power of a third dose against the new variant.

The BBC, acting on the signal from Big Pharma, relayed the warning of ‘scientists’ that “two doses of a Covid vaccine are not enough to stop people catching the Omicron variant, but a booster dose prevents around 75% of people getting any symptoms.” [emphasis added]. (I’ve put ‘scientists’ in ‘ ’ because when I click through on the claim, I can’t find the names of the scientists who have made this claim.) One amusing aspect of this claim is that research shows that 86% of people who test positive for Covid have no symptoms anyway. So it’s valid to ask how it’s possible to know that the absence of symptoms in 75% of those ‘boosted’ can be credited to the booster when 86% of them wouldn’t have symptoms anyway.

Another important aspect of this claim is the BBC’s choice of words. Look at the deceitful elision, in a single sentence, of the concepts of ‘catching the Omicron variant’ (infection) and symptom reduction. At two doses they admit the vaccine is ineffective as a vaccine (infection and transmission) but, at three doses, they claim it morphs into an effective symptom reducer. If Omicron is the mildest of the variants that have emerged so far, and the evidence for that is mounting, the symptom people should care about most is death. This claim is not supported, either by a recent clinical in vivo trial to weigh the vaccine against Omicron or by the original vaccine trials which never proved that the jabs would improve your chances of surviving Covid, which in any case were around 99.85% and even higher the healthier and younger you are.

All of this helps to confirm that we have arrived at a point where no one – not the BBC, not the government, not Pfizer – is claiming that these ‘vaccines’ do what vaccines are, or more accurately were, supposed to do, namely prevent transmission and infection. Instead, recognising the power of the word ‘vaccine’ in the mind of the general public, the definition of a vaccine has been bastardised to accommodate the failure of the Covid ‘vaccines’. The infection and transmission narrative has been shot down in a ball of flames by independent media but, rising like a phoenix from the ashes, it has morphed into a symptom reduction narrative while the ‘vaccine’ has illogically been permitted to retain its title as a vaccine through semantic sleight of hand.

There are at least two blowback consequences of this deceit. Firstly, as the editor of the BMJ, Dr Peter Doshi, pointed out, if claims about the Covid ‘vaccines’ have been reduced to symptom alleviation, some irritatingly rational questions surface: would you take a dose of this drug every six months for possibly the rest of your life if that’s what it took for the drug to stay effective? Or would you choose instead to use other available medicines – the kind we take when we’re sick and want to get better? And crucially, why would you mandate it?

The second blowback consequence of changing the definition of vaccines to accommodate Covid vaccine failure is that those who have claimed for decades that vaccines don’t create immunity to targeted pathogens have been handed a white flag by a leading global vaccine licencing authority. In dropping the claim to immunity and replacing it with fuzzy ‘protection’ language, the CDC has effectively admitted that ‘anti-vaxxers’ were right all along. Vitamin D3, vitamin C, zinc and a whole host of other nutraceuticals make compelling claims to protection against a wide variety of illness including Covid while also having immune protective characteristics.

While trying to claim that a vaccine is a unique ‘preparation’ with magical properties not possessed by other preparations, the new definition is in fact a broad tent for thousands of other ‘preparations’.

Meanwhile, the Daily Sceptic’s analysis of the latest UK ONS data on Omicron infections reveals that:

“According to early data published on Tuesday by the ONS, the triple-vaccinated are 4.5 times as likely to test positive for a probable Omicron infection than the unvaccinated. The double-vaccinated, meanwhile, are 2.3 times as likely to have a probable Omicron infection.”

No matter. Minor details like this did not stop the WHO from stepping into the fray in its role as equal vax enforcer, telling the West to let go of its supplies and spread some of that vaccine joy to Africa.

So, this is the story of Omicron in most of the Western world. Tonnes of fear porn and massive coercion to get ‘vaccinated’ accompanied by dubious claims that ‘vaccination’ will ‘protect’ against Omicron. The narrative is a leaky boat riddled with contradictory holes. But there is another glaring contradiction which takes the form of a parallel Omicron universe in which the variant is not being treated with the fear and awe accorded to it in the West. A universe in which the variant is eliciting a rational response. That parallel universe is South Africa, the so-called original epicentre of the Omicron outbreak.

A parallel universe

On 16th December, South Africa’s Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) on Covid, a similar body to UK’s SAGE, wrote to the South African Health Minister recommending that all contact tracing and self-isolation of contacts for Covid be stopped because it is unnecessary and ineffective. Highlights of the memo are :

  • Strongly hinting that Covid has reached endemicity, it points out the limitations of quarantining stating that it “does not generally have a role for endemic diseases, where control is not possible.”
  • Levels of immunity to Covid are now “exceeding 60-80% in several serosurveys.”
  • It states: “Crucially, it appears that efforts to eliminate and/or contain the virus are not likely to be successful. Therefore, it is critical that the role of containment efforts like quarantine and contact tracing is re-evaluated.” [bold emphasis added]
  • Referring to the ineffectiveness of testing it said that “testing is heavily skewed towards detecting symptomatic cases” but that as much as 84% of cases are asymptomatic. (That is supported independently by a study to which I have referred earlier in this article.) It added that “among the small proportion of symptomatic cases, testing is far from universal, since patients may not seek testing when their symptoms are mild and when testing would be burdensome and expensive.”
  • Referring to the unreliability of testing it added: “Furthermore, the SARS-CoV-2 test sensitivity is suboptimal, sometimes leading to false negative results.”

It reads like a diplomatic, firm, rational and scientific two-fingers-up at the Covid containment debacle.

ICU admissions in South Africa are 79% lower than their July peak and new data from Denmark finds the hospitalisation rate from Omicron 60% lower than from other variants. All the evidence so far points to Omicron being less severe than previous variants and more contagious – the ideal combination for hastening herd immunity with minimal population health impact.

So what’s going on?

They lie to us, we know they’re lying, they know we know they’re lying. And yet still the sick charade continues. Why? What is the real purpose of the charade?

The charade itself consists of the Covid containment policies together with a barmy narrative riddled with holes you could drive a lorry through. So far, we can see that these policies have not worked if we define ‘worked’ as successful virus containment. On the other hand, if you define ‘worked’ as the implementation of vaccine passports, then all of this has in fact worked since the government has introduced them, albeit in limited form so far.

The ‘vaccines’ are the delivery system for vaccine passports. Whether the vaccines ‘work’ from a medical standpoint is not relevant to the goal of rolling out vaccine passports, although such a dramatic failure in vaccine safety and efficacy can’t have helped the government’s main aim of implementing digitalised biometric ID systems of population control. To the extent that people remain unconvinced of the merits of the ‘vaccines’, the deprivation that might accompany not having a passport serves as coercion to get vaccinated.

Only 75 years ago, Nazi doctors were tried and hung for forced experimentation on Jews. These trials produced the Nuremberg code, which was used by countries across the Western world to enshrine the right to bodily autonomy by espousing the principle of voluntary informed consent in medical practice – the right to refuse a treatment without fear of punishment in any way.

While it is shocking to see no less a figure than the European Commission President unashamedly encouraging the trashing of the Nuremberg code, the unjustified and demonic fury with which governments in the formerly liberal West are ganging up on unvaccinated citizens must be seen as the overzealous attempts of freshly qualified tyrants desperately trying to embed vaccine passports in the everyday life of citizens.

The West’s newly minted despots understand only too well that vaccine passports themselves play no role in virus containment, as a parliamentary committee confirmed back in June 2021, before the vaccine narrative had collapsed in a heap of smoking rubble. The little Hitlers know that, like the ‘vaccines’ themselves, the vaccine passports have not worked to contain the virus in any country that has introduced them. They know that vaccine passports are an affront to human dignity, but it is human dignity they seek to crush.

A government whistleblower told Laura Dodsworth that ‘masks were a softening up exercise for Plan B’ – Covid passports. And because totalitarian control can’t work unless it’s total, the government will continue to push for maximum population coverage with all the levers of fear and coercion at its disposal, courtesy of the draconian Coronavirus Act 2020.

The tried and tested method for getting people to willingly give up freedom is to terrorise them. And so the organ grinder’s monkeys in the media continue to screech incoherently about Omicron, testing, severe disease and boosters.

Obedient citizens will get boosted and flash a QR code to gain access to increasingly wider aspects of life. Compliance will make life easier. And there’s the added feel-good bonus of ‘keeping others safe’ – just one more little lie in a lifeboat constructed out of lies to prevent mental drowning if reality were allowed to flood in. This act of compliance instils the citizen with the glow of goodness, the kind that comes from ‘knowing’ that you’re saving granny.

In time and with sufficient take-up, the passport app will be tethered to other systems and technologies that will morph into a total system of financial and social control. But you might not actually mind it because by then, your capacity for independent thought and engaging with difference will have been destroyed. You won’t want difficult thoughts, ones that you have to work for, wrestle with, argue and fight about. Thoughts which, if entertained, may require you to take real risks. Our culture is all about eliminating risks, down to zero. You’ll only want the thoughts that have been approved and given to you by the tightly controlled web.

The future, as Paul Kingsnorth hauntingly describes it, is “a QR code flickering across a human face forever”. Except that this doesn’t quite convey the relentless attempt to stamp out what makes us human – being inquisitive, curious, and seeing where that curiosity can take you.

While I believe that the Covid vaccination programme is the springboard for technocratic control through biometric ID passports, right now it is hardly a remote possibility that mandated (polite language for forced) vaccination will become a permanent feature of life. For one thing, Big Pharma has perhaps just experienced the single biggest injection of profit into its bank accounts from one product in its history. It is hooked on easy vax cash and it wants us, needs us, to be hooked on the vax. Any vax will do. Just give it a name and a good story. And there are 7.5 billion human pin cushions at its disposal to continuously siphon off billions in taxpayer funds, aided and abetted by their marketing arms, government medicines regulatory bodies.

And then of course there’s the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a.k.a The Great Reset, of which Klaus Schwab speaks so fondly and for which his billionaires’ club, the World Economic Forum, is the driving force that has world governments in its thrall. The Fourth Industrial Revolution envisages a world in which human beings will own nothing and be happy nodes in the matrix of the internet of things. Is it too far-fetched to imagine that ‘vaccines’ could morph into vectors of technology that promote the transhumanist aspirations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution? With one quick website update in September, they morphed from ‘providing immunity’ to ‘providing protection’. Vaccines could morph at Warp Speed into anything Big Pharma and its government partnership wants them to morph into.

You are not a passive bystander in all of this

If this interpretation of the government’s bad, mad, and contradictory pursuit of vaccines and vaccine passports seems too fanciful for you, why not think of it as just plain good old-fashioned bullying.

How so? Well, on the government’s own terms and by its own admission, nothing has ‘worked’, if we define ‘worked’ as successful virus containment. Lockdowns, masking, vaccination were all supposed to contain the virus and yet, after we have endured these humiliations for nearly two years, the government is telling us that cases are still rising, the vaccine doesn’t stop infection and transmission, the NHS is within a hair’s breadth of being overwhelmed and Covid deaths might skyrocket if we don’t behave ‘responsibly’. And despite the NHS being on the verge of collapsing, the government will sack 100,000 NHS employees who refuse to take a vaccine that won’t stop them or their patients from being infected with Covid.

And to address these failures, their plan is to apply the definition of madness – piling on more and more of what has been proven, by their own standards and definitions, not to work.

If Covid containment policies have not worked but continue to be applied in the full knowledge that they are not working, then the government is just humiliating you. It is simply exercising power for its own sake, otherwise known as bullying. The thrill of control over the victim is the psychological reward for bullying and submission by the victim is confirmation of control.

I’ve written about why every single pillar of the Covid narrative from lockdowns, masking, testing to mass vaccination is nothing short of voodoo garbage. And it doesn’t require lengthy references to long lists of scientific studies to demonstrate this although that must and is being done to seal the coffin of the government’s response measures. But a fool-proof shortcut to understanding that the government and the chiefs of its medical bureaucracy have played one hell of a number on us is to understand that the politicians and bureaucrats who have analysed and understand all the information about Covid don’t believe in the medical efficacy of the policies they are enforcing.

That is the only kernel to grasp from the Cabinet Office 2020 Christmas party scandal. If you’re upset because they broke the rules while you dutifully obeyed them, you’re missing the point. You should be upset because they never believed in the rules. The people deciding on the minutiae of your ritual humiliation understood that, unless you were elderly and frail, there was no reason to be unduly frightened or to put your life on hold in the way they were telling you to.

They acted in accordance with their beliefs. It’s almost impossible not to. So, they did not put their lives on hold. But you did because you acted in accordance with their instructions. Which should be a good argument for developing your own beliefs before following anyone’s instructions.

Huge amounts of power and control have been transferred to politicians and the medical bureaucracy and they are not about to be relinquished voluntarily. Power is never surrendered. It must be taken back. The bullying ends when the victims collectively dig into their reserves of self-respect and take the decision to stop cooperating with the humiliation. If you want to delve deeper into the psychology of bullying, the dance between the victim and the bully and how it ends, listen to this conversation between Charles Eisenstein and Tessa Lena.

Life at its worst is possibly a game of competing fears. Understanding that the senior ministers and heads of SAGE aren’t anywhere near as afraid of the virus as the nation seems to be may allow us to collectively replace the fear of Covid with the fear of a not-too-distant future in which everything you do and say is tracked and traced by algorithms that reward or punish you depending on whether you have acted and spoken in accordance with government policy and the consensus of the day.

It’s a future in which most rebellious or dissenting thoughts are blocked from ever reaching you. A future in which any remaining such thoughts that might accidentally seep through the guarded gates are voluntarily emptied from your mind because to do otherwise would jeopardise your ability to live. In such a ‘life’ I would suggest you needn’t bother taking out a life insurance policy because you would already be dead.

You can find more of Rusere’s work at

BBC Hosts Big Pharma’s African Marketing Campaign

By Rusere Shoniwa

Dr Ayoade Alakija on BBC World News at the end of November

If Big Pharma were to run a modestly honest advertisement to recruit dealers for pushing Covid ‘vaccines’ in Africa, it might read something like this:

‘International drug cartel requires Western educated Black face to front our public campaign to push experimental and unnecessary Covid vaccines on the impoverished African continent. This is a tough market, highly suspicious of the product and not without good reason. Smile and dial merchants need not apply as you must bypass the consumer to target the decision-maker. Successful applicants must display the ability to rail melodramatically at the ‘racist vaccine-hoarding’ injustices perpetrated by the West against Africa, appealing to the woke sensibilities of those in positions of power within key Western institutions. African leaders will then be expected to do as they’re told.’

BBC stages agitprop for Big Pharma

I must confess that I reverse-engineered that ad after watching the successful applicant going through the motions like a performing seal on a BBC World News slot set aside for just such agitprop. Following the latest Covid variant hype, the Co-Chair of the African Union’s Vaccine Delivery Alliance, Dr Ayoade Alakija, announced on the UK’s flagship propaganda organ:

‘What is going on right now [the emergence of the Omicron Variant] is inevitable. It’s a result of the world’s failure to vaccinate in an equitable, urgent and speedy manner. It is a result of hoarding by high-income countries of the world and quite frankly it is unacceptable. These travel bans are based in politics and not science. It is wrong.’

Abandoning any pretence at journalism, the BBC presenter plays the role of therapist by responding: “I hear your anger about the immediate reaction and the lack of action beforehand.’

The stage direction becomes even more obvious and cringeworthy as the BBC presenter then pauses, providing a cue for the good doctor to glance at her script and resume the televised amateur dramatics:

‘So this is hopefully a dress rehearsal because until everyone is vaccinated no-one is safe…Why are the Africans unvaccinated? It’s an outrage because we knew we were going to get here. We knew this is where the hoarding, the lack of IP waivers, the lack of cooperation on sharing tech and sharing know-how, we knew this was the cross-roads it was going to bring us to. To a more dangerous variant.’

The only valid question she raises concerns the swift travel bans placed on Southern African countries: ‘Why are we locking away Africa when this virus is already on three continents? Nobody is locking away Belgium, nobody is locking away Israel.’ 

This is an emotional ploy to gain the trust of the small handful of privileged Africans watching this drivel. She is saying to them: ‘I am right-on, woke, one of you.’ She quickly jumps back on board the Covid cult train with a policy ‘nudge’ that must have African leaders reaching for their sick bags.

‘Something needs to be done to everywhere. My recommendation is have a coordinated global shut down of travel, for the next month if you want, but don’t single out Africa.’

And then back to the greedy, vaccine-hoarding West:

‘The Botswana government ordered 500,000 doses of vaccines at $29 per dose, much higher than the rest of the world paid. They did not get those vaccines because other people jumped ahead in the queue. Moderna supplied to other countries…and so now we have a variant.’

Rule #1 of BBC ‘journalism’ – avoid the most obvious question

Not a single grain of this guerrilla marketing campaign was challenged by the BBC journalist. The obvious starting point for a presenter with half an ounce of journalistic integrity would be to explore whether the ‘vaccines’ are working and whether they would indeed have prevented a variant. After all, the fact that they do not halt transmission and infection is no longer controversial.

After the The Daily Sceptic blew the lid off the vaccine efficacy lie, The Spectator confirmed that ‘in every age group over 30 in the UK, the rates of Covid infection per 100,000 are now higher among the vaxxed than the unvaxxed’. Even the UK Prime Minister has been forced to admit that the vaccine ‘doesn’t protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on‘. The BBC itself doesn’t pretend to be ignorant of the uselessness of the vaccine in preventing transmission and infection but, in a homage to Orwellian satire, it managed to use vaccine inefficacy to argue for more vaccination.  

African leaders will be wondering why Portugal, one of the world’s most vaccinated places, which has pretty much run out of people to vaccinate, has recently announced it will reimpose restrictions to stop a surge in cases. Emphasising that the definition of madness – repeatedly doing what has been shown not to work – is no longer a barrier to health policy in the West, Portugal announced that it will ‘continue to bet on vaccination to control the pandemic’ by rolling out booster shots.

African leaders may ponder why Gibraltar, whose entire eligible population is vaccinated, has cancelled official Christmas events amid a surge in Covid-19 cases. Gibraltar has achieved the mathematical impossibility of a 118% vaccination rate owing to counting doses given to Spaniards who cross the border to work or visit the territory every day. Its health minister in November announced a ‘drastic increase in the numbers of people testing positive for Covid-19 in recent days’.

Here is a report on 10 countries where data shows the vaccines have failed miserably.

It would have been entertaining to see the Vaccine Delivery Alliance spin doctor weave all of this into her sales pitch for Africa.

Omicron fear porn demonstrates collapse of the vaccine narrative

No sales pitch involving an illness would be complete without recourse to fear-based marketing tactics. Enter the Omicron narrative. Despite her claim that we now have ‘a more dangerous variant’, there was no evidence that this variant would make any difference to disease severity at the time she was invited by the BBC to make her vaccine sales pitch for Africa. (Nor is there proof that vaccination prevents variants from arising in the first place.) Since then, the evidence emerging is that Omicron is less severe than previous variants and more contagious – the ideal combination for hastening herd immunity with minimal population health impact.

Are there any grounds for believing that the ‘vaccines’ will be any less useless at stopping this variant than they have been with all the preceding variants? Reuters reported on 2nd  December that all 14 passengers returning to the Netherlands on two flights from South Africa who tested positive for the Omicron variant were vaccinated. It also reported ‘that most of the 62 people who tested positive for COVID-19 [irrespective of variant] … had been vaccinated, lending weight to a call for pre-flight testing regardless of vaccination status.’ 

Reports of the worthlessness of the vaccine are too numerous to catalogue. The one above serves the dual purpose of illustrating the collapse of the vaccine narrative and the stupidity of using the variant narrative as an argument for more vaccination. The only thing more depressing than seeing the stale and mould-ridden variant dish being reheated and served up yet again is watching people capable of reading and writing hungrily devouring it.

In short, the vaccine narrative is not merely in freefall; it is a fetid corpse being given mouth-to-mouth resuscitation by a political leadership and its media allies whose threshold for self-abasement is boundless. Telling medium-sized lies and half-truths with a straight face has always been the minimum qualification for political office, but Covid has raised the bar to a new height – the ability to swim in a pool of one’s own metaphorical vomit without flinching.

Never, never mention vaccine safety

The ‘discussion’ might have turned to safety to tease out how much personal risk Africans will be expected to bear in submitting to a vaccine that doesn’t perform the primary function of a vaccine. The word ‘safety’, however, was not permitted to impinge in any way on the protestations of the injustice of depriving Africans of the wondrous medical treatments emanating from the hallowed laboratories of Western science. 

The reticence about safety is understandable from a marketing perspective since, by any objective measure, these ‘vaccines’ are the most dangerous mass medications rolled out in modern history. At 25 November the vaccine safety reporting systems in the US, EU and UK reported deaths following vaccination of 18,853; 31,014; and 1,784 respectively. The total number of adverse reports logged across these systems respectively is 894,145; 386,517 (encompassing 1,271,009 individual events); and 1,181,121 (encompassing 2,859,586 events). 

The UK’s own responsible health authority estimates the reported rate of adverse events to be 2-10% of the actual occurrence. The rate of underreporting is estimated to be similar in the US. I do not have estimates of underreporting for the EU systems but there is no reason to assume that underreporting is not a phenomenon there. Thus, the true level of injury is a significant multiple of the reported figures.

Alex Berenson, a former New York Times investigative journalist, has made a name for himself reporting the truth about Covid. He made the following sobering observation about relative risk of Covid and injury from vaccination for young college age adults:

‘The risk of severe disease or death from Covid to healthy college-age adults is too low to measure accurately. The data from Europe suggests that a healthy 18 year-old has a risk of death lower than 1 in 1 million. 

‘The risk of dangerous heart inflammation [following Covid vaccination] is NOT too low to measure. A new study from Hong Kong found that 1 out of 2,300 12-17 year-old boys who received both Pfizer doses suffered acute myocarditis or pericarditis. Most of the risk came after the second dose. The risk is very similar in college-age men.’

 It has also come to light that Pfizer clinical trial data shows that more vaccine trial recipients died than did the placebo recipients. Berenson points out that ‘all-cause mortality is arguably the MOST important measure for any drug or vaccine – especially one meant to be given prophylactically to large numbers of healthy people, as vaccines are.’

Meanwhile the US FDA is resisting attempts to get it to release important documents associated with the approval of the Pfizer vaccine, claiming that it could take 75 years to comply with the request. If the FDA gets its way, some 451,000 pages regarding the clinical trials for this vaccine will be off limits to the millions of people being coerced into taking it. Aside from the gall it takes to hide information about a treatment from the patients being forced to take it, how can there be any claims to ‘following The Science™’ when science relies on data and the data is being deliberately hidden? 

And who will Africans turn to in the event of serious injury from a treatment to prevent an illness that the vast majority have coped very well with for two years? Perhaps Dr Alakija should have been quizzed about how Africans might react to the drug manufacturer’s lack of confidence in the safety of their own products in light of their refusal to distribute it to countries who refuse to provide blanket immunity from liability for injury.

How much of the safety information provided here (which is a tip-of-the-iceberg summary) was explored, even in the vaguest terms, in the BBC World ‘News’ report? Not a single word of it was mentioned. Nothing. Neither of the two stooges saw fit to broach the prospect that many young Africans whose risk of dying from Covid is so small that it is hard to measure, may die following vaccination. Recall the vaccine risk to young males highlighted by Alex Berenson and then link it to Africa’s average age of 20.  

The callousness of this omission is standard operating procedure in Western liberal discourse, a key function of which is to drape a ‘humanitarian’ cloak over policies that enrich corporate interests in the West while harming and exploiting the poor. The only consolation available to Africans is that this time around, the expendability of life in the ostensible cause of furthering scientific progress has been equally applied to their Western counterparts. The game really has changed in that sense. That is obviously not something to be celebrated but it is an important clue to the meaning of Covid as a global change phenomenon, more of which later.

Propaganda 101 – bury credible dissenting narratives

Unveiling the farce of the BBC plug for Africa’s vaccination allows us to consider a game in which we imagine what other doctors might say if the BBC were to air credible dissenting voices – a practice that was once regarded as the bread and butter of journalism, but which would now be a radical act of rebellion. It’s not a difficult game to play. In fact, no imagination is required because the actual statements of credible dissenting medical doctors are available on other independent media news channels. Here’s what some doctors are saying on a new Austrian TV channel:

Dr Maria Hubmer-Mogg: ‘The Covid-19 vaccine still has only emergency authorisation, because there has been no officially recognised treatment. It is an experimental medication. Children very rarely get seriously ill with Covid-19, yet vaccination can involve high but unspecifiable risks. Politicians, by coercing us to take a vaccine like this, are behaving like criminals. Covid-19 infections are – especially at the outset – very easy to treat. But in spite of a high level of effectiveness, the available treatments are not globally sanctioned. Why?’ 

Dr Christian Fiala: ‘The Covid-19 vaccine is useless and dangerous. The public has been manipulated and conditioned through scaremongering, and the measures taken are – sadly – completely haphazard. People have steered clear of rational argument when discussing the “pandemic”. This new-fangled mRNA “vaccine” makes the human immune system attack its own body. So, the corona “vaccine” is effectively programmed self-destruction.’

Dr Heiko Schöning: ‘The corona panic is a stage-managed production. It’s a confidence trick. It is now urgent that we understand we are now in the grip of a worldwide Mafioso-style criminal enterprise. We can see we are dealing here with organised crime. So what do we do? We don’t play along any longer. Here and now we have to draw the red line.’

Had Dr Schöning just finished watching the two stooges on BBC World News when he described ‘the corona panic’ as ‘a stage-managed production’? Whether the Austrian doctors are right or wrong is irrelevant to the journalistic duty to present credible dissenting voices to the public. The failure to do so goes a long way to meeting the criteria for propaganda. The question in relation to Dr Alakija’s BBC guerrilla marketing campaign is: do enough Africans know that there are alternative credible narratives to challenge the mainstream BBC vaccine narrative and how would they respond if these competing narratives were presented? 

The meaning of Covid for Africa – a manufactured crisis is a crisis no less

Does Africa, or anywhere else for that matter, need mass vaccination? Almost two years into this global nightmare, with evidence showing that up to 80% of South Africans (how similar for other African nations?) may have already been exposed to the virusless than 6% of Africa vaccinated, and a death toll a fraction of that in the ageing populations of the West (Africa’s Covid deaths are 3% of the global total), it is clear that Africa has already learnt to live with the virus. 

Had Africans succeeded in applying the same level of rigorous lockdown stupidity that was achieved in the West, it would not have made the slightest difference as real science is conclusively demonstrating not just the futility of lockdowns but their positive destructiveness. Despite looser lockdowns (perhaps partly because of this) Africa fared much better than the illiberal West in health outcomes. No doubt there are other variables at play, but cheap effective early treatments in some parts of Africa were used to good effect and should continue to be the focus of attention. Africa and the entire planet would get far more bang for their buck from policies addressing human health holistically rather than with expensive experimental ‘vaccines’ which will continue for as long as human beings are prepared to, or more likely forced to, surrender their bodies to Big Pharma and authoritarian governments. 

It must be patently obvious to African leaders that the Covid crisis is a manufactured one, but that does not make it any less of a crisis. On the contrary, it signals a far deeper crisis in the West than might have been the case had there been sincere and rational attempts to deal with a genuinely apocalyptic health threat. Covid containment policies are not about protection of health and nor are they the result of incompetence as many naïve commentators so desperately want to believe. 

The West’s ruling elite has completely lost confidence (if it ever did have confidence) in the values of democracy and freedom that it tried to impose on the rest of the world through a combination of brute military force and economic terrorism. Notwithstanding that these uncivilised means of delivery signified an absence of faith in the product, the result of the loss of confidence in these values is that Western liberal democracy is being dismantled at breakneck speed under the cover of Covid containment policies. 

The criminality, coercion, censorship, propaganda and blatant negligence all signal the logical conclusion to a brutal colonial mindset – the attempted colonisation of the entire globe to serve the interests of a global elite which has successfully captured Western governments and supranational organisations.

We are not experiencing mere change à la 1968. We are witnessing the collapse of a global empire with a mafia style global elite hijacking that collapse to defend its continued survival in the aftermath. The psychopaths whose aim is to introduce a technocratic global system of human control understand only too well that shutting off travel for economies that rely on tourism is a far bigger killer of economies, and therefore lives, than this virus has ever been. The message being sent by the sadistic controllers to Africa’s leaders is a simple one: get serious about imposing vaccines and the technocratic population control measures for which vaccines are the delivery system…or else. This is an audacious global project and, to state the obvious, global tyranny won’t work unless it’s global

Africa is at an epochal crossroads courtesy of Covid policies manufactured in the West and being exported wholesale to Africa. At a superficial level, absolutely everything about the West’s containment policies for Covid can be characterised as voodoo garbage. African leaders understand this. In relation to the punitive global reaction to Omicron, the South African president called out the unscientific basis for the travel bans. And yet still he flirts with lighting a match underneath the seething resentment of forced vaccines by threatening mandated vaccination. 

At a deeper level, Covid containment policies represent a desperate authoritarian response to permanent decline. This cannot end well for the West and if the West is a sinking ship, then Africa must not blindly tether itself to this Titanic disaster. Addressing Ethiopia’s political leadership on Pan Africanism, Professor P L Lumumba recently warned that Africa will be recolonised in the next 25 years. Sadly, his warning lacks the requisite degree of urgency since the timeframe is out by 25 years. It is happening right now.

His failure to appreciate this is rooted in a failure to comprehend the meaning of Covid. It is a totalitarian coup by global capital using captured Western governments to implement technocratic systems of biomedical and financial control. If Africa is serious about avoiding recolonisation, it must get serious about resisting Covid diktats from Western governments and international agencies.

You can read more of Rusere’s work at 

War on free thought

By Rusere Shoniwa and Roger Guttridge

When the UK government put its so-called Online Safety Bill before Parliament, it lit the touch paper for a funeral pyre.

Not a funeral for the countless victims of lockdown or vaccination but for the catastrophic demise of free speech.

It’s a move whose importance is impossible to overstate. It’s Nineteen Eighty-Four with bells attached.

While most see Orwell’s prophetic novel as a warning of how governments could wield control by obliterating pathways to truth and information, the UK government appears to be using it as an instruction manual to manifest the dystopian vision he warned about.

As Big Brother Watch succinctly puts it, ‘The legislation introduces state-backed censorship and monitoring on a scale never seen before in a liberal democracy.

‘This regulation would deputise private companies like Facebook to be the speech police of the internet.

‘Government has designed the plans not only to deal with crime online, but to explicitly target lawful speech.’

In October 2021, YouTube’s proudest boast was that it had deleted more than 1 million videos under its ironically named ‘Covid misinformation policy’.

In allegedly democratic Australia alone, YouTube removed 75 per cent of video ads posted by the anti-lockdown United Australia party.

One of the great myths peddled by governments and mainstream media is that the material being censored is ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ – online tittle-tattle from conspiracy theorists, the uneducated and the uninformed.

What millions have yet to grasp is that many of the world’s leading doctors and scientists are among the victims.

Dr Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA, and Dr Peter McCullough, a leading US cardiologist, are among thousands who have been driven to ‘alternative’ platforms as the only way to share their fears and warnings about vaccine dangers.

Heart-breaking posts from relatives of people killed or maimed by jabs are also routinely taken down under Big Tech’s nebulous ‘community guidelines’.

The hounding of dissenting voices has in turn spawned a host of new platforms such as Rumble, Bitchute, Odysee, BrandNewTube and Telegram.

Aware that these new champions of free speech are filling the truth vacuum left by Big Tech censorship, the government seeks to capture all platforms in a diabolical censorship net.

The UK already has extensive legislation to ensure that what’s unlawful offline is unlawful online.

What’s new is that the overarching protection of free expression under the Human Rights Act 1998 will no longer apply.

So bold is the government’s overreach that the Online Safety Bill instructs Ofcom to draft codes requiring platforms to address content that is ‘legal but harmful’.

Chillingly, the Bill’s scope extends to surveillance of private messaging between individuals.

In other words, it’s a blueprint for totalitarian control of information. All information.

The Bill defines ‘harmful’ content as that which presents ‘a material risk of the content having, or indirectly having, a significant adverse physical or psychological impact on an adult of ordinary sensibilities’.

Is it really the government’s responsibility to protect adults of ‘ordinary sensibilities’ from psychological harm through exposure to the written word?

Defining ‘harmful’ content is mission impossible and suggests either a gaping error in the Bill or a deliberate design flaw to give the private censorship enforcers carte blanche to remove anything that might offend an adult of ‘ordinary sensibilities’.

Add to that the threat of heavy penalties against platforms failing to remove such ill-defined content and it’s not hard to see that private platforms are all but guaranteed to take an even bigger sledgehammer to online content.

The war on free speech and democracy is global, with many Western governments using Covid as a trojan horse to entrench censorship through the statute book.

Legislators in Canada and Ireland are in sync with the UK’s efforts.

In New Zealand, the police can issue a ‘takedown notice’ against anything considered ‘objectionable’.

In Greece lawmakers are trying to criminalise journalists for publishing ‘false news’.

And so on. With few exceptions, the Western world is increasingly resembling a giant banana republic as its claim to democracy grows ever more farcical.

The UK government denies its responsibility for causing real-life harm to vast numbers through destructive lockdowns while simultaneously pretending to care about online ‘harm’ by saddling companies with an absurd psychological duty of care over digital interactions between members of the public.

This rank hypocrisy suggests a psychopathy not exhibited by Western governments in recent history. It must not be allowed to continue.

Write to your MP and visit Big Brother Watch to help their campaign to defend freedom of speech.

This article first appeared in issue 16 of The Light

Unexplained excess deaths ‘point to vaccines’

By Graham Crawford

Professor Richard Ennos speaking at a rally in Edinburgh

A retired academic from Edinburgh is pushing the Scottish government to explain more than 1,500 unattributed excess deaths in the country this summer.

Professor Richard Ennos has also expressed his concerns with MSPs and health bosses that official data points to a ‘prima facie case’ for the country’s mass Covid vaccination programme being ‘a contributing factor to the dramatic rise’.

Information he gathered from the National Records for Scotland shows that deaths increased down through age groups almost simultaneously with the injections being rolled out to ever-younger people.

Comparing the huge rise in excess deaths figures for summer 2021 compared to summer 2020, Professor Ennos tells Anita Morrison, Scotland’s head of health and social care analysis and support:

‘What differs between the two years? The glaringly obvious answer is the rollout of Covid-19 vaccination.

‘There was no Covid-19 vaccination programme in 2020, but there was roll-out of Covid vaccinations in a sequential way to increasingly younger age groups in 2021, a pattern that we see in the manifestation of excess deaths.’

He also suggests that policy also provides ‘simple and compelling explanation’ for a ‘three to six-fold increase in summer covid hospitalisations’.

In a response to Ms Morrison on October 28, he adds: ‘All of the Covid-19 vaccines are novel and experimental with no long-term safety data. They are now associated with a wide range of serious side-effects (blood clotting, myocarditis, Guillain-Barre syndrome) whose likely frequency in the wider population was not assessed in the small-scale phase one and two trials that included only a subset of healthy volunteers.

‘The Yellow Card adverse events reporting system, that capture only a fraction of events, has already recorded over 1,700 deaths in the UK population associated with the Covid-19 vaccines. There is therefore a prima facie case for Covid-19 vaccination being a contributing factor to the dramatic rise in summer excess deaths in Scotland in 2021.’

The former professor of evolutionary biology the University of Edinburgh collated detailed official data covering 21 weeks over this summer in an effort to seek an explanation for 3,000 excess deaths.

Responding to an inquiry on the matter from Edinburgh MSP Sarah Boyack on October 25th, Ms Morrison revealed that Covid accounted for 45% of deaths and states that Public Health Scotland analysis from 2020 provided ‘some possible reasons for non-covid excess deaths’.

She lists them as:

  1. Artefact: deaths directly due to Covid-19 that were not certified as such in provisional data (although this is less likely now due to mass testing).
  2. Unintended consequences (social determinants): deaths are due to unintended consequences of the non-clinical response to Covid-19.
  3. Service supply/access: deaths due to problems with health and social care service access.
  4. Service demand: deaths of individuals not presenting to health and social care services as they would at other time.
  5. Other: other causes that have not yet been identified.

In an article for the Daily Sceptic on November 4th, Professor Ennos states that he and others have written to MSPs about the ‘dreadful situation’ of more than 3,000 excess deaths in 21 weeks this summer asking ‘for a thorough analysis of what is responsible’.

He adds: ‘Five possible explanations are given, none of which reflect favourably on the Scottish government’s public health policy.

‘To paraphrase her [Ms Morrison’s] reply, 45% are due to Covid-19 and the rest are accounted for by one or more of:

  1. Covid deaths that were not recognised.
  2. Unintended consequences of the Scottish Government’s non-clinical response to Covid-19 (masks, social isolation etc.).
  3. Problems with access to the health and social care services (presumably due to the Scottish Government policy of withdrawing these).
  4. Patients not accessing services that were available (presumably because they were too scared of catching Covid-19 due to the Scottish government exaggeration of the risks).
  5. Some other causes that have not been identified.’

Professor Ennos adds that Ms Morrison’s ‘response is a damning indictment of Scottish government public health policy whose outcome should ultimately be measured by the metric of excess death’.

Footnote: By December 20th 2020 there were 6,298 deaths registered in Scotland where Covid-19 was mentioned on the death certificate because of a positive PCR test within the prior 28 days.

A Freedom of Information request to the Scottish government in December 2020 revealed there had been fewer than 500 deaths directly attributed to covid since March 2020.

The Online Safety Bill: Government’s pledge to protect us from our right to free speech and thought

By Rusere Shoniwa

Source: Dan McCall

Big Media to public: Don’t exceed your think limit!

In July 2020, the mainstream media clearly signposted the direction of travel in relation to curtailing independent critical analysis of Covid and other science underpinning Government policy. The instruction given to the public in the title of a Forbes article was unequivocal: “You must not ‘do your own research’ when it comes to science.”

Regarding the question of whether to “research both sides and make up your own mind”, the article’s verdict was clear: “when it comes to issues like vaccinations, climate change, and the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, it can be dangerous, destructive, and even deadly.”

The message and tone of the article are supercilious, arrogant, condescending, paternalistic and, for all those reasons, a grave insult to your intelligence. But above all, it is potently anti-democratic. Government policy based on the prevailing science has an enormous impact on your life, wellbeing and, as Covid has demonstrated, your liberty. But, if Forbes gets its way, under no circumstances will the stupid citizenry be permitted to weigh up ‘both sides’ of a debate for itself. You will not be permitted to democratically challenge the machinery of government that grinds out the law and statutes which govern your every waking hour.

You are being told to leave the ‘dangerous, destructive, and even deadly’ business of deciding what’s good for you to the scientists and to the Government who, after filtering it with immaculate benevolence, will deliver only what it deems good for you and which, by complete happenstance, will align perfectly with Government policy and objectives. There’s just one small problem with that process: it’s called censorship, and it’s the slip road taking us onto the highway to tyranny.

Science is a process for getting closer to the truth. It is always evolving and almost no debate terminates at a truth that remains immutable for all time. Dissenting views are vital because they lead to new avenues of truth that often prove the consensus wrong. Dissent has negative connotations only to authoritarians. To true democrats, it is a welcome opportunity to test the veracity of claims made and to further the cause of truth and enlightenment.

Crucially, it is the voting public’s democratic right to be the final arbiter of how, and indeed even whether, The Science should be used to determine how we live. With the growing politicisation of science, we will not be free to choose if the choices put before us are controlled and censored.

The disingenuous moral panic about ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ is a deceitful denial of the fact that error is the unavoidable consequence of debate and understanding. In the words of former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, “We cannot have truth without accommodating error. It is the price that we pay for allowing knowledge and understanding to develop and human civilisation to advance.” Stifling dissenting viewpoints is the surest way to intellectual stagnation and spiritual atrophy.

The Online Safety Bill – the funeral pyre for free speech

Big Brother Watch, a UK civil liberties campaign group, is at the forefront of the fight to defend free speech. In its report ‘The State of Free Speech Online’, it reminds us that, up until very recently, the internet has been a democratising force placing the opportunity of instantaneous global communications at our fingertips. Social media platforms are increasingly becoming our public squares. To the extent that uncensored news disseminated in these public digital squares serves democracy by holding power to account, it is a public utility. However, this public utility is in the hands of a private monopoly, as our communications are largely controlled by powerful corporate intermediaries.

Under the auspices of Big Tech, industrial scale censorship implemented through nebulous ‘community guidelines’ is now the norm. This process began in 2020 when the alignment of pro-lockdown governments’ interests with those of Big Tech was evidenced by the full-throated cries of lawmakers everywhere for Big Tech to join them in the noble cause of supressing dissent. In March this year, Ireland’s Justice Minister enjoined Big Tech to do its bit in curbing public protest, while here in the UK, MP David Lammy went a step further by accepting money from Facebook for promotional services rendered while publicly exhorting the platform to increase its already heavy-handed levels of censorship.

As of October YouTube boasted that it had deleted more than a million videos under its “COVID misinformation policy.” In Australia it has removed 75% of video ads posted by the anti-lockdown party United Australia Party (UAP) since September.

Brute censorship on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter has been effective in muting dissent but not effective enough for the overzealous authoritarians allied to Big Tech and Big Pharma. The public understands that Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four was a warning to us of how governments could control both the individual’s mind and society at large by obliterating pathways to information and truth. The Government, however, appears to be using Nineteen Eighty-Four not as a warning but as an instruction manual to manifest the dystopian vision we were warned about.

Cloaked in the Orwellian language of providing ‘safety’, Big Brother’s infantilising embrace will now see an Online Safety Bill curbing free speech ostensibly “to protect adult online safety” and to tackle “content that is harmful to adults” (page 86 of the linked report).

The hounding of dissenting voices from dominant platforms like YouTube and Facebook has spawned the growth of platforms dedicated to free speech like Rumble, Odysee and Telegram. These relatively new players are behaving like true platforms and not publishers – they are committed to free speech and will only act if content is illegal under existing legislation. Aware that the vacuum of truth left by Big Tech censorship is being filled by new players, the Government is taking decisive action with this legislation to capture all platforms in a diabolical censorship net.

The UK already has extensive communications and other legislation to reinforce the principle that what is unlawful offline should also be unlawful online. If anything, existing legislation goes too far since the Communications Act (2003) criminalises communications that are deemed to be “grossly offensive”, although in practice the Human Rights Act 1998, which protects freedom of expression, can nullify action taken against “grossly offensive” but lawful speech. However, this overarching duty to comply with the Human Rights Act would not apply to online platforms under the Online Safety Bill.

Big Brother Watch has spelt out the broad aim of the Online Safety Bill:

“The legislation introduces state-backed censorship and monitoring on a scale never seen before in a liberal democracy… This regulation would deputise private companies like Facebook to be the speech police of the internet. Government has designed the plans not only to deal with crime online, but to explicitly target lawful speech.” [emphasis added]

So bold is the Government’s overreach with this Bill that it makes no effort to hide the fact that it is tackling legal content: the Bill instructs Ofcom to draft codes that require platforms to address content that is “legal but harmful” (page 88-89 of the linked report). So chilling is its scope that it will extend to surveillance of private messaging between individuals (page 104 of the linked report). This Bill is the blueprint for totalitarian control of information.

The Bill defines ‘harmful’ content as that which presents “a material risk of the content having, or indirectly having, a significant adverse physical or psychological impact on an adult of ordinary sensibilities”. Why have such infantilising sentiments directed at adults found expression in government legislation? It is beyond preposterous to suggest that it is now the Government’s or any other institution’s responsibility to protect adults of ‘ordinary sensibilities’ from psychological harm through exposure to the written word.

Up until now, the discourse around online harm has been understandably focused on those that society would reasonably perceive to be at risk – children and young teenagers. The deliberate shift to include adults has nothing to do with whom the government wishes to protect but rather with the nature of the content it wishes to control. If the Government is to effectively guide your thinking on key policy issues like lockdowns, vaccinations, biometric digital ID passes, climate change and Central Bank Digital Currencies, then thought control will need to be directed at the voting-age public.

We should not be fooled into thinking that the Government cares about a deterioration of your mental health should you accidentally click the wrong link while browsing on Amazon.

Recall that, according to Forbes, the real issue at stake here is that “when it comes to issues like vaccinations, climate change, and the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, it can be dangerous, destructive, and even deadly” to do your own thinking. Not deadly to you as they would have you believe, but deadly to the government’s ability to implement and enforce corporate-friendly policies that keep you in your proper place as a compliant consumer.

Framed as something designed to protect the public from being ‘misinformed’ and harmed, the reality is that this Bill lays down the foundations for wholesale government and corporate disinformation campaigns directed at voting adults. It would be far more ‘harmful’ to the Government than to you if you did not ‘think correctly’ on the big issues looming on the horizon.

Depending on your level of cynicism, the impossibility of defining ‘harmful’ content is either a gaping error in the Bill or a deliberate design flaw to give the private censorship enforcers carte blanche to remove pretty much anything that might conceivably bring a tear to the eye of an adult of ‘ordinary sensibilities’. Once you add to that the threat of heavy financial and other penalties to be meted out to platforms for not enforcing removal of such ill-defined ‘harmful’ content, private platforms are all but guaranteed to take an even bigger sledgehammer to online content than they already are.

This Bill is the funeral pyre for lawful free speech. There is no other way to interpret it.

Is extrajudicial state censorship already taking place?

The UK Government, via the Department of Digital Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), is already actively violating free speech through its involvement in the removal of lawful online content. The DCMS operates a unit with the sinister name of ‘Counter Disinformation Cell’ (page 106 of linked report) to combat all manner of ‘disinformation’, with a feverish focus on what it deems ‘anti-vax’ content. In an unconscious acknowledgement of its potentially illicit role in extrajudicial state censorship, the unit has styled itself as a ‘cell’, a term normally applied to terrorism and other clandestine activities. In the words of the responsible DCMS director, the cell “encourages swift takedown” of content during “daily interactions with almost all the platforms”.

The current tsunami of deleted content across platforms like YouTube includes verifiable facts that the public has a right to know. A recent YouTube post showed an eminently qualified expert, Dr Peter Doshi, articulating information about the Covid vaccines – namely that certain manufacturers’ claims to efficacy are not supported by the actual trial data and that we might want to critically assess whether these vaccines warrant categorisation as vaccines owing to their very different nature in comparison to traditional vaccines. YouTube deleted the video of Dr Doshi giving evidence on Capitol Hill to an expert panel on Covid vaccines. You can watch a fellow medical professional articulating why this deletion is so shocking and you can view the original video on Brandnewtube here.

Big Tech has boldly confirmed that climate change ‘misinformation’ is the next big censorship target. How, or even if, you can travel, what to eat and how often you can eat it —these are the issues that will be decided for you, and under no circumstances are you to ‘do your own research’! With Big Tech and the Government putting themselves between you and harm’s way, the coming edicts on climate change should all make perfect sense.

We must act to halt the global war on free speech and democracy

The war on free speech and democracy is unmistakably a global one, with many Western governments using Covid as a trojan horse to entrench censorship through the statute book. Legislators in Canada and Ireland are in sync with the UK’s efforts to attack free speech. In New Zealand, government agencies including the police can issue a ‘takedown notice’ for any online publication that meets the ridiculously low bar of merely being “objectionable”.

Lawmakers in Greece are attempting to criminalise journalists for publishing “false news”. Germany seems to have inspired authoritarian lawmakers elsewhere with its Network Enforcement Law (NetzDG) targeting hate speech and fake news on social media. Police in Australia are using citizens’ Facebook posts to quell lockdown dissent.

In short, the entire Western world, with very few exceptions, is taking on the character of a giant banana republic with its claim to democracy growing more farcical by the day.

In the UK, we have a government that, on the one hand, denies its responsibility for directly causing real-life harm to vast numbers of people through recklessly destructive lockdowns and yet, on the other hand, makes a cynical pretence of caring about digital online ‘harm’ to citizens by imposing on companies an absurd psychological duty of care over digital interactions between members of the public. Each of these acts taken individually poses a serious blow to accountability and democracy. But the rank hypocrisy implicit in the combination of the two assaults on liberty is a clear indication of a psychopathy not exhibited before by Western governments in recent history. Write to your MP and visit Big Brother Watch to help their campaign to defend freedom of speech. We must not allow this dire assault on our liberty to stand.

You can read more of Rusere’s work at

Vaccine Surveillance Report or ‘Vaccine’ Surveillance Report?

By Rusere Shoniwa

Screen grab:

Before looking at a headline summary of Covid hospitalisation and death data included in the UK Health Security Agency’s (UKHSA) Vaccine Surveillance Report for week 44, it is important to remind ourselves of the shakiness of one of the pillars that is foundational to much of the data in this report – testing and cases.

In ‘case’ of emergency press pause

After an 18-month onslaught of a mass testing regime, it’s easy to forget that the mass testing paradigm is a flawed one, especially when it is embedded in so much of the reporting that the Government desperately uses to try to get us to believe in the official Covid narrative. So perhaps we should remind ourselves that reliable independent media sources have reported extensively on the inaccuracy of both the PCR test – the linked expert analysis suggests mass testing leads to as many as 99% of positive results being false – and lateral flow test.

Yes, the above link to the critical analysis of PCR test’s reliability is over a year old but what has changed since then to transform it into a beacon of light in diagnostic testing? It is still the same test whose inventor said should not be used as a diagnostic tool let alone a mass screening tool. Its unfitness for purpose has been underscored by a Portuguese Court which ruled, based on expert testimony, that the ‘the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2’ and cited a study that pointed to potentially 97% of positive results being false positives when running the test at 35 cycles or more.           

Apart from being phenomenally unreliable, Covid testing has been hugely successful in propagating a wider insidious process of normalising the abnormal by an attempted nullification of the fundamental medical tenet that a ‘case’ is both symptomatic and must be diagnosed by a doctor. Research shows that 86% of people who test positive have no symptoms at all. So, 86% of people who test positive for Covid would not know they have Covid in the absence of a test, which says a lot about the apocalyptic hype that has surrounded this virus. Considering the test’s unreliability and absence of symptoms in 86% of test results, is it too presumptuous to ask if the 86% actually have Covid?

As with much politicised science in the Covid era, the study’s finding is turned on its head – rather than challenge the meaning and reliability of the test, the authors call for “more widespread testing…to catch ‘silent’ transmission.”

Using the 86% non-symptomatic test statistic as a guideline, it’s easy to see how the UKHSA’s alarming week 44 report of 975,224 cases in weeks 40-43 is actually not that alarming since 838,692 were probably oblivious of their ‘condition’ right up to the moment they were told there was something ‘wrong’ with them. The vast gap between 975,224 ‘cases’ and people needing treatment in hospital (8,637 or 0.9% of the total cases) tends to give some credence to the claim that the majority of those testing positive are false positives.

Moreover, a staggering 11.1m tests were conducted across the UK in weeks 40-43 to generate these cases. The cost of the Government’s NHS Test and Trace program according to the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is £37bn. So, you’ve got to ask: what is it all for? Has it made a positive change? The PAC answered that question with its report card: “despite the unimaginable resources thrown at this project Test and Trace cannot point to a measurable difference to the progress of the pandemic”.

Following this damning indictment, it would be rational of you to think that the PAC’s recommendation would be to turn off the taxpayer money hose and bring the whole scandal of meaningless testing to an abrupt halt. But such rationality would demonstrate a misunderstanding of how Covid logic and Covid economics works. Like much Covid science, the PAC turned its report finding on its head by telling the Government to make the unworkable workable, instructing it to “rapidly turn around these fortunes and begin to demonstrate the worth and value of this staggering investment of taxpayers’ money”!

Sane members of the public scratch their heads while the £1000 per day consultants that the PAC lambasts in its report breathe a sigh of relief.

To the extent that case numbers mean anything, they appear to demonstrate, on the Government’s own terms (namely the use of the mass testing juggernaut), that the vaccines are not just useless at preventing infection and transmission, but that they appear to enhance infection and transmission in the 40-79 age group, based on data in the week 43 report. Yes, you read that correctly. The vaccines register negative efficacy rates in this age group which means, if you are over 40, you are twice as likely to get infected after receiving the jab than if you had opted out of the biggest experiment ever conducted in the history of experimentation on humans, or possibly any life form including lab rats.

I think it’s safe to say this is precisely the sort of occurrence that was uppermost in the mind of the person who coined the expression: ‘sobering thought’. Following a reprimand from the U.K. Statistics Authority, the UKHSA has denounced the use of its unadjusted numbers to calculate vaccine efficacy and its arguments have been countered by those doing the analysis of vaccine efficacy that the Government refuses to do. We fully support the right of journalists to responsibly analyse and comment on data produced by the Government to allow the public to make up their own minds. 

For all the above reasons, I have not analysed the week 44 case data and, in a sense, the headline commentary on cases has now been made.

Deaths within 60 days of a positive Covid-19 test

The table below is a summary of deaths within 60 days of a positive Covid-19 test for weeks 40-43, excluding unlinked* cases which are those where NHS numbers were unavailable to link to the National Immunisation Management System database. Unlinked deaths totalled 19 or 0.5% of the total number reported.

The same data presented graphically looks like this:

  • Because all deaths included in these figures are those that occurred within 60 days of a positive test result, the proportion for which Covid was determined to be the primary cause of death is not known.
  • Total linked deaths within 60 days of a positive Covid-19 test over the four-week period amounted to 3,804. Total deaths registered in England and Wales from all causes in the comparable four-week period were 44,279. Covid associated deaths comprise 9% of that total (6% for weeks 39-42).
  • 79% of all Covid associated deaths were in the fully vaccinated (79% for weeks 39-42).
  • According to the NHS Covid-19 Vaccination Statistics for England for the week ending 31 October 2021, 85.4% of individuals aged 18 and over have been vaccinated with two doses.
  • Less than 3% of under 18s have received a second dose as of 31 October.
  • 75% of all linked deaths in weeks 40-43 occurred in those aged 70 years and over (77% for weeks 39-42).


The table below is a summary of the hospitalisation numbers excluding unlinked cases* which totalled 85 or 0.97%% of the total number reported.

In closing

The week 44 Vaccine surveillance report, under the heading “Results” on page 14, claims that: “The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated individuals.” [emphasis added]

I find it hard to reconcile the last part of that statement with the table and graph above that are derived from the data in the same UKHSA report on page 19. For the avoidance of doubt, here is a screen grab of the report’s death numbers which you may add up for yourself:

On 4th November, BMJ editor Dr Peter Doshi gave evidence at an expert panel on Covid vaccines held by Senator Ron Johnson in Washington DC. Challenging the ‘conventional wisdom’ that the clinical trials had proved that the vaccines saved lives, he had this to say:

“But is it true? When that statement by prominent public health officials was penned, there had been just one death, one death across the 70,000 Pfizer and Moderna trial participants. Today, we have more data, and you can see that there were similar numbers of deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups. The trials did not show a reduction in death. Even for Covid deaths, as opposed to other causes, the evidence is flimsy, with just two deaths in the placebo group versus one in the vaccine group. My point is not that I know the truth about what the vaccine can and cannot do, my point is that those who claimed the trials showed the vaccines were highly effective in saving lives were wrong. The trials did not demonstrate this.” [Emphasis added]

He also had this to say about the vaccines, or ‘vaccines’ if you are inclined to share Dr Doshi’s eloquently expressed doubts about the classification of Big Pharma’s new treatments as vaccines or if you question the CDC’s redefining of what a vaccine is:

‘I am one of the academics that argues that these mRNA products, which everybody calls vaccines, are qualitatively different than standard vaccines. And so I found it fascinating to learn that Merriam-Webster changed its definition of “vaccine” early this year. mRNA products did not meet the definition of “vaccine” that has been in place for 15 years in Merriam-Webster, but the definition was expanded such that mRNA products are now vaccines. I highlight this to ask a question: How would you feel about mandating COVID vaccines if we didn’t call them vaccines? What if these injections were called “drugs” instead? So here’s the scenario: We have this “drug”, and we have evidence that it doesn’t prevent infection, nor does it stop viral transmission, but the “drug” is understood to reduce your risk of getting very sick and dying of COVID. Would you take a dose of this drug every six months or so for possibly the rest of your life if that’s what it took for the drug to stay effective? Would you not just take this drug yourself, but support regulations mandating that everybody else around you take this drug? Or would you say, “Hold on a sec”. Maybe you’d say that, “If that’s all the drug does, why not use a normal medicine instead? The kind we take when we’re sick and want to get better? And why would you mandate it?” 

He punctuated the end of his presentation with this observation: ‘I think it’s time to inject some critical thinking into that conversation [about the vaccines and mandates] and that is what I hope we are doing today.’

Dr Doshi is very old-fashioned indeed.

You can read more of Rusere’s work at

Interview: Craig Kelly MP on the dystopian reality of Australia’s Covid policies

Leader of the United Australia Party, Craig Kelly MP talks to Sonia Elijah about Australia’s extremist Covid policies, the suppression of early treatments, censorship, vaccine mandates, freedom of speech and much more.

‘Preventing a sick person from getting medical treatment or access to a medicine is a crime against humanity, full stop, and that is what our government regulators have done.’

‘So many things in this Covid episode don’t make sense. They are contrary to the logic and contrary to the evidence. Every time something doesn’t add up, it leads to one road and that is to force people into getting injected.’