What do people opposed to lockdowns actually think?

By Raminder Mulla, Amy Willows & Rusere Shoniwa

It is hard to overstate the polarising effect on society of the March 2020 lockdown and other Government policies implemented under emergency powers to ostensibly contain the spread of covid. The Government succeeded in achieving compliance with its policies by making an overwhelming majority terrified of the virus while a small minority were terrified of the Government’s success in terrorising the nation. A large majority were quickly convinced by the over-exaggerated threat of the virus to comply with destructive policies while a small minority became convinced that the Government’s policies, far from addressing health concerns, would guarantee lasting damage to our health, society, economy and civil liberties

Those who did not succumb to the Government’s fear campaign were forced to examine their values against the backdrop of such polarised views and to re-assess what really mattered to them. Notwithstanding their deep scepticism about whether lockdowns and other measures were effective in “saving lives”, sceptics of the official narrative questioned the right of the state to pawn the nation’s and individuals’ quality of life and liberty in exchange for unproven gains in mitigating a health threat. 

We felt that it was important to understand the motivations of those who opposed the Government’s edicts, to try to characterise these dissenting voices and to understand how these individuals related to the edicts. This is particularly important considering the suppression and vilification of these voices. 

A substantial body of academic work in this area already exists1–13 but almost all of it used questionnaire-based methods. Such study designs prevent participants from elaborating on their views or justifying the choices they made. This meant that opposition to, and non-compliance with lockdowns, distancing, masking and vaccination would never be understood through the lens of the participants’ self-professed beliefs and values since these were never elicited in the existing studies.

On the contrary, some studies appeared to have been designed to interpret participants’ compliance with or dissent from government mandates as a dubious proxy for mental health. They inevitably concluded that those who objected to the official narrative were psychologically unstable because non-compliance was, by default, correlated with negative character traits. In this pathologising of dissent, we can draw a parallel with the Soviet Union’s post-Stalin era in which a practice known as punitive psychiatry was widely employed to suppress political dissidents.

In lockstep with the academic class, mainstream journalism has made no attempt to understand or communicate with those who opposed lockdowns and other mandates. This failure, combined with the subsequent ratcheting up of the coercion and vilification of those who did not wish to have a covid vaccine, compelled us to enter the vacuum left by academics and journalists by asking those opposed to the Government’s covid controls and mandates what they truly thought.

We interviewed a sample of people and applied systematic qualitative and sociological methods to determine trends in responses. The result was a new study, “Looking into their eyes: a cross section of some people opposed to the official COVID narrative” (available as a preprint on the Zenodo server).

We discussed a variety of issues with participants, such as attitudes to lockdown and vaccination, and elicited views on what covid meant to them. We then analysed the conversations and were able to present a perspective not revealed by any mainstream press outlet or academic journal. 

These are some of the key findings from our study:

Sceptic values and beliefs

Our sample of eleven participants consisted of people in their 30s through to their 70s, either working, retired or unemployed; single, partnered or divorced. All quotes in italics are from our participants.

When participants were asked to describe themselves in their own words, their responses were inconsistent with the negative character traits (principally narcissism) which were reported in mainstream journalism and the academic studies we have critiqued.

They described themselves as “run of the mill people”, or they simply didn’t have “much to say [about themselves]”.A minority of participants mentioned that they felt that they were “outliers”or that they “didn’t fit in”. 

The importance of values such as “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you” was expressed by participants. Unease with rule-breaking, reciprocity in interactions and personal responsibility were conveyed in statements such as these:

I’m not somebody who would naturally want to go against the law or do anything that could possibly harm anyone else.

Tell the truth, don’t be cruel and treat people as you’d want them to treat you, as you’d want to be treated yourself.

I don’t believe that other people should stop living their lives and suffer to keep me safe. It’s up to me to keep me safe, as best I can, that’s how I see it.

“All life is precious, whether it be animal or human.”

While the lockdown-critical viewpoint has typically been smeared as the domain of selfish people, their expressed respect for the autonomy and welfare of others suggests quite the opposite. 

Perspectives on lockdowns

Participants were opposed to lockdown policies for a number of reasons: 

“LOCKDOWNS: ARE THEY SAFE? NO THEY’RE NOT.” 

A view commonly expressed was that blanket lockdowns were disproportionate for a disease as age- and risk-stratified as covid-19 and that lockdowns have considerable collateral effects. 

One of our participants put it rather simply: “This idea that we should just throw everybody under the bus for something that is age stratified and quite clearly so, seems so fundamentally wrong to me.

“YOU NEED A VERY GOOD REASON TO THROW OUT ALL THE CALMLY PLANNED APPROACHES TO DEALING WITH A PANDEMIC, WHICH WE HAD IN THE LOCKER.” 

Participants took issue with how the lockdown policies were implemented, in that earlier guidelines on pandemic planning had been discarded in favour of an unprecedented, blanket lockdown approach. Policies informed by science will evolve as the science evolves. However, societal values should also have a prominent role in policy formulation and this was noticeably absent: 

“I think it’s just so wrong. We’re supposed to live in a democracy. And we are tumbling towards totalitarianism.”

“IT’S BEEN QUITE AN INTERESTING EXERCISE IN REALISING HOW STATISTICS AND DATA CAN BE MANIPULATED, SUBTLY, TO SHOW SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TO WHAT IT ACTUALLY SHOWS.” 

Public opinion was heavily influenced by statistics, graphs and data like the innocuous looking “flatten the curve” graphs representing how the lockdown was supposed to work, through to the “graph of doom” that bounced the UK into its second lockdown in November 2020. 

How data was represented was of concern to our participants and in some cases this triggered their first suspicions about the lockdown approach:

“Back in the early days, it was death figures. I think that’s what made me get a little bit suspicious, because depending on where you listened to the news, there were different figures and my first thought was “surely, 10 people dead are going to be 10 people dead, regardless of who was reporting it.” And that happened a few times because I was keeping a track, and that’s what made me sort of fall onto the sceptic side.”

“A FRIGHTENED POPULATION IS A COMPLIANT POPULATION.” 

The fear-based messaging used to increase compliance with lockdown policy was discussed, with expressions like “psychological warfare” being used to describe it. Many participants believed that such fear-based messaging was effective in gaining compliance and was also emotionally damaging.

Consequences – and a small step towards recovery

An erosion of trust in the authorities, experts, and ultimately in their fellow citizens, was cited by participants as one of the negative consequences of the covid measures. This was evidenced in statements like these: 

It almost feels like the likely default for people now is fearful or, you know, self-righteous over things that they’ve got completely wrong. It’s just normal for me to see people that way now.

Before all this, you’d say, “well, this is nonsense, you know, people are never going to go along with this.” And yet, here we are. Nothing can surprise me. Absolutely nothing can surprise me.

It’s definitely changed my opinion of people and I don’t think that will ever go away, now…. It’s irreversible isn’t it really… I get the feeling that it has created a big wedge.

I have lost respect for people who I respected previously. It’s made me more avoidant. I will avoid interaction with anyone that I’m not comfortable with. (long pause) That’s really what it’s done. It’s made me more avoidant.

Participants’ statements clearly indicate a widening rift between people across the covid divide, with pessimism expressed as to how this will pan out in future.

It is our view, that to truly recover from the disaster of the past two and a half years, we must start to listen to one another. The arguments of those in favour of covid restrictions have obviously dominated the discourse but the other side must be heard. Looking into their eyes, a 2022 study which is our riposte to the slogan deployed in the Government’s covid campaign, aims to give a voice to censored dissenters. 

If you appreciated this article please subscribe to our regular newsletter here, share and follow us on Twitter here – and like and comment on Facebook here. Recovery is a ‘not for profit’ campaign (we make a loss!) and need your financial support to survive – if you can spare some of your hard-earned pounds you can donate here.

Raminder Mulla is a scientist by trade and training, with a PhD in chemistry. Over the past two years he has written about the dangers of government policies for covid containment. He has been published in outlets such as The Conservative Woman, Off-Guardian and Left Lockdown Sceptics. He keeps a web presence at https://chc08rm.net .

Amy Willows has studied psychology and psychotherapy and has a particular interest in the relationship between psychic and group processes. Since the first covid lockdown in China, she has been talking about the dangers and immorality of mandatory isolation, and demonstrating to oppose the lockdowns in England.

Rusere Shoniwa is a writer providing content for Holding The Line: Journalists Against Censorship and Left Lockdown Sceptics. He has also been published in TCW and The Daily Sceptic (co-authoring with Raminder and Amy). His interviews with prominent figures from the sceptical community, including James Corbett, Fabio Vighi and Dr Sam White, have proved popular. He blogs at https://plagueonbothhouses.com

Photo of woman interviewing sceptic by fizkes from Adobe Stock.

References

(1)      Blais, J.; Chen, P. G.; Pruysers, S. Who Complies and Who Defies? Personality and Public Health Compliance. Frontiers in Political Science 2021, 3, 59. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.660911.

(2)      de Francisco Carvalho, L.; Gonçalves, A. P.; Pianowski, G. Preliminary Findings on the Associations between Personality Traits and Engagement Behavior to the COVID-19 Containment Measures. Psychology, Health & Medicine 2021, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2021.1944652.

(3)      Espinosa, P.; Clemente, M. Beyond the Pale: Dark Traits and Close Relations Influence Attitudes toward COVID-19 and the Rejection of Quarantine Rules. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2021, 18 (9), 4838. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094838.

(4)      Frías-Armenta, M.; Corral-Frías, N. S.; Corral-Verdugo, V.; Lucas, M. Y. Psychological Predictors of Precautionary Behaviors in Response to COVID-19: A Structural Model. Frontiers in Psychology 2021, 12, 1221. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.559289.

(5)      Lachowicz-Tabaczek, K.; Kozłowska, M. A. Being Others-Oriented during the Pandemic: Individual Differences in the Sense of Responsibility for Collective Health as a Robust Predictor of Compliance with the COVID-19 Containing Measures. Personality and Individual Differences 2021, 183, 111138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111138.

(6)      Li, H. Follow or Not Follow?: The Relationship between Psychological Entitlement and Compliance with Preventive Measures to the COVID-19. Personality and Individual Differences 2021, 174, 110678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110678.

(7)      Miguel, F. K.; Machado, G. M.; Pianowski, G.; Carvalho, L. de F. Compliance with Containment Measures to the COVID-19 Pandemic over Time: Do Antisocial Traits Matter? Personality and Individual Differences 2021, 168, 110346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110346.

(8)      Paiva, T. O.; Cruz-Martins, N.; Pasion, R.; Almeida, P. R.; Barbosa, F. Boldness Personality Traits Are Associated With Reduced Risk Perceptions and Adoption of Protective Behaviors During the First COVID-19 Outbreak. Frontiers in Psychology 2021, 12, 974. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633555.

(9)      Roma, P.; Monaro, M.; Muzi, L.; Colasanti, M.; Ricci, E.; Biondi, S.; Napoli, C.; Ferracuti, S.; Mazza, C. How to Improve Compliance with Protective Health Measures during the COVID-19 Outbreak: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model and Machine Learning Algorithms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020, 17 (19), 7252. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197252.

(10)    Triberti, S.; Durosini, I.; Pravettoni, G. Social Distancing Is the Right Thing to Do: Dark Triad Behavioral Correlates in the COVID-19 Quarantine. Personality and Individual Differences 2021, 170, 110453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110453.

(11)    Tunçgenç, B.; El Zein, M.; Sulik, J.; Newson, M.; Zhao, Y.; Dezecache, G.; Deroy, O. Social Influence Matters: We Follow Pandemic Guidelines Most When Our Close Circle Does. British Journal of Psychology 2021, 112 (3), 763–780. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12491.

(12)    Xu, P.; Cheng, J. Individual Differences in Social Distancing and Mask-Wearing in the Pandemic of COVID-19: The Role of Need for Cognition, Self-Control and Risk Attitude. Personality and Individual Differences 2021, 175, 110706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110706.

(13)    Zajenkowski, M.; Jonason, P. K.; Leniarska, M.; Kozakiewicz, Z. Who Complies with the Restrictions to Reduce the Spread of COVID-19?: Personality and Perceptions of the COVID-19 Situation. Personality and Individual Differences 2020, 166, 110199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110199.

Campaign aims to ‘break silence’ over jab injuries and deaths

By Roger Guttridge

A former UN worker behind a global campaign to support the vaccine-injured has warned that the world is heading for a ‘huge humanitarian crisis’ as the jab’s short- and long-term effects take their toll.

Sweden-based Aga Wilson, founder of #CanWeTalkAboutIt, which was launched in June, will be sharing her views at 7pm UK time on Tuesday August 9 at a meeting jointly hosted by Prepare for Change, Holding the Line: Journalists Against Covid Censorship and the People’s Health Alliance.

Aga, who formerly co-ordinated humanitarian efforts for the United Nations, said one of the initiative’s aims was to ‘break the silence around Covid-19 vaccine injuries and deaths’.

She told me: ‘This is a huge humanitarian crisis and we are only seeing the beginning stages of it.

‘Millions around the world have already suffered adverse reactions to the shots but we are not even seeing the long-term effects yet.

‘I have spoken to many of the vaccine-injured people. I have seen young people who have lost everything.

‘I have seen people who are homeless because they can’t pay their medical bills and they can’t work.

‘These people are being gaslighted. They are being isolated. They have no friends.

‘Their families and their friends have totally abandoned them because they think they are crazy.

‘These people are not being seen, they are not being heard. This is what the media has done.

‘If they go to the doctor, they are told they have severe anxiety or a psychological problem and to go home and take some pills.’

Aga, who began researching vaccine safety after she was injured by the DTP jab during pregnancy six years ago, fears we are heading for a ‘world of damaged people who can’t go to work’.

One of the Can We Talk About It campaign’s primary aims is to increase public awareness and ‘wake more people up’ as well as finding solutions for the injured.

One of the ways it is doing this is by collecting individual stories of vaccine damage and publishing them on social media.

‘Our social media accounts are rising every day and we already need a bigger team to run the campaign,’ she said.

‘Stories are the most important because if you look eye to eye with a person who has been damaged, it’s hard to ignore them.’

The campaign has the backing of major medical figures and organisations including the World Freedom Alliance, Children’s Health Defence, Europe, World Council for Health and the People’s Health Alliance.

• Prepare for Change’s August 9 Ascension Connection Call will begin promptly at 6pm UTC/GMT, 7pm London, 8pm Paris, 11am US Pacific, 2pm US Eastern but those who wish can show up 15 minutes early for an informal chat before starting. To make it easier to determine the time (and date) in your area, we’ve provided this time converter link for your convenience. Here is the link to the call: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83875118791?pwd=K0JXZVVjOVI5K25CODlJcUZEemVpUT09
The session will be recorded.

Psst! The dead elephant in the room was vaccinated

By HTL

The same words are popping up as they did when Africa’s imperviousness to Covid caused thinly veiled consternation: scientists and doctors are ‘baffled’, it’s a ‘mystery’, and so on.

Suddenly people in robust health, mainly teenagers and young men, are dying out of the blue, on the football field, in their beds, and – ominously for the airline industry and those who want to fly – in the air. Often, it’s ‘sudden’, ‘unexpected’, ‘unexplained’. The Mail Online headlined last month: ‘Healthy young people are dying suddenly and unexpectedly from a mysterious syndrome’. According to cardiologist Elizabeth Paratz, who was quoted in the article, SADS is a ‘very hard entity to grasp’ because it’s a ‘diagnosis of nothing’.

On Twitter, Dr James E. Olsson has been cataloguing such deaths all over the world. The following are examples from a recent 24-hour period: Popular Rosegrove Man, 43, Dies After Collapsing in the Street; Dominic Green, 28, worked from home and ‘Died Suddenly’; Netflix Comedy Series Star Busisiwe Lurayi, Dead ‘Suddenly’ in her home at 36; Harley Whittle, a pupil at St. Gabriel’s RC High School in Bury, died ‘unexpectedly’; Archaeological Worker Dead ‘Suddenly’ at 24, in Kisatchie National Forest. There are dozens more on his Twitter feed.

Anecdotal? Yes, but undeniable. In the world of sports, 395 athletes died suddenly in 2021, according to a tally by GoodSciencing.com backed up by a detailed list with links to news reports. Another 384 died in the first half of this year alone.

These numbers compare with data compiled by the International Olympic Committee for the years 1966 to 2004 (Sudden cardiac death in athletes: the Lausanne Recommendations), showing a yearly average of 29 deaths in athletes under 35 years of age from a total of 1,101.

An exhaustive roundup by the Swiss Policy Research group covers cardiac incidents and deaths among athletes from January 2021 through April 2022: Covid Vaccine: Athlete Collapses and Deaths – Swiss Policy Research (swprs.org).

The sporting deaths that have made headlines are harder to ignore than those thousands from other walks of life. As the numbers have mounted, an acronym has emerged: Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS), a triste echo of the still-mysterious Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, as if giving it a name would help mask the connection with the Covid vaccines.

Fact checkers got busy: Fact check: False claim that SADS is linked to the COVID-19 vaccine (usatoday.com). And Full Fact headlined: ‘No evidence deaths from Sudden Adult Death Syndrome are really caused by Covid-19 vaccines’.  

Simultaneously, a spate of studies warning of lurking threats to heart health have invaded the headlines. Are you a ‘lonely older woman’? Lonely older women at greater risk of heart attack, study shows. Or are you a ‘fit and healthy’ younger woman? The little-known heart attack that strikes ‘fit and healthy’ women as young as 22. Beware of spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD), an ‘uncommon’ condition resulting when a tear forms in a blood vessel in the heart, the Sun warns. And did you know that gardening is a risk factor for heart disease? Urgent warning to gardeners as soil ‘increases risk of killer heart disease’. Or living under a flight path? Do YOU live under a flight path? Study finds heart attack rates are 70% higher in noisiest areas. Skipping breakfast? Falling asleep in front of the television? Shoveling snow? And so on. Many of these articles are rehashes of old stories, such as this one, published in February, on the dangers of energy drinks, citing a study from 2017: Heart attack: Energy drinks could cause a sudden cardiac arrest. The barrage seems designed to lull people into shrugging off cardiac deaths, even those of young, healthy people, as attributable to external or lifestyle factors – anything but the Covid-19 vaccines.

The spectre of SADS is especially frightening for the aviation industry, with airlines accused of sweeping the risk under the rug, air crew afraid to speak out and passengers flying in the dark. The surge in flight cancellations is hard to ignore. According to FlightAware.com, some 120,000 flights are cancelled per year globally, working out at a daily average of 329. The website, which posts a real-time ‘misery map’ showing air hubs the worst hit by cancellations, tallied 1,547 cancellations as of midday western European time on July 25th.

The airlines – which received $63 billion in government pandemic funds under a Payroll Protection Program – cite staff shortages as a factor among many, including severe weather, while insiders say air crew fearful for their own and passenger safety are staying away from work – typically, calling in sick – in significant numbers.

In August 2021, the 49-year-old pilot of a Biman Bangladesh Airlines flight carrying 126 passengers suffered a heart attack, and his co-pilot landed the plane. The pilot died later in hospital. An American Airlines pilot spoke out after suffering a heart attack just six minutes after he landed a plane with nearly 200 people aboard at Dallas-Fort Worth airport in April. In a video he recorded from a hospital’s intensive care unit, he blamed the vaccine he was mandated to take. ‘Literally I was told that if I did not take the vaccine, I would be fired,’ said the pilot, Bob Snow, who flew for the airline for 31 years. ‘This is not the American way.’ He noted that no one from the airline, whose headquarters is 10 minutes from the hospital where he was treated, visited him.

American Airlines has denied the reported cockpit deaths of two others of its pilots. Delta airlines categorically denied reports of the death of one of its pilots last autumn, with a fact check by USA Today stating: ‘All three coronavirus vaccines authorised in the U.S. have been found to be safe and effective at preventing serious Covid-19 cases. The shots do not cause death, as USA TODAY has previously reported.’

A California law firm, John Pierce Law, has launched a series of lawsuits targeting 18 airlines, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Transport, charging that they ignored clear regulations barring pilots from flying within a year after taking experimental medications.

The Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition has brought together groups of concerned air crews from seven countries including the US, UK and Australia, along with medical and scientific organisations such as the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and the Global Covid Summit, to raise the alarm over the dangers of the vaccines for aviation.

Addressing a European Parliament conference in early July, MEP Christine Anderson accused airlines and health authorities of ‘manipulation and gaslighting’ while deflecting from a key reason for the surge in flight cancellations.

‘What happened was that a lot of pilots that did not want to be vaccinated have been laid off, and the ones that did get vaccinated because they have families to feed and mortgages to pay … may no longer be fit to fly,’ she said.

Introducing a panel that included French and Swiss jurists and a pilot and flight attendant, she said: ‘This vaccine campaign will go down as the biggest scandal in medical history, and moreover it will be known as the biggest crime ever committed on humanity.’ https://www.tiktok.com/@karine_tk/video/7121326513265380613

It’s anyone’s guess when SADS will reach a critical mass and the connection to the vaccines will be glaringly obvious to even the most determined ostriches. The red pill will be unimaginably bitter for the victims’ families, while Big Pharma and its policy enablers face a rude day of reckoning.

Sonia Elijah presents her leaked EMA emails report presentation to Dr Reiner Fuellmich and his Corona Investigative Committee

Watch the presentation on Sonia’s Substack

Recently, I was invited to present my leaked EMA emails report published in Trial Site News, to the Corona Investigative Committee. The committee was founded on the initiative of attorney and economist Viviane Fischer and attorney Dr Reiner Fuellmich. Since July 2020, they have recorded 113 sessions documenting evidence surrounding the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the unprecedented way governments around the world, have responded to it.

I was honoured to present the findings of my investigative report to Fuellmich and his team, given the notable guests, such as Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Simone Gold and Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who have presented evidence in prior sessions.

You can watch the 25 minute video presentation of my findings above. The full 4-hour session #113: Mycelium, can be viewed here.

First published at https://soniaelijah.substack.com/

‘Excess death patterns point to covid jabs’

Edinburgh professor claims latest data confirms ‘causal relationship’, as he calls for Scottish government to re-open public inquiry

By Graham Crawford

A dramatic and unexplained resurgence in excess death in Scotland points to the covid-19 injections, it is being claimed.

Retired Edinburgh professor Richard Ennos says official data for 2021 and 2022 ‘provide very strong evidence for a causal relationship’ between the vaccinations and a huge number of excess deaths in the country.

Professor Ennos has written to Siobhian Brown MSP, convener of the Scottish government’s covid-19 recovery committee, calling on her to re-open a public inquiry into the deaths which can only be partially explained by the virus.

Earlier this year, the committee investigated the cause of an unprecedented level of excess death recorded in Scotland from week 21 to week 52 of 2021.

Numbering 4,819, it was 12% above the average – the worst ever recorded.

Recorded deaths so far in 2022 are heading in the same direction, and Professor Ennos suggests they are now a consequence of the booster jab.

In a recent letter to Ms Brown, on July 12, he also expresses his concern that the public inquiry earlier this year into the 2021 excess death figures failed to make any mention of the injections as a potential cause.

He states that of 103 public submissions to the inquiry, more than a third pointed to the jabs as a possible reason for the inflated loss of lives.

He tells Ms Brown: ‘However, in your report to Humza Yousaf, cabinet secretary for health and social care, there was not a single mention of adverse reactions to covid-19 vaccines as a possible cause of the excess death seen Scotland in 2021.

‘This was despite the fact that a number of respondents provided detailed information from peer reviewed scientific papers showing that death is a known adverse reaction to the covid-19 vaccines, and that a variety of mechanisms of action have been established (induction of blood clots, myocarditis etc.).

‘Post mortems have also confirmed that covid-19 vaccination can cause death of recipients, and this is acknowledged by the UK government who have already paid compensation to multiple families of those who have died as a consequence of covid-19 vaccination.

‘Your lack of any reference to covid-19 vaccine adverse reactions as a contributor to excess death in Scotland in 2021 is even more concerning because recent detailed analysis of National Records of Scotland data now suggests a causal relationship between excess death in Scotland and covid-19 vaccinations.’

Professor Ennos states that the argument leading to this conclusion begins with the observation that in the last 32 weeks of 2021, excess death began in different age classes of the Scottish population in a staggered manner, approximately 12 weeks after peak vaccination of that age class.

Beginning with the oldest, this pattern was repeated as the jabs rollout continued down through ever younger age groups.

He suggests there can only be two reasons put forward for the extra deaths: it was the injections or it was a lack of medical care caused either by withdrawal of NHS services, or to patients’ failure to access these services, ‘both consequences of the Scottish government response to covid-19’.

However, he says, there was no consistent rise in excess deaths to point to delayed medical care as a result of long waiting lists.

Instead, what National Records of Scotland data reveal, says Professor Ennos, is a second staggering of excess deaths following the booster (third dose) jab – with 2022 mirroring the pattern of 2021 whereby age group deaths occurred approximately 12 weeks after peak administration of the vaccine.

He states that the sequential manner ‘predicted by the adverse reaction hypothesis … provides very strong evidence for a causal relationship between covid-19 vaccination and excess death’.

At the time of writing his letter, the cumulative excess deaths in Scotland in 2022 were 1,669, ‘and this number continues to increase each week’.

Professor Ennos letter concludes: ‘The National Records of Scotland data do not support the statement you made to Humza Yousaf on April 28, 2022 that “the excess deaths have decreased and, at the date of this letter, are below average for the time of year”.

‘On the contrary the excess death situation in Scotland in 2022 is turning out to be as serious as it was in 2021.

‘Given this body of evidence, I would like you to explain to me why, in your report to Humza Yousaf, you made absolutely no mention of the possibility that adverse reactions to the covid-19 vaccine were responsible for at least a portion of the excess deaths seen in Scotland in 2021.

‘I also call upon you to reopen the inquiry into excess deaths in Scotland, given the resurgence of excess deaths in 2022 (552 in the past four weeks alone), but this time taking into consideration that adverse reactions to the covid-19 vaccine may be a significant contributor to these excess deaths.’

In response to the questions raised by Professor Ennos’ letter, a Scottish parliament spokesman stated: ‘The committee’s inquiry into excess deaths in Scotland since the start of the pandemic has now concluded. All the evidence it considered, including the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s findings is available on the parliament’s website.’

Professor Ennos said: ‘I dismay at this totally inadequate and evasive response from the Scottish government. It is not good enough. Lives are at stake, yet pertinent questions arising from official data are simply being dismissed. Where is the much-vaunted concern for public health we have had hammered at us for the past two and a half years?’

Why haven’t we declared a vaccine pandemic? WHO knows

By Rusere Shoniwa

You can find more of Rusere’s work at https://plagueonbothhouses.com 

There was a time, not that long ago, when governments in the West pretended to place a high value on human life. Admittedly, Johnny Foreigner in far flung places like Iraq and Yemen was not part of this pretence and often found himself classified as ‘collateral damage’ in the US military empire’s ongoing global adventures. These adventures almost always had ‘humanitarian’ pretexts to free Johnny from the clutches of a brutal dictator, regardless of whether Johnny had requested a freedom mission that might lead to his head being accidentally freed from his body.

Well, we are all Johnny Foreigner now because, no matter where you are on the planet, you can’t hide from the globalist elite puppeteers who tell their enforcers in government how to keep us in check. For those not under the hypnotic spell of the covid cult, the vaccine carnage brought to us by the Big Pharma cartel has made a complete mockery of the PR machine that used to brainwash us into thinking that the arms of our government were forever wrapped around us in a protective embrace.

This piece is a brief exploration of recent pandemic industry history juxtaposed with current covid vaccine injury. The first stop in this exploration is a peek behind the pandemic industry curtain to understand how the World Health Organisation (WHO) changed the rules to grease the wheels of the pandemic machine. Arbitrary changes in rules and definitions are, as we shall see, a key feature of the pandemic industry. I’ll then compare the death toll of the 2009/10 swine flu pandemic – which was instrumental in a key pandemic rule change – to health outcomes of mass vaccination in the covid era. That will provide the basis for an answer to the question: do we have a covid vaccine pandemic? Spoiler – yes. After that, I’ll try to address why we haven’t declared one by examining the statements of other pandemic industry enforcers like the MHRA and the CDC.

WHO resets the pandemic industry rule book

The World Health Organisation, a globalist policy enforcer, is also obliged to pretend to care an awful lot about your health. In 2009 it pretended to care so much that it drastically lowered the bar for declaring a pandemic emergency. On 4 May 2009, one month before the WHO declared a swine flu (H1N1) pandemic, it changed the definition of a pandemic on its website by expunging the requirement for enormous numbers of deaths and illness. Disease severity as a criterion for a pandemic was removed. A flu pandemic would now occur simply “when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity.”[1] Those with Pollyanna syndrome will say this was done in the interests of minimising deaths. Those who understand that the WHO, like most other Western public health bodies, is a captured agency, might take the view that the WHO is the primary sponsor of the pandemic industry, and that the success of this industry depends on the ease with which the starter gun for a pandemic can be fired.

Prior to the declaration of the swine flu pandemic many countries had signed secret agreements with major pharmaceutical companies to supply swine flu vaccines. The contracts stipulated that governments would be obliged to purchase the vaccines only if the WHO issued a pandemic level 6 alert. This is a pandemic phase criterion which is met when a novel virus causes community level outbreaks in at least two WHO regions. Lawyers and scientists could have a field day picking apart ‘novel’ and ‘community level’. And why two regions and not three, especially if a ‘community level’ outbreak occurs on the border of two regions? 

Wolfgang Wodarg, former delegate to the European Council which probed the propriety of these agreements, maintains in a 2017 documentary entitled Trust Who that the pharma giants had initiated production programmes for their new swine flu vaccine and had therefore placed bets they weren’t prepared to lose. However, the swine flu virus was not playing ball by maiming in sufficient numbers and if the cartel couldn’t force a virus to behave in a business-like fashion, then the pandemic rule book would need revisions to accommodate its profit imperative.[2]

German Velasquez was General Secretary in the WHO’s department of Public Health, Intellectual Property and Medication during the swine flu outbreak. He testified in the Trust WHO documentary that, prior to the declaration of the pandemic on 11 June 2009, he knew no-one at the WHO who was afraid of the consequences of this latest virus mania. He didn’t know anyone at the WHO who had been vaccinated, including the WHO’s Director General, who told journalists that she didn’t have time but would do it later. Crucially, he insists that the phase 6 pandemic declaration could not have been triggered without the removal of disease severity because severity would have had to have been factored into the overall decision.[3]

This is eminently reasonable since substance should always trump form: in a globalised world, it probably wouldn’t be hard to prove that pathogens are continually triggering the WHO’s phase 6 criterion, but the crux of the matter is whether the situation is manageable, and that is largely determined by severity. The deliberate and underhanded subordination of substance to form ensured that technicalities could override reasonable and practical assessments.

Covid vaccine injuries far more serious than the disease severity of the WHO’s 2009/10 swine flu pandemic 

At the end of the 2009/10 swine flu pandemic, an official UK report to Government ministers in July 2010 found that swine flu “turned out to be a relatively mild illness for most of those affected”, with 457 confirmed deaths at 18 March 2010. According to this report in DW, as of the end of October 2009, the death toll in Germany had “jump[ed]” to six while the toll for Europe at the end of October 2009 was 281. The dramatic use of the word “jump” in relation to a single digit toll is odd but, as we have seen in covid, the media’s role in virus mania has nothing to do with a reasonable representation of the facts. Germany went on to report total deaths of 252 by the end of March 2010 at the pandemic’s declared end, with a total of 1,261 deaths recorded for 13 major European countries.

I have been unable to find a figure for how many deaths had been reported at the time the WHO declared the swine flu pandemic in early June 2009, but that probably has a lot to do with the declaration being, in the CDC’s words, “a reflection of the spread of the new H1N1 virus, not the severity of illness caused by the virus.” [emphasis added]. If Germany’s toll was six at the end of October, I have extrapolated backwards to a figure of less than 30 for the 13 countries which reported a total death toll of 1,261 at the end of March 2010. At the time the swine flu pandemic machinery was cranking up, a spokesperson for the WHO stated that there were “eleven countries officially reporting 331 cases of [swine flu] with 10 deaths.”[4]

Let’s hold those swine flu pandemic figures in our heads and compare them to health outcomes of the global covid vaccination campaign. What are vaccine safety reporting systems telling us about the injuries and deaths associated with the covid vaccines?

  • In the UK as of 3rd July, the MHRA Yellow Card reporting system has recorded a total of 1,500,651 adverse events associated with the vaccine, based on 458,463 reports, and total fatalities of 2,191. The MHRA estimates that its system under-reports adverse events by a factor of 10.
  • The American system (VAERS) as of June 17th reports a total of 1,307,928 adverse events following covid vaccines, including 29,031 deaths and 241,736 serious injuries. For children up to the age of 17, there have been 50,776 reports, of which 4,649 were deemed serious and 121 fatalities. The extent of underreporting in the American system is similar to, if not worse than, the UK’s.
  • The European vaccine adverse events system EudraVigilance as of June 25th has reported 4,584,946 reactions from 1,903,229 reports, of which 2,094,912 were deemed as serious. An approximate actual number of deaths is 14,598. I am not aware of official estimates of under-reporting in the European system but there is no reason to believe it does not suffer from the same issues as the UK and US systems.

A member of the European Parliament for Germany has pointed out that the data from the European Medicines Agency shows that, within the first 7 months of rolling out covid vaccines, there were 20 times more adverse events reported and 23 times more deaths than in all other vaccines combined in the last 20 years.

A recent study analysing the adverse effects of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines prompted Martin Kulldorff, professor of Medicine at Harvard University, to observe that the incidence of adverse events in these vaccines is “very high … no other vaccine on the market comes close.” Will Jones for the Daily Sceptic concluded, based on this study, that these covid vaccines are more likely to put you in hospital than keep you out because the level of increased risk post-vaccine is greater than the reported risk reduction for hospitalisation from covid disease in both Pfizer and Moderna trials.

study from France published in Nature found that the risk of being hospitalised with myocarditis (heart inflammation) is up to 44 times higher following covid vaccination.

A new poll of 1500 Americans found that more than twice as many Americans have lost a household member to a covid vaccine injury as have lost one to covid itself. While 3.6% of respondents said someone in their household had died from covid-19, 7.9% said one had died as a result of covid vaccination. As a proportion of vaccinated persons, 11.5% reported being vaccine injured, 6.8% needing medical help, and 4.5% unable to work. Return to these percentages after we’ve discussed the risk of covid using the Infection Fatality Rate.

The poll also confirms what we already know about covid vaccine efficacy – that it is negative. Of those who reported a covid death in their household, more than twice as many reported that it occurred after the person was vaccinated than before.

People are rightly asking what’s behind the worldwide drop in birth rates nine months after the vaccination roll-out to young people? This article in Reclaim the Net demonstrates two salient points: first, a recent peer-reviewed study finds that covid ‘vaccines’ lower sperm count and, second, if you share that study, you are likely to be censored by the medical establishment’s media gatekeepers.

All this for a ‘vaccine’ which even the Prime Minister was obliged to point out last October “doesn’t protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on”. In other words, these are the first ‘vaccines’ in history to continue to be pushed on the public despite the pushers admitting they don’t do what vaccines are supposed to do.

As soon as vaccine failure became an undeniable reality, a colossal mind-bending exercise kicked in to gaslight people into believing that, even though the vaccinated are getting ill with covid at higher rates than the unvaccinated, the ‘vaccines’ are miraculously and counterfactually preventing hospitalisation and death. With the proliferation of messaging on social media in which high-profile covid cultists combine announcements of their latest bout of covid illness with high praise for the ‘vaccine’ keeping them alive, we must keep reminding people of the (at least two) levels of irrationality that this entails.

It’s important to deal briefly with this gaslighting exercise primarily because it actually led to an inadvertent admission by the American CDC that the medical paradigm underlying vaccination – prevention through immunity – is dead. Yes, you read that correctly. As we shall see, the desire to force people to worship at the vaccine altar has led the CDC, like the WHO, to pull the pin on a definition-changing grenade that has resulted in ideological blowback on a grand scale. People need to focus on this a lot more.

So, firstly, there is a shifting of the goalposts by the alchemical transmutation of the injections from an infection and transmission preventive – what vaccines purport to do – to a symptom reducer. This is a massive and welcome own goal because it’s an admission that the vaccine producers and their fanatics have lost the right to label them vaccines. This justifies the use of ‘’ for covid ‘vaccines’. The American CDC, arguably the world’s leading national health and medicines regulator, has changed its definition of a vaccine to accommodate covid vaccine failure. The new bastardised definition of a vaccine has dropped the claim to conferring immunity in favour of fuzzy ‘protection’ language. In other words, it’s now about symptom relief, just like all the other thousands of medications available on prescription and over the counter that make symptom relief claims.

Vaccines have effectively now been classed alongside aspirin (for pain and fever) and a whole host of other nutraceuticals that have immunity boosting properties. There’s just one small problem – they can’t even live up to this downgraded reclassification because, as the evidence shows, they do anything but relieve symptoms or boost your immune system.

This is a seismic capitulation in which the CDC effectively admits that ‘anti-vaxxers’ have been right all along. The medical paradigm of vaccination is dead and the final blow was delivered by the CDC, not ‘anti-vaxxers’. The ‘fact-checkers’ can wax lyrical all they want about the meaning of ‘protection’ but after they have written their mind-bending odes to Orwell, they are left with the inescapable fact that immunity is gone. And that’s what made vaccines vaccines.

Secondly, it’s both counterfactual and irrational to claim that the ‘vaccines’ have probably staved off certain death when the actual disease takes a mild course for the overwhelming majority and has an Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of 0.15%. The survival rate is 99.85%, which means you were probably going to live. That survival rate is an overall population rate, which increases the younger you are. The sad irony is that death or serious illness is less likely if you’re unvaccinated.

Taking all of this into account, it is far more rational to align with Dr Robert Malone’s conclusion that:

“We must acknowledge that the genetic covid-19 injections cause far more harm than good and provide zero benefit relative to risk for the young and healthy. They do not reduce covid-19 infection which is treatable and not terminal. Furthermore, the most recent data demonstrates that you are more likely to become infected or have disease or even death if you have been vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated people. This is shocking to hear but it is what the data are showing us.”

So, with covid ‘vaccines’ doing more damage than the 2009/10 swine flu pandemic and looking far riskier for most people than covid itself, let’s pause here, survey the scorched earth of covid ‘vaccines’ and ask this simple question: why hasn’t a sort of ‘pandemic’ of covid ‘vaccines’ been declared worldwide? The outbreak is global with billions infected by needle at the hands of the pharma cartel and the medical establishment, and there is no immunity to the spike protein (and all the immunity damaging ingredients like polyethylene glycol) which your body produces after vaccination and which many scientists and doctors are claiming is the primary cause of vaccine-associated injuries and deaths.

The Big Pharma enablers

That question has been answered, albeit inadvertently, by the head of the organisation that authorised the vaccines for use, and which keeps insisting, in the face of an avalanche of evidence to the contrary, that they are safe and effective – the MHRA. In a recent address to her Oxford University alma mater, Dr June Raine, head of the MHRA, discusses “how the Covid pandemic has catalysed the transformation of this regulator from a watchdog to enabler”. By her own admission, the MHRA has gone from protecting the public against the predations of Big Pharma to fast-tracking their latest offerings.

In psychological parlance, an enabler is someone who encourages negative or self-destructive behaviour in another. Raine’s choice of this word is therefore either a Freudian slip or a deliberate dispensing with the pretence of being a watchdog in order to accelerate the normalisation of the MHRA’s hitherto clandestine role of Big Pharma drug pusher. And there can be no doubt that medicines regulators are greasing the distribution wheels to propel Big Pharma’s fixes from the lab to consumers’ veins with as little friction as possible.

The latest [de]regulatory development will see doctors now being cut out of the chain in the prescription of Pfizer’s latest covid-19 pill which can now be prescribed by pharmacists. The other side of this perverse role reversal is that doctors are being blocked by hospitals and pharmacists from treating their patients with proven safe and effective treatments like ivermectin. Ivermectin is annoyingly cheap and off-patent and so what we are seeing here is a re-education campaign conducted by Big Pharma’s lapdog ‘regulators’ to help doctors and pharmacists understand their roles in getting profitable drugs to market.

Dr Raine is extremely proud of how the MHRA “tore up the rule book” by allowing phases of clinical trials to overlap instead of running sequentially. To appreciate just how howling-at-the-moon mad this is, imagine you are an operator in a regulated industry, and you get a call from the regulator one morning telling you they’ve torn up the rule book and you can do as you please. To add another layer of insanity, if that were possible, this is being revealed in the form of a boast by the regulator, not a confession eliciting shame and embarrassment.

She is also ecstatic that large-scale manufacture was “prepared at risk” because they “did not know if any of these vaccines would be effective”. Again, as we saw with swine flu, if Big Pharma takes a gamble on a vaccine, it’s the job of the regulator to see that it pays off. Well, we now know the answer to whether they are effective. Total ineffectiveness against infection has been uncontroversial since December 2021. The efficacy against infection is in fact negative. And now we are getting confirmation that effectiveness is negative against serious disease and death. In other words, the vaccinated are being hospitalised or admitted to ICU with covid at a greater rate than the unvaccinated.

Again, just to emphasise, this is not just the consequence of a regulator tearing up the rule book. It is also what the regulator says they are proud of. Try to top that for lunacy.

Big Pharma to its regulatory enforcers: “Will no-one rid me of this turbulent thing called science?”

Plans are now afoot to do away with bothersome clinical trials whose inconvenient purpose, from Big Pharma’s perspective, is to ascertain whether treatments are safe and effective. When Big Pharma thought it could rig the science to bamboozle everyone into believing its voodoo version of science, the mantra was ‘follow The Science™’. With the Pfizer clinical trial data releases demonstrating just how corrupt the trials were, Big Pharma’s strategy, in collusion with the medical establishment, has switched to getting rid of the science.

The Brownstone Institute has published a report on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plan to adopt a “Future Framework” that will allow Pfizer and Moderna to reformulate and release updated covid shots without conducting any additional clinical trials. The elimination of clinical trial requirements may be expanded to other vaccines and drugs over time. The curtain to the Wild West of drug approval is being pulled back, and to call this development a twisted joke doesn’t begin to do justice to the sheer lunacy of it. This is the logical conclusion to the creation of a full-blown pandemic industry milked by Big Pharma and abetted by ‘regulatory’ agencies.

The investigative work done by Toby Rogers strongly suggests that the “Future Framework” idea is the brainchild of the WHO, under the influence of its biggest voluntary contributor and non-state actor, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. And so we arrive at the point from which we started – WHO shenanigans. The pandemic floodgates were opened when the WHO first made it easy to declare a pandemic, shifting from a rational basis of outbreak severity to a declaration along the lines of: “We’ve got something new spreading in more than one region.” From this, the other evils have flowed.   

If the watering down of the definition of vaccines was the CDC’s capitulation on the medical paradigm of vaccination, then the removal of the requirement of proper trials for medications is nothing short of the capitulation of science to the needs of global capital and its pharma cartel. The age of reason is coming to an end because reason is an impediment to global capital’s goal of neo-feudal control. Totalitarianism and its quest to trash bodily autonomy cannot operate in the face of rational enquiry and so reason will now be held prisoner to the sophistry of ever-changing definitions and “Future Frameworks” that side-line science. And Big Pharma’s regulatory high priests will continue to dissemble straight-faced to a press pack of stenographers with microphones calling themselves ‘journalists’.

You can find more of Rusere’s work at https://plagueonbothhouses.com 


[1] The author of the linked paper, Peter Doshi, maintains that the WHO did not change its definition of an influenza pandemic but rather its description of it. He maintains that this distinction had no bearing on its ability to declare a swine flu pandemic in 2009 and uses the term ‘description-definition’ to describe the WHO’s reference to disease severity on its website. Combining the two terms in this way in order to refute that it was a definition actually has the opposite effect intended by Doshi – if you call something a ‘description-definition’, you are inviting it to be viewed as both. My view is that this hair splitting is a red herring since the WHO’s longstanding reference on its website to disease severity is a public communication that would have made it very difficult in legal terms to explain why it had declared a pandemic in the event of the outbreak failing to meet that criterion. Doshi acknowledges that the description not only appeared at the top of the WHO Pandemic Preparedness home page for over 6 years but was also consistent with the descriptions of pandemic influenza outlined in WHO policy documents over the years. Furthermore, as outlined in this article, testimony from a former high ranking WHO official suggests that the change was necessary to enable the WHO to declare a Phase 6 pandemic emergency.

[2] Trust WHO documentary, 2017, timestamp 19:00 – https://home.solari.com/lets-go-to-the-movies-week-of-june-6-2022-trustwho/

[3] Trust WHO documentary, 2017, timestamp 22:30 – https://home.solari.com/lets-go-to-the-movies-week-of-june-6-2022-trustwho/

[4] Trust WHO documentary, 2017, timestamp 19:50 – https://home.solari.com/lets-go-to-the-movies-week-of-june-6-2022-trustwho/

SADS – Sponsored by the Medical Establishment, the Mail Online and the Vatican

By Rusere Shoniwa

You can find more of Rusere’s work at https://plagueonbothhouses.com/

LifeSite News: Vatican commemorative coin promoting vaccination

The omniscient medical establishment is baffled

The medical establishment professes to know an awful lot. A few days before lockdown in March 2020, it knew that Covid was not a High Consequence Infectious Disease and downgraded it accordingly. Exhibiting an Orwellian capacity for doublethink, it also knew that societies ought to be bludgeoned with lockdowns to prevent the spread of the not so highly consequential, and therefore downgraded, pathogen. In addition, it somehow just knew, without being able to explain why, that a cost-benefit analysis would be superfluous, so none was done. Until July 2020, it knew, based on decades of established science, that masking in community settings was useless in preventing the spread of respiratory illnesses. Then, with no new science to support a 180-degree turn, it just knew that masks had to be mandated.

It was so certain that mass vaccination with the experimental injections was the only course of action to take in the face of the not so highly consequential Covid disease that it suppressed alternative cheap, safe and effective treatments. It was also quite sure that it had to censor and threaten doctors like Sam White with debarment because he expressed concerns about mass vaccination with the shoddily tested and hastily marketed novel ‘vaccines’. It somehow reasoned that doctors expressing genuine concern for patient safety was a threat to patient safety and that the only way to guarantee patient safety was for every single doctor, journalist and media outlet to sing from the same Big Pharma-sponsored hymn sheet.

Granted, the medical establishment’s stance during Covid has not been underpinned by rational considerations, but that is precisely what has given it so much latitude to respond to ‘the crisis’. There is no limit to what you can know and do when you don’t have to prove rationally how you came to know it. Life is a never-ending carousel of trade-offs. You can either plod through things methodically and get it right or you can blast ahead at Warp Speed with the misplaced confidence of Joe Biden on a bicycle

So, given the medical establishment’s boundless knowledge in times of crisis, it’s more than a little odd that it does not know why young and apparently healthy adults all over the world are dying in unprecedentedly large numbers. It is uncharacteristically stumped: it professes that there are simply no clues whatsoever to this disturbing phenomenon.

It is in the grip of such uncharacteristic knowledge paralysis that it seems incapable of exploring obvious lines of enquiry, such as asking questions like: when was the last time that governments all over world put a jackboot on the neck of every adult citizen to inject them with novel ‘vaccines’ employing an experimental gene-based technology tested under quality control conditions that would have run-of-the-mill crack dealers shaking their heads in disbelief?

What’s in a name?

Once you unlock the mystery of the medical establishment’s peculiar brand of epistemology, you begin to understand that how it comes to ‘know’ things is directly related to how it defines the problems it is trying to solve. For people who think in straitjackets, the problem of young people dying inexplicably is a medical problem. But, for the unbounded thinkers in charge of the medical establishment, it is a Public Relations problem. Through that lens, the obvious line of enquiry into experimental mass vaccination gets ruled out because it is too rational, too much of a threat to its reputation and too unprofitable.

The solution to this PR problem is to repackage it in such a way that it is seen as an insoluble medical mystery, as insoluble as the mystery of life itself – a mystery that one can debate in philosophical terms but never get to grips with in any practical way. The most insoluble mysteries are those that have been around since the dawn of time and yet continue to evade unravelling. This is axiomatic to the quality of insolubility – Plato, Seneca, Aquinas, Voltaire and Heidegger will have all given it their best shot and yet here we are today, none the wiser. The seed must be sown in the public mind that this is not a new problem that arose coterminously with mass global experimental Covid vaccination but has been ‘a thing’ since the dawn of medical things. 

The key to all successful narrative management is naming the problem. When Edward Bernays, the father of propaganda, was tasked by the tobacco industry in the early 20th century with breaking the taboo against women smoking cigarettes, he didn’t call them cancer sticks. He called them torches of freedom. With one ingenious stroke of the naming pen, the tobacco industry doubled its market overnight and women won the right to lung cancer. 

In a similar vein, society must understand that young adults inexplicably dying before their time is the result of a bona fide disease of unfathomable cause – a mysterious and yet proper medical thing – and not a possible crime against humanity.

At first glance, the name they’ve hit on does not fill you with confidence that the best medical minds were enlisted in the brainstorming session. But it certainly has an air of does-what-it-says-on-the-tin. It is partly for that reason that Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS) is a stroke of marketing genius. It’s got an easy acronym that chimes flippantly with the tragic outcome and yet is also readily accessible to authoritative tones after three pints in the pub. This is 90 percent of the battle in getting the public to understand in no uncertain terms that SADS is ‘a thing’. A serious thing. It trips off the tongue very easily and yet is not so silly that it sounds like the lead-in to a crazy story developed by a contestant in an episode of BBC One’s Would I Lie to You. 

As far as the medical establishment is concerned, the perception that SADS on this scale is a recent global phenomenon must be resisted on the grounds that it  could become associated with a big new event – like mass global experimental Covid vaccination. So no, SADS is not new. It’s been a thing for eons. And for sure, a Google search seems to suggest that SADS has been around for as long as cancer. But Allan Stevo’s investigation using his “8.6 pound Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language from 1992” – which is impervious to algorithmic re-engineering – reveals that the term did not exist in 1992. But who are you going to trust – the colourful, digital pages of Google or the crumbling ancient parchments of Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language?

I’m not saying there have never been mysterious unexplained deaths of young and apparently healthy adults. They were just so rare that they weren’t on the radar, even of dictionaries whose job it is to define all things known to the vast bulk of humanity. Surely this merits delving into a little deeper?

Whatever you do, don’t solve the problem – autopsies die a sudden death

One way to solve the apparently insoluble problem of sudden adult death would be to conduct autopsies on as many sudden adult deaths as resources will allow. It turns out that the Chief Pathologist at the University of Heidelberg, Dr. Peter Schirmacher, was doing just that very thing. In the summer of 2021, his team had just finished conducting 40 autopsies on people who had died within two weeks of vaccination and concluded that 30-40% of them died from the vaccine. He was pushing for many more autopsies of vaccinated people

His claims were naturally dismissed by the German Government. From Dr Schirmacher’s perspective, the dismissal by bureaucrats of his professional autopsy findings must have felt like being an army private in the battlefield reporting by radio to a lieutenant that he’d just been shot in the leg, only to have the lieutenant ask, “How can you be sure?”. But the powerful bureaucrats must have had good reason to dismiss his professional work although these reasons weren’t made clear. 

Calls by the Federal Association of German Pathologists pushing for more autopsies of vaccinated people were also treated with disdain. No other autopsies have been performed apart from 15 done by Dr. Arne Burkhardt towards the end of 2021, which found “clear evidence of vaccine-induced autoimmune-like pathology in multiple organs” in 14 of 15 cases, all of which were ignored by all health authorities and mainstream media. No further autopsies have been reported and Dr. Schirmacher and his colleagues have gone quiet, after being so emphatic about the risks and the need for as many autopsies as possible. 

On the face of it, the only way to prove what is causing the uptick in mysterious sudden deaths has died a sudden death. But the sensible and mature conclusion to draw from the silence of the autopsy doctors is that they have realised they were wrong and that the powerful bureaucrats and MSM journalists, who know nothing about autopsies, were right. Only a ‘conspiracy theorist’ would think there was a cover-up going on, right?

Public Relations – The Mail Online takes a proper gander at SADS

In any case, why bother with autopsies when, according to this article in the MailOnline, the best medical minds in Australia are getting to grips with the problem by “opening up a new national register”. Yes, that’s right, they’re at the cutting edge of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) in which all our problems will be solved by data, algorithms, AI and registers. We’re leaving behind the grime of autopsies, post-mortems and diagnosing diseased patients by prodding them with stethoscopes and asking them time-wasting questions. We’ve got registers now. 

Now, at first glance it might seem that the article would not be out of place in The Onion or the Babylon Bee because of idiotic tautologies like this one:

“The syndrome, known as SADS, has been fatal for all kinds of people regardless of whether they maintain a fit and healthy lifestyle.”

But pointing out that SADS, a death syndrome, is fatal is not cheap satire. It is a reminder that contained in SADS is both the disease and its inescapable prognosis of death. 

Another reason why SADS is more of a thing than any other medical thing is that a diagnosis of SADS can never be wrong. It can only be given after death has occurred and only three boxes need to be ticked – did the deceased die without warning; was the deceased an adult in the prime of life and, crucially; do we intend to follow 4IR protocols to establish cause of death by doing nothing other than entering some data in a register? Yes, to all three? Job done. The clever cardiologist who is quoted extensively in the article jokes that SADS is a “diagnosis of nothing” but, once she has taken her tongue out of her cheek, I’m sure she is only too aware of how clever a diagnosis this is.  

After correctly informing the reader that this particular death syndrome is fatal, the article recounts how a typical sudden death unfolds. The victim doesn’t come down for breakfast, but no one is concerned because we (white-collar workers at least) all work from home these days so having a lie-in is par for the course. The whole tone of the description of the tragic death of a young person in the peak of life is bizarrely deadpan. Again, you would be wrong to interpret this apparently tasteless approach as cheap satire. The banal tone is deliberately intended to drive home the point that SADS is just another puzzle in the countless puzzles that the universe, with its twisted sense of humour, flings at humanity on a regular basis. 

The article contains pictures of very young actors clutching at their hearts with distressed expressions. Again, you would be wrong to think this is cheap and tasteless. How else are we to understand that SADS really is a thing? I think the visual message here is that if you’re under 40 and find yourself clutching at your heart while out jogging, be appropriately but not overly distressed because, while your heart may stop beating and no-one will ever know exactly why, SADS is definitely a thing. And the national register will never forget you.

Because the article is intended to be as informative as possible, it shares some very helpful warning ‘signs’ of SADS. Top warning sign number one is a family history of a SADS diagnosis. The happy smiley cardiologist who was selected to educate the public about SADS advises that your SADS clock might be silently ticking down if any of the following things have happened to you: fainting from exercise, over-excitement or just being ‘startled’. If you are one of those people who faints at the mere thought of exercise, you would have obviously been on the SADS register a very long time ago, had it been in operation. Your continued existence is actually more of a mystery than SADS itself, but let’s not complicate things any further. Suffice to say your clock is ticking down and your housemates should not be too surprised if you don’t come down for breakfast in the next couple of weeks. At least the Mail Online has prepared them. And you, come to think of it.

If you are wondering why I refer to the cardiologist as “the happy smiley doctor”, click the link to the article and it will be as clear to you as her sparkling eyes and teeth. There is a photo of her beaming as though she has just been awarded the Nobel Prize for medicine when in fact she is being quizzed about the grizzly business of young people dying for reasons that cannot be fathomed by the best brains in medicine. Why is she happy and smiley instead of sombre and uneasy? Is this another tactless error by the Mail Online inadvertently making the whole article look like cheap satire? Not at all. World War II propaganda used the very same technique to placate the masses in times of great uncertainty. Here is a WWII poster of a woman exuding the same brand of devil-may-care insouciance in the face of adversity:

OK, so I’ve chosen a Nazi propaganda poster to compare with the happy smiley Australian doctor. Is this in bad taste? Personally, I don’t think so. Today’s brave new world of forced masking, forced lockdowns and forced medical experimentation must be met head-on with bold comparisons. Yesterday’s Nazis weren’t big on bodily autonomy and nor are today’s Australians (or Canadians, or Austrians, or French for that matter). Am I saying, rather unsubtly, that the Western world is becoming the very thing it fought 75 years ago? Only if you believe that people were robbed of the human right to voluntary informed consent by being coerced into taking the ‘vaccines’. ‘Vaccines’ which, let’s be clear, have absolutely nothing to do with the current spate of sudden adult deaths all over the world.

Am I unsubtly hinting that the Mail Online’s proper gander at SADS is actually propaganda for the medical establishment? Only if you believe that the responsible thing to do would be to show a picture of a doctor holding her head in her hands, tears of shame flowing from her eyes for failing to at least consider one potential and obvious cause of the mysterious deaths. I think we’re all in agreement here – that would not be responsible journalism. Far better to show a happy beaming doctor exuding the confidence of someone who is certain that SADS really is a thing, that it’s been a big thing for quite some time and that, while getting a ‘diagnosis’ of SADS is indeed the end of the world for you, you will die knowing that we are getting on top of this very real thing because we’re fighting it with a register and not with futile autopsies. 

There’s a mention in the article about the role of genes because you can’t have a totally mysterious and fatal death syndrome (if the Mail Online can get away with this clever tautology, why can’t I?) without genes playing a role. Of course they haven’t, and never will, find a SADS gene, but that’s beside the point when proffering genes causality. Genes are the building blocks of life; your life ends suddenly without warning, ergo there must have been something wrong with your building blocks.

The ‘best advice’ the happy smiley cardiologist can give is: if you’re related to anyone who’s had an unexplained death, ‘it’s extremely recommended you see a cardiologist.’ Which seems pointless because a SADS diagnosis rests entirely on you having no detectable condition right up to the point you clutch your heart in desperation and keel over. If the condition was a recognised detectable one, mitigation strategies would likely kick in pre-heart clutching and, even if you ended up dying from that condition, your death would be labelled something other than SADS by virtue of its having been detected. SADS is the ultimate catch-22 – the doctors don’t know what’s wrong with the patient before they die and there’s no way of knowing afterwards (autopsies now being off the table) so the patient gets a posthumous SADS ‘diagnosis’, and is successfully entered on a register. 

The Mail Online article is perfect except for that flawed bit of advice which seems to fail to recognise the complex circular nature of SADS. Telling people to have a thorough check-up before SADS threatens the very existence of SADS. Being cynical, I would say this advice is a ruse to give a boost to the happy smiley doctor’s billings. 

Medical infallibility and Papal infallibility

The medical establishment’s ability to conjure a ‘diagnosis’ that can never be wrong takes a leaf out of the Catholic Church’s doctrine of Papal infallibility. Which is apposite because the two institutions are not dissimilar in the way they derive their power. In medieval times, the power to forgive sins and grant passage to eternal life was a power humanity found extremely difficult to usurp. This power was eventually eroded by the promise of science and rationality, which was then hijacked by the medical establishment’s promise, largely false, to heal the body and banish disease.

I won’t deny that if you suffer some physical trauma, hospitals are the right place to seek help. Surgery for some medical conditions can greatly improve the quality of your life. But, with iatrogenic harm found to be the third leading cause of death in the US, walking into a hospital is more of a throw of the dice than most people know. The truth is that neither the medical establishment nor orthodox religion knows the answers to most of life’s mysteries. Both are emperors without clothes and, as all emperors do, they find themselves expending vast amounts of negative energy in a futile attempt to prevent people from finding out that they’re bollock-naked.

A stunning historical example of the medical emperor at work is the tragic case of a doctor called Ignaz Semmelweis and his attempts to eradicate puerperal fever. In the first half of the 19th century, the cause of puerperal fever, an infection which caused an agonising death for mothers in the immediate post-partum period, was not known. Then in 1847, Semmelweis proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that handwashing before surgery would stop doctors from introducing the infection with contaminated hands and unsterile instruments. For a very long time after Semmelweis had conclusively proved and made his findings public, the medical establishment’s response, mediated by arrogance and embarrassment, was to cover up its imperial nudity by hounding Semmelweis out of the profession, rather than save lives by disinfecting before surgery.

In 1865, Semmelweis died violently at the hands of the medical establishment in an insane asylum, after a severe beating by guards a mere two weeks after his admission. This Lancet article glosses over his death in a “psychiatric institution” and claims that “he might even have had Alzheimer’s disease or some other type of organic dementia at the end of his life”. It does not broach how unlikely he was to have been suffering from “organic dementia” at the age of 47 when he died. Lamenting the impossibility of separating “the man from the myths”, the author of the article casually throws in the vile suggestion that “due to his stubbornness and his self-righteousness, Semmelweis was … at least partly responsible for his unfortunate fate.” 

That propaganda stunt must be deconstructed if we are to appreciate the true character of the medical establishment. To be clear, fully 175 years later, the medical establishment’s view of this chapter in its history is that if you expose and attempt to rectify a grossly negligent practice that is killing patients wholesale, do not be surprised to encounter extreme resistance from the institution responsible for the needless death and mayhem and, should you die in the attempt to effect meaningful change, you’ve no-one to blame but your pig-headed and sanctimonious self.

What does it say about the ‘modern’ institution of medicine when one of its most prestigious medical journals looks back at its sordid past and not only blames the victim of its arrogance but fails to acknowledge the sickening and ironic criminality of a professional body, supposedly in the business of saving lives, doubling down and continuing to kill people when confronted with its violent stupidity? One thing it tells you is: plus ça change – the sordid past is the sordid present. 

All google searches on the Semmelweis subject lead you down an insidious path that inevitably concludes that this cranky and belligerent doctor lost his marbles due to a character defect of lacking the requisite social skills to convince surgeons that they were killing women in droves with their ignorance and arrogance. Moreover, his admittance to the insane asylum was a perfectly ‘organic’ consequence of his general crankiness and social ineptitude. However, Suzzane Humphries in her book Dissolving Illusions, claims that:

“Dr. Semmelweis was deceived into entering an insane asylum and when he tried to escape, he was severely beaten by guards. A gangrenous wound to his hand, probably caused by the beating, led to his untimely death two weeks later.” [emphasis added] 

I know which version I am inclined to believe given the medical establishment’s handling of Covid.

The Catholic Church, while having a stellar reputation for oppressing dissent, is nonetheless a bit more skilful in handling its historical crimes by often turning them into reasons for celebration. Joan of Arc was burnt at the stake for heresy in 1431 and then canonised as a saint 500 years later. On the one hand you could say, whoops, there goes Papal infallibility. But on the other hand, this approach smacks of the same type of medical artfulness deployed in the SADS ‘diagnosis’ – that of being right even when wrong. It is in fact Papal infallibility taken to its logical conclusion. You see, Joan had to die to be martyred as a saint and who better to mediate both her death and subsequent sainthood than the Church, God’s appointed agent on earth?

How fitting then that these two naked emperors should consummate a union of their respective religions with a commemorative coin issued by the Vatican to promote the “need to be vaccinated”. Given the Vatican’s (and indeed Catholicism’s) somewhat chequered past, it’s easy to forget that it is the oldest and largest branch of Christianity. So, you’d think Jesus’s man in Rome would be asking himself, “What would Jesus do?” when minting new coins in the Vatican Bank. Putting aside the occasion for commemorating a Vatican coin, we could, indeed should, ask whether Jesus would be furrowing his brow at the thought of his ministry morphing into a Church with so much financial clout that it could mint new coins. The SAD truth is that the choice of a coin to seal the deal between the medical establishment, the Pharma cartel and the Catholic Church is exquisite.

At any rate, I remain convinced that there is almost no moral dilemma that cannot be solved by asking the question – what would Jesus say, or do? So, let’s play Devil’s advocate, or Vatican’s advocate (which is the same thing) and try to imagine Jesus giving a modern-day Sermon on the Mount to promote the Vatican’s Vax Coin: 

“I have seen the latest pre-print study published by BMJ editor Peter Doshi. I know this study shows that the vaccines are more likely to put you in hospital with a serious adverse event than keep you out of hospital by protecting you from Covid. But hear me out – greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for Big Pharma and the whole New World Order caboodle of vaccine mandates, digital ID systems, central bank digital currencies and Chinese Communist Party style social credit systems. I know the EU has just renewed its Covid Digital passport scheme in the face of overwhelming public opposition, but democracy is a complicated thing. It’s also on the way out and the time is ripe for a return to some old-fashioned Roman Empire tough love. Nothing like a three-monthly regimen of Russian roulette with dangerous injections to help you appreciate the small things in life!”

That is what the oldest and largest branch of Christianity is doing. Only when you put those words in the mouth of its founder, do you realise how sick the medical establishment and the Vatican really are.

Booster rollout associated with higher excess deaths in New Zealand, new study shows

Stronger evidence should have underpinned the booster rollout than for the original Pfizer doses, given a clear shift in the risk-benefit ratio, yet the opposite holds, says economics professor John Gibson.

From https://www.thelookingglass.co.nz/

A new study by University of Waikato economist John Gibson shows a close relationship between the Pfizer vaccine booster rollout and rising excess mortality, a correlation that was not seen with the rollout of the first two doses.

Gibson’s paper suggests 400 excess deaths from the booster rollout in New Zealand, or 16 excess deaths for every 100,000 doses given. The age groups most likely to be boosted had seven-to-10 percentage point rises in excess mortality rates. The age group too young for boosters saw no such rise in excess mortality.

Increased risk appears to be associated with dose, i.e. the more Covid-19 vaccinations received the higher the risk of adverse events and mortality.

“Here, dose-dependent adverse events may explain why booster rollout is associated with rising excess deaths while rollout of original protocol doses is not. Secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the mRNA vaccine RCTs shows higher risks with Moderna than with Pfizer, perhaps from dosage differences (100mg for Moderna versus 30mg for Pfizer). The use of the Pfizer booster raises the accumulated dosage, which may then make these vaccine adverse events more likely,” the paper states.

Gibson used data on weekly deaths in New Zealand from 2011 through to the end of March 2022, to calculate excess mortality during the rollout of the Pfizer injection.

The paper also notes that all-cause deaths used to calculate excess mortality are not reported in real-time. The lag means that few people would be aware in real-time of the risk of increased mortality from the booster.

In the paper’s abstract, Gibson says, “The ratio of vaccine risk to benefits likely has swung more towards risk than during the original randomised trials, due to dose-dependent adverse events and to fixation of immune response on a variant no longer circulating, yet the evidence underpinning mass use of boosters is weaker than was the evidence for the original vaccine rollout.”

Gibson argues that the statistical value of these lives (16 excess deaths per 100,000 booster doses given) is over $1.6 billion, and that even just 1% of this would have been sufficient to fund robust evidence on the impacts of rolling out the boosters.

The paper also notes that concerns were raised at the US Food and Drug Administration at the outset about the boosters. The advisory panel of outside experts voted 16 to two against widespread use of boosters in September 2021, due to lack of safety data and doubts about the benefits of mass boosting over targeted approaches.

However, this vote was ignored by the regulator, and the FDA approved the boosters for the general population. Because of this, two top officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review resigned and criticised the decision making. Gibson notes that even the World Health Organisation has criticised this approach.

Despite this, many countries moved forward with booster rollouts since the second half of 2021, up until the present day. Globally, 2.1 billion booster doses have been given, compared with 10 billion original protocol doses.

Gibson notes that aggregated data from OECD countries shows higher excess mortality associated with the booster, and that calls have been growing to end coercive practices and even discontinue booster vaccinations.

“Several European countries have already restricted some mRNA vaccines to only those aged over 30 years due to these safety concerns,” Gibson notes in the paper.

Last month, Japaense cardiovascular surgeon, Kenji Yamamoto, in an open letter published in Virology Journal, called for an end to booster programmes on safety grounds. Yamamoto said covid injections were a “major risk factor for infections in critically ill patients”. He had observed both complications and deaths in vaccinated patients in his own practice at Okamura Memorial Hospital.

Gibson says there appears to have been a been a gradual inversion of evidence-based medicine into ‘medicine-based evidence’, exemplified by a remark made by Dr Eric Rubin, editor-in-chief of New England Journal of Medicine, during an FDA advisory panel meeting to give emergency use authorisation of the Pfizer vaccine for five-to-11 year olds in the US.

“We’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it. That’s just the way it goes. That’s how we found out about rare complications of other vaccines…”

People’s Health Alliance gets international thumbs-up

By Roger Guttridge

Exactly two months after its UK launch, the People’s Health Alliance is about to roll out globally after being flooded with enquiries from at least a dozen countries.

The sudden surge of overseas interest was sparked by astrologer Pam Gregory’s interview with PHA spokesperson Katherine Macbean.

Pam has half-a-million followers on YouTube, Facebook and her website pamgregory.com, and the interview has inspired people across the world to follow PHA’s blueprint for an integrated approach to health.

PHA co-founder Lisa Dunnington said: ‘The response has been incredible.

‘We know from the rapid growth in the UK that our blueprint is what the people want and need, but we’re now being flooded with emails from around the world.

‘In the first three days alone since Pam’s interview was released, we’ve been contacted by many people in 13 countries and the depth of feeling is evident in the words they’ve written.

‘It’s truly heart-warming and humbling to know we have touched so many people.

‘Who cares if the WHO are meeting to consider their next fear strategy, monkeypox?

‘PHA are meeting with like-minded people around the globe to create a world where we have the freedom to choose our health path, through many modalities, education and good nutrition.’

With more than 80 community health hubs already launched or in various stages of development in the UK, PHA-linked groups are now being formed in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and mainland Europe.

PHA UK hub ambassador James Edwards-Thompson said: ‘It is phenomenal how we’ve rocketed into being in just two months.

‘Already we have almost 90 health hub groups around the UK with an average of 109 people in each group.

‘Almost 30 per cent are working from physical premises and most of the others have plans in motion to do the same.

‘A huge focus now is on the provision of emergency care through the Power of the Pound appeal which is raising funds to provide emergency equipment and first aid training at community level around the country.

‘I’m in awe of every single person taking this forward with such love.’

Here are a few typical comments from people around the world:

Love your work! Thank you so much for doing this, so needed! Anna Carson, Australia

Thank you so very much for leading the way for all of us to follow. Janice Montague, USA

Thank you for doing a very large part to satisfy society’s need to have power over our own bodies and health, and to have choices that include both allopathic and natural therapies and medicines. Paulette Shalhoub, USA

Thank so much: you are an inspiration! BettJoy Alley, Australia

You are all amazingly inspiring. Sunny Hayes, Australia

I am a holistic practitioner and love everything the PHA is doing. Natascha Steckel, Canada

That you for your leadership and your terrific approach to health care for the future. Mary Lynn, Canada

Thank you for this wonderful initiative – magic! Noreen Conlon, Australia

Your endeavor makes my heart sing! Fran Sanderson, USA

Thank you so much for spearheading this incredibly timely and beautiful initiative. Carol Coughlin, Hawaii

Thank God for creative people coming up with ideas! Julia Van Run, Switzerland

And although you can’t see me right now, I’m dancing with excitement. Julie Payne, New Zealand

Thank you for everything you are doing. I’m excited for US ALL. Heidi Drake, USA

You guys rock! Thanks 🙏for doing what you are doing. Suzanne Beach, New Zealand

It’s such a wonderful initiative and I would love to be involved or connected in some way. Tory Breheny, Australia

Thank you for all you do and creating this! Gisele Pantin, USA

Here’s Pam’s interview with Katherine:

Link to the POP appeal: www.the-pha.org/appeal

PHA contact: Lisa@the-pha.org

UK media: Trust and audience in decline

By Charlotte Hervis

The annual Reuters Digital News report has just been published. The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism conducts in depth research across 46 markets exploring news consumption habits and trust levels, based on audience research (global sample size 93,000) undertaken by YouGov. This year the online questionnaire was sent to survey participants at the end of January/start of February 2022. 

The findings of the UK data set (sample size 2,410) indicate that mainstream media sources are losing both audience and trust. Curious and mindful news consumers are increasingly seeking out alternative news sources, turning to individual or independent voices to offer news and opinion. 

News fatigue: The UK was among the top five markets suffering news fatigue. In the 2015 survey, 70% of survey respondents said they were very interested or extremely interested in news. This has fallen to 43% in 2022, one of the biggest drops of all international markets. 

Active avoidance: 46% of respondents from the UK market said they actively avoid news, up from 35% in 2019. The UK was the second market after Brazil with the greatest proportion of survey respondents who actively avoid the news. Common reasons given for news avoidance include repetitiveness of the news agenda, particularly around Covid and politics, and the impact news consumption can have on mental wellbeing. 

Loss of trust in the BBC: The BBC was among the public broadcasters suffering the sharpest drop in trust, from 75% in 2018 to 55% in 2022. The public broadcasters of Australia (ABC) and Canada (CBC) suffered a similar fate in terms of waning trust, but the BBC saw the sharpest percentage fall over time.  

A free online press? UK news consumers are among the least likely to pay for online news, with just 9% of respondents paying for their online news, against a 17% average for 20 markets. In comparison, 19% of US respondents said they had paid in some form for online news in the past year. 

Growing awareness of external influences on news agendas: 20% of respondents agreed with the statement ‘UK media is free from undue political influence’; the same percentage of respondents agreed with the statement ‘UK media is free from undue business influence’. This is down from 34% and 29% respectively in 2017, suggesting that there is a growing awareness of the role that third parties can play in shaping media agendas and content.  

The Reuters Institute report downplays the impact which challenger brands to publisher business models such as Substack and Patreon may be having on the trends which were reported in 2022. It will be interesting to see whether they continue to downplay this trend into 2023.