Vaccine inefficacy, scapegoating and vaccine passports – joining the dots

By Rusere Shoniwa

First published at

Since 18th September, the Daily Sceptic has been reporting on the dismal performance of the Covid vaccines in preventing infection and transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In its latest report on vaccine efficacy, the infection rate in vaccinated people is more than double the rate in the unvaccinated for the 40-79 age group. In other words, for the 40-79-year age group, you are more than twice as likely to get and transmit Covid if you are vaccinated than if you are not vaccinated. Vaccine (in)effectiveness rises to as high as -124% in the 40-49 age group.

This comes as no surprise to those who have used alternative and reliable news sources outside mainstream media to stay abreast of what is really happening in Covid-related news. After all, it was well understood by the scientific community that infection and transmission were not included as end points in the vaccine trials and the NHS vaccine pamphlet published at the start of the roll-out stated: “we do not yet know how much it will reduce the chance of you catching and passing on the virus.”

Vaccine inefficacy against infection and transmission – a global phenomenon

Nor is the remarkable inefficacy of the vaccines a phenomenon specific to the UK. On 30th September 2021, the European Journal of Epidemiology published a study which investigated the relationship between the percentage of population fully vaccinated and new Covid-19 cases across 68 countries and across 2947 counties in the US. It found that increases in Covid are unrelated to levels of vaccination.

Not only did the study report “no discernible relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new Covid-19 cases” but it in fact found “a marginally positive association, such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher Covid-19 cases per 1 million people.”

The study also reported that, in the US, “of the top 5 counties that have the highest percentage of population fully vaccinated (99.9–84.3%), the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifies 4 of them as ‘High’ Transmission counties.”

In July 2021, the Eurosurveillance Journal, Europe’s journal on infectious disease surveillance, reported on a Delta variant outbreak in an Israeli hospital in which 96.2% of the population was vaccinated. The journal reported that “of the 42 cases diagnosed in this outbreak, 38 were fully vaccinated with two doses of the Comirnaty vaccine” and that “several transmissions probably occurred between two individuals both wearing surgical masks, and in one instance using full PPE, including N-95 mask, face shield, gown and gloves.”

The report observed that this outbreak “challenges the assumption that high universal vaccination rates will lead to herd immunity and prevent Covid-19 outbreaks.” Alluding to the ineffectiveness of masks as a preventive measure, the report observed that “all transmissions between patients and staff occurred between masked and vaccinated individuals”.

The report concluded that “this nosocomial outbreak exemplifies the high transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant among twice vaccinated and masked individuals.”

Another study involving transmission of the Delta variant among vaccinated healthcare workers at a hospital in Vietnam has been published in the Lancet. This is a preprint study (not peer reviewed) conducted by a team with affiliations to the Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

The study analysed ‘breakthrough’ cases (cases in vaccinated populations) and found that:

  • “Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020.”
  • “Neutralizing antibody levels after vaccination and at diagnosis of the cases were lower than those in the matched uninfected controls.”

The study’s key interpretation of its findings was:

  • “Breakthrough Delta variant infections are associated with high viral loads, prolonged PCR positivity, and low levels of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, explaining the transmission between the vaccinated people.”

There is therefore plenty of evidence for vaccine inefficacy, both in the general public and in health care settings. Placing this evidence of vaccine inefficacy alongside the Health Secretary’s determination to force all NHS workers to get vaccinated presents an obvious contradiction that ought to be sparking a furious debate in the mainstream media. And yet, astonishingly, it is not.

The ‘conspiracy theory’ slur is the chief weapon of those in denial of inconvenient facts

Cambridge statistician Professor David Spiegelhalter denounced the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) for publishing “absurd statistics showing case-rates higher in vaxxed than non-vaxxed”, claiming that the data it is using to derive vaxxed and unvaxxed populations is unreliable. No explanation is offered as to why the UKHSA data is wrong but the Daily Sceptic points out that other experts argue that the UKHSA data may actually underestimate the number of unvaccinated (rather than overestimate them as Professor Spiegelhalter implies). If this is the case, it would make vaccine inefficacy even worse.

Nevertheless, Professor Spiegelhalter is convinced that the UKHSA’s irresponsible publishing of inconvenient data is “feeding conspiracy theorists worldwide.” Recall the study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology which covered 68 countries and 2,947 counties in the US. This worldwide study reported “no discernible relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new Covid-19 cases”. Rather it found “a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher Covid-19 cases per 1 million people.”

Professor Spiegelhalter has his work cut out in persuading health authorities across 68 countries and across 2,947 counties in the US to stop “feeding conspiracy theorists worldwide”. Once he has convinced the UKHSA to generate data that conforms to his worldview, perhaps he should then move on to the CDC, which identified 4 of the top 5 counties with the highest percentage of population fully vaccinated (99.9–84.3%), as “High” transmission counties.

Professor Spiegelhalter’s dismissal of inconvenient data as feeding ‘conspiracy theory’ is sadly consistent with the wider branding as ‘conspiracy theory’ of good old-fashioned scepticism along with intellectual curiosity. These are the very foundations of real science. What is most disturbing is that this thought-terminating cliché is being weaponised by those in institutions dedicated to thought, investigation, and debate.

The media’s role in fuelling hatred

While nutty professors feed their delusions that vaccine inefficacy is a global conspiracy theory, the mainstream media is fuelling hatred towards those who knew that vaccine inefficacy was highly likely from the outset and chose not to take part in the experiment.

The media was one of the great institutions that many people once believed was dedicated to critical analysis and debate. And yet, flying in the face of mounting evidence of vaccine inefficacy, it continues to support a bizarre narrative in which the vaccinated simultaneously enjoy protection from Covid but also need protection from the unvaccinated. The absurd contradiction in this stance is self-evident and stems from the need for proponents of the Covid vaccines to ‘win’ no matter what the outcome.

The starting position of vaccine proponents is that they are effective and so the vaccinee is protected. However, bolted on to this position is a culpatory insurance clause: if the vaccines fail, then it is the fault of those who did not take them rather than the vaccine itself. Even when they lose, they win.

This absurdity is manifested in public cries of anguish directed at the unvaccinated by the likes of Stephen Nolan at the BBC, Nick Cohen at the Guardian, Sean O’Grady at the Independent and Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove. Vicious scapegoating is in fact a classic feature of totalitarianism, which itself requires a high state of fear generated by a threat that garners public support for restrictive measures that would, under ordinary circumstances, never be considered. To guarantee never-ending and increasingly repressive restrictions on liberty, that threat must be undefeatable. We are of course facing the perfect perpetual threat that can never be defeated – the invisible mutating virus. This is the Enemy Without.

Those who oppose this narrative, in this case the dissenters who won’t shut and take their medicine, become ready-made scapegoats: the Enemy Within. If this group grows in strength and size, the Enemy Without shrinks and the totalitarian edifice crumbles. This explains the calls to action against the unvaccinated, some of which are nothing short of blood curdling, as evidenced by this spittle-flecked, unhinged diatribe published in the Mirror.

The Mirror’s view is that people expressing their reasons for not wanting to be vaccinated are baby killers more dangerous to society than the Taliban, ISIS and al-Qaeda. Ironically, this level of irrational hatred directed at what the Mirror calls ‘anti-vaxxers’ puts this tabloid into precisely the same camp as the Taliban, ISIS and al-Qaeda – the very extremists it is trying to equate with ‘anti-vaxxers’. Blinded by irrational hatred, they just can’t see it.

The media’s huge responsibility to society is brought into plain view by Voltaire’s pithy quip:

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

The PM’s open invitation to the mainstream media to challenge vaccine passports

During a trip to a vaccine clinic in London on 23rd October, the Prime Minister admitted that double vaccination “doesn’t protect you against catching the disease, and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on.” Wittingly or not, he has issued an open invitation to the media to challenge the introduction of vaccine passports, part of the government’s ‘Plan B’ infection control measures, for which there is no rational basis.

Indeed, that was the finding of a UK parliamentary committee which concluded that vaccine passports are “unnecessary and there is no justification for them in the science and none in logic.” While the findings of some parliamentary committees have been dubious to say the least, the conclusion of the committee on vaccine passports tallies with the facts and is grounded in sound ethics and respect for basic human rights. This may be attributable to its not having been hobbled by a conflict of interest: its members, having not yet voted for vaccine passports, are able to see them for what they are. And what they are is very well summed up in a letter to the PM from religious leaders opposed to them:

“…vaccine passports would constitute an unethical form of coercion and violation of the principle of informed consent…We risk creating a two-tier society, a medical apartheid in which an underclass of people who decline vaccination are excluded from significant areas of public life. There is also a legitimate fear that this scheme would be the thin end of the wedge leading to a permanent state of affairs in which Covid vaccine status could be expanded to encompass other forms of medical treatment and perhaps even other criteria beyond that. This scheme has the potential to bring about the end of liberal democracy as we know it and to create a surveillance state in which the government uses technology to control certain aspects of citizens’ lives. As such, this constitutes one of the most dangerous policy proposals ever to be made in the history of British politics.” [emphasis added]

You don’t believe it could happen here? It is already happening in many places around the world. New Zealand’s PM removed the mask of pretence at compassion, liberty and concern for basic human rights and dignity when, with a smirk, she recently expressed total comfort with the segregation of New Zealand society.

We must not conflate the freedom to choose whether to have a vaccine with vaccine passports. The latter is an open invitation to the government to expand its biometric digital pass controls to other areas of your life, including financial and social control. But don’t take my word for it. The minister entrusted with reviewing the use of Covid certificates, Michael Gove, is on record saying, “Once powers are yielded to the state at moments of crisis or emergency, it’s very rarely the case that the state hands them back.”

Will the media fulfil its duty to hold power to account by challenging vaccine passports or will it abdicate its responsibility as the state grabs more power?

You can read more of Rusere’s work at

How ivermectin became a target for the ‘fraud detectives’

Sonia Elijah analyses the disinformation war being waged on ivermectin and exposes the dubious role played by the legacy media and the ‘fact checkers’ in traducing a cheap generic drug with a proven track record in treating Covid-19. Read the original article on TrialSiteNews:

Sonia also appeared on Sonia Poulton’s Rise With BNT show to talk about her investigation:

House of Commons Joint Committee whitewashes lockdowns

By Rusere Shoniwa

First published at

On 12 October, a House of Commons Joint Committee published the first report, ‘Coronavirus: lessons learned to date’, on the government’s handling of the pandemic. The findings are disappointing but unsurprising. Flying in the face of mountains of data and scientific evidence that show lockdowns are ineffective in mitigating loss of life from Covid and are highly destructive across a wide range of societal and economic measures, the Committee concluded that the Government’s main error was one of timing – it just didn’t lockdown soon enough.

Before highlighting the data and scientific analysis that exposes the committee’s travesty, it is important to first examine the paradigm of lockdowns as a purported public health non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) for mitigating the spread of respiratory infections in a population. In other words, do lockdowns sit within an accepted evidence-based model? And, notwithstanding the now widely accepted destructiveness of lockdowns, is there any way that the decision to lock down could have been judged to be reasonable at the time it was made?

The lockdown paradigm

Lockdowns were never part of the national pandemic preparedness plans for infectious respiratory illnesses in the UK and across the West in general for the simple reason that there was no scientific evidence base for including them. Consider the consequences of your doctor prescribing to you a drug that has never been subjected to clinical trials and has never been considered for use by any respectable medical licensing authority, let alone approved by the national drug licensing authority or by the professional body that governs the doctor’s conduct.

Everyone understands that, even if you were lucky enough not to suffer harmful side effects from your doctor’s reckless experiment, he would be liable to sanctions from his professional body. If you were to suffer harm, criminal proceedings against the doctor would almost certainly be a forgone conclusion. This analogy aligns with the recklessness of the worldwide lockdown experiment because public health authorities are, in a very real sense, the nation’s collective doctors. As such, they have a professional duty of care to the public when recommending health measures. At the very least, that duty of care entails safeguards to ensure measures are evidence based and grounded in science.

Resorting to an intervention for which there was no medical or scientific evidence was an unmistakable act of gross negligence. The lawyers and qualified experts who wrote this letter to leading intelligence agencies understand this only too well and believe it was criminal. In assessing the World Health Organisation’s advice to the world to pursue lockdowns as a strategy for containing the spread of Covid, their opinion was:

“The conclusion [to lock down] by the world’s foremost public health body was, at best, criminally negligent.”

Another clue to the recklessness of the WHO’s, and by implication the Government’s, lockdown recommendation in February and March 2020 is its own pandemic guideline advice of October 2019. Listed as “not recommended in any circumstances” are: “contact tracing, quarantine of exposed individuals, entry and exit screening, border closure”. It defines quarantine as “separation or restriction of the movement of persons who may be infected, based either on exposure to other infected people or on a history of travel to affected areas”.

Having beaten the lockdown drum in February and March 2020 against its own better judgement, the WHO backtracked on its criminally negligent advice in October 2020 when Dr David Nabarro, the WHO’s special envoy on COVID-19, publicly urged world leaders to stop using lockdowns stating:

“Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.”

Too little, too late. By winter of 2020 lockdowns had been normalised in the public consciousness and were repeated with a brazenness that belied their charlatanism. For the joint committee to conclude that the government’s error was merely a matter of timing is as absurd as concluding that a doctor who harmed a patient with an unapproved drug should be censured for recommending an insufficient dose.

The best laid plans

Acknowledging that in October 2019 the UK was one of the best prepared countries in the world, the parliamentary joint committee then seeks to excuse the Government’s abandonment of its original world-class plan to avoid lockdown. In doing so, the committee demonstrated that it does have some awareness of how problematic it is to have a pandemic preparedness plan that excludes lockdown only to then totally disregard that plan when the moment arrived to implement it. In justifying this recklessness, the report claims that the plan was not fit for purpose on the grounds that it was for an influenza-like pandemic and that ignoring it was therefore the right thing to do in the face of the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus. This doesn’t stand up to scrutiny because Covid transmission, while arguably more infectious, is influenza-like and there was no evidence at that time of asymptomatic transmission. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence against asymptomatic transmission.

Burning the plan on the grounds that the threat faced was far greater than what had been planned for was also completely at odds with the government’s own downgrading of the assessment of Covid’s threat on the eve of lockdown. The main reason cited for removing Covid from the list of High Consequence Infectious Diseases (HCID) was “more information … about mortality rates (low overall)”. This assessment was correct and, with the infection fatality rate (0.15%) turning out to be similar to a bad flu, the report’s claim that the plan wasn’t fit for purpose because it prepared us for an influenza-like pandemic is a total contradiction of both its assessment before lockdown and the evidence that has emerged since.

It is therefore clear that, as an evidence-based NPI, lockdown does not even make it out of the starting block. The decision to lock down cannot be judged to have been reasonable even at the time it was made.

Sledgehammer or laser?

Lockdown also fails a basic test of targeted risk management. With the disease burden falling heavily on the frail elderly, the blunt instrument approach of locking down the young and healthy as well as the old and frail is entirely incongruent with the known risk profile of the disease, which is heavily skewed to one small segment of the population.

It’s clear that Covid provided the opportunity for a degree of risk segmentation that is every risk manager’s dream. But this golden opportunity for a laser-like focus on a small at-risk minority was squandered in favour of applying a sledgehammer to the entire country. A targeted risk-based approach is in fact nothing more than an embrace of the already established and evidence-based approach to dealing with a pandemic of this nature. As Martin Kulldorff, Harvard epidemiologist and signatory to the Great Barrington Declaration calling for a focused protection, explained about lockdowns:

It’s a unique experiment, and it’s a terrible experiment. I’m amazed – as are many of my colleagues – at the total focus on this disease. In a short time, we are throwing all the principles of public health out the window. Most countries in Europe had a pandemic-preparedness plan which did not recommend lockdowns, but instead proposed a risk-based strategy to protect those at high risk, which is actually the same as the focused protection we put forward in the Great Barrington Declaration. What we are proposing is, therefore, nothing revolutionary.” [bold emphasis added]

Science committee ignores science

One of the committees involved in producing the ‘lessons learned’ report is the Science and Technology Committee. It is quite a feat for a science committee to have remained silent about the at least 47 scientific papers and studies confirming ineffectiveness and harms of lockdowns. This achievement alone is worthy of an investigatory committee report that could be titled: “How the Science Committee swept science under the rug”. By not locking down, numerous countries provided lockdown placebo controls which showed that these countries fared no differently, and in many cases far better, than the strictest applications of lockdown.

A recent paper in the International Journal of the Economics of Business, which focused on the cost/benefit analysis of lockdown (more of which later), accurately summed up the abject failure of lockdown as a lifesaving intervention:

“A casual examination of lockdown intensity and the number of cumulative deaths attributed to Covid-19 across jurisdictions shows no obvious relationship. Indeed, often the least intensive locations had equal or better performance. For example, using the OurWorldInData stringency index (SI) as a measure of lockdown, Pakistan (SI:50), Finland (SI: 52), and Bulgaria (SI: 50) had similar degrees of lockdown, but the cumulative deaths per million were 61, 141, and 1023. Peru (SI: 83) and the UK (SI:78) had some of the most stringent lockdowns, but also experienced some of the largest cumulative deaths per million: 1475 and 1868.

“Using information from OurWorldInData, the cumulative deaths per million on March 28, 2021 in North America were 1351 and for the European Union 1368. Sweden had light restrictions, but cumulative deaths were 1327; while the UK had heavy lockdowns and 1868 cumulative deaths per million. This stands in sharp contrast to the dire predictions that were made about Sweden in the first six months of the pandemic.

“Similar findings arise when comparing various US states. Florida and California were often compared because they are similar in terms of size and latitude, but had different lockdown policies. Florida locked down in the spring but then started lifting restrictions, on September 25th, 2020 all restrictions were lifted. California has had various mandates throughout 2020, but in early December issued a stay-at-home order that remained in place until January 25th, 2021. However, the cumulative deaths per 100,000 people are practically indistinguishable: 152 for Florida and 143 for California.”

If, on the one hand, a cold analysis of country data tells us that lockdowns don’t save lives and, on the other hand, we know that the myopic focus on one illness to the exclusion of all others led to delayed cancer diagnoses and premature deaths at home because of restricted access to health care, the conclusion that lockdowns caused a net loss of life is inescapable. And that’s before we consider all the other life-shortening economic and societal costs that lockdowns were responsible for.

This is a hard enough truth to swallow in and of itself but, in an Orwellian inversion of this truth, the joint committee invites you to believe that not only were lockdowns the correct thing to do but that it was a mistake for the government not to have applied them earlier. The report is not just wrong; it is a full-frontal assault on logic and sanity. Above all, it adds insult to those injured by lockdowns and it spits on the graves of those killed by them.

To achieve this inversion of logic, the committee leans on the broken crutch of Professor Neil Ferguson’s bankrupt modelled predictions of an apocalypse, quoting him in paragraph 77 of the report:

“It is now clear that this [delaying lockdown] was the wrong policy, and that it led to a higher initial death toll than would have resulted from a more emphatic early policy… The former SAGE participant Professor Neil Ferguson told the Science and Technology Committee that if the national lockdown had been instituted even a week earlier ’we would have reduced the final death toll by at least a half”.”

The joint committee’s steadfast dedication to burying the truth about Ferguson’s cracked crystal ball prevents it from publishing this concise summary of Imperial College’s powers of prediction:

The prediction for the UK, which did lock down, was out by a factor of 6 and, for Sweden, which didn’t lock down, it was out by a factor of nearly 12, double the UK error rate. The only reasonable conclusion that the joint committee ought to have come to is that Imperial College modellers should not be relied on to predict how many wheels are required on a bicycle.

Ignoring cost-benefit – the foundation of all government policy

Given that there was no upside to lockdown in lives saved, the obvious question is: what has been the total economic and social cost of the government’s disastrous lockdowns? Hundreds of billions of additional debt racked up in spending on rescue packages and testing, business closures, soaring poverty and unemployment, a build-up in the NHS waiting list to 5.6m, months of disruption to children’s education, declining mental health – all for what?

A discussion of cost-benefit in the joint committee’s report is conspicuous by its absence, presumably because committee members would have us believe that there is no limit to the government cost to be incurred in saving a life, notwithstanding that lives were not saved by lockdown. Our acceptance of the NHS as a rationed service is uncontroversial and instantly puts paid to such childish piffle. As Glenn Greenwald eloquently points out, cost-benefit analysis is foundational to all government policy. An absolutist approach to opting for a policy on the grounds that any lives saved make it imperative to embrace is a primitive mindset that ignores all the concomitant costs of that life-saving policy including, ironically, loss of life, as clearly illustrated by lockdowns.

The real lessons of the ‘lessons learned’ report

So, what are the real lessons to draw from this whitewash report, insultingly called ‘Coronavirus: lessons learned to date’? Adam Brooks on Twitter hits the nail on the head with the first lesson: based on the analysis of the scientific data which the committee scrupulously avoids, and contrary to its main conclusion, locking down sooner would only have led to “more excess deaths at home, more missed cancer diagnosis, more lost education in schools, more businesses and jobs lost, more mental health problems and more National Covid debt. Lockdowns are not some lifesaving tool. They create other deaths.”

Another vital lesson to extract from the joint committee’s report is about the perils of conflict of interest. The committees that produced this whitewashing of lockdown are composed of the MPs who voted unanimously and uncritically for lockdowns. Don’t expect them to admit they trashed the lives of millions of people across the country. Having played fast and loose with our lives, doubling down is now the name of the game.

You can read more of Rusere’s work at

Our society is sick but a virus is not the culprit

By Rusere Shoniwa

First published at

It is, or perhaps was, a truism that the role of journalism and the media is to expose society’s ills. Journalistic truth that holds power to account is the first step in lancing whatever boils plague us in the form of government corruption, economic mismanagement, policy failures, and threats to civil liberty. In just under two years, governments across the globe have succeeded in rolling up all these ills into one terminal disease – a totalitarian power grab in the guise of pandemic mitigation strategies.

If the media itself is sick, all our ills fester, indeed are amplified, in the darkness of propaganda and censorship. Our societies are under the spell of a mass psychosis in which delusions prevail as the mainstream media relentlessly normalises what would have been regarded as totally abnormal 19 months ago. Most of what passes for mainstream Covid reporting is insanity masquerading as respectable opinion and will hopefully one day be served up in journalism schools as essential lessons in what happens to a society when mainstream media outlets lose their integrity and their grip on reality.

Big Media is Big Brother

The UK media’s craven acceptance of the shackles placed on it by Ofcom at the beginning of the crisis only partly explains the propaganda onslaught that we have been subjected to since March 2020. Ofcom censured “discussion of potential treatments or cures for the Coronavirus that do not align with advice of the NHS or other public health authorities” and it strongly advised against “statements that seek to question or undermine the advice of public health bodies on the Coronavirus, or otherwise undermine people’s trust in the advice of mainstream sources of information about the disease.” So, Big Media happily agreed to aid government propaganda by censoring scientific debate and, in doing so, relinquished its public service duty of holding power to account by doing precisely the opposite – aligning itself with governmental power.

Big Media’s lockstep alignment with power rather than the people isn’t a new development. Its incestuous and highly dependent relationship with Big Tech and Big Corporates (especially Big Pharma) are at the root of its collaboration with government, which was a natural consequence of a harmonious convergence of the interests of all these parties.

This unholy alliance has given birth to the Trusted News Initiative, a formal network of Big Tech and Big Media organisations whose stated mission is to “combat spread of harmful vaccine disinformation”, in line with Ofcom’s and the government’s advice not to rock the boat on “mainstream sources of information about the disease”. We should therefore not be surprised when this pursuit of a universal singularity of truth results in huge amounts of energy expended on ‘fact-checking’ to counter, among other things, ‘misinformation’ that the Covid vaccines are experimental. This ‘fact check’ confidently claims “COVID-19 vaccines are not experimental” and goes into detail about the Emergency Use Authorisation process with added guff on animal trials.

There’s just one minor detail it glosses over: at the time the vaccines were rolled out to populations across the world in December 2020, we had less than 6 months’ trial participant data which means there can be no certainty about medium to long-term adverse effects of the vaccines and their newly employed mRNA technology. We just don’t know what could happen in one, two, five and 10 years from now. Which is why a spokesperson for AstraZeneca defended the demand for immunity from liability by saying, “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in … four years the vaccine is showing side effects”.

No amount of legalese and sophistry masquerading as fact-checking can disguise the truth that the deployment of these vaccines without medium- and long-term trial data is, by definition, an experiment.

The burgeoning fact-check industry represents a desperate attempt by powerful vested interest groups to stifle scientific debate and control the public’s perception of everything Covid related, and vaccines especially. It has the stamp of the Ministry of Truth all over it and, for that reason, is earning the contempt it deserves. More worrying is that, while industrial scale censorship by Big Tech, unreported by Big Media, is now the norm – as of May 2021, 850,000 “disinformation” videos had been deleted by YouTube in collaboration with the EU – YouTube is moving to the next step that Orwell warned us about: the deletion of the historical record.

In this independent media clip, The Highwire’s Del Bigtree and investigative journalist Jefferey Jaxen discuss the absurdity of the removal from YouTube of a recording of a February 2018 meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP) in which a new adjuvant to be added to a Hepatitis vaccine was approved. The issue was whether there might be a compatibility issue with this new adjuvant and existing adjuvants in other vaccines already in use.

The Highwire report replays a highly instructive portion of the FDA panel meeting (saved by the reporters before its deletion) so that we are left in no doubt as to its contents. To be clear, the replayed portion of this ACIP meeting is a completely unedited account of the proceedings of that segment of the meeting with no external commentary or analysis whatsoever. And yet YouTube has deleted the historical record of a major US health authority’s own account of its proceedings. Why on earth would they do that?

The clue to this particular Big Tech quest for truth lies in an exchange between panel members in which it is unequivocally acknowledged that when it comes to “using this vaccine at the same time with other adjuvanted vaccines” there is “no data to make a recommendation one way or the other”. The pregnant pause that follows this admission is filled by another panel member with what is intended to be a placatory statement about how multiple vaccines will be given to address this concern – vaccines will be administered simultaneously, albeit “in different limbs”. Members attending the meeting also confirm that they have no knowledge of multiple adjuvanted vaccines being used in Europe or other markets.

Having established that there is no data on the consequences of new adjuvant combinations and that there is no precedent in other markets for administering multiple adjuvanted vaccines, the ACIP members are then asked to vote on whether the new adjuvanted vaccine should be approved for use in the US market. All present (100%) vote to approve.

Following the vote to approve its use, the minor matter of a “myocardial infarction signal” that arose in the trials of the vaccine was raised. Following the replay of the ACIP video, Del Bigtree comments that this question related to heart attack deaths which occurred during the clinical trial. The meeting advises that studies on myocardial infarction, autoimmune diseases, herpes zoster and a pregnancy register will all be included in the post marketing surveillance. That’s following The Science™ in action, which looks a lot more like following the money and managing any potential fall-out from lack of testing and data as and when it arises in the general public.

You do not have to be ‘anti-vax’ to be shocked by the deletion of historical records of the CDC’s questionable vaccine approval process. You do, however, have to be anti-censorship. My question to Big Media reporters and journalists is, will there be any pushback against Big Tech censorship, or can Big Media continue to rely on you to put a protective shield around the billions in profits that have been made and will continue to be made from the liquid gold of vaccines?

More than 11,000 physicians and medical scientists, including Dr. Robert Malone, the architect of the mRNA vaccine platform, have signed the ‘Rome Declaration’ to alert citizens, in the words of the signatories, “about the deadly consequences of Covid-19 policy makers’ and medical authorities’ unprecedented behaviour; behaviour such as denying patient access to lifesaving early treatments, disrupting the sacred, physician-patient relationship and suppressing open scientific discussion for profits and power.” The absence of any significant coverage by mainstream journalism of this dissenting narrative is a serious dereliction of duty.    

And behold an NBA basketballer spoke

In the US, the vaccination civil war (among the many civil wars raging there) and the pushback against highly coercive vaccine passports that imperil freedom in the West has produced some surreal moments in media reporting. Like the moment when an intelligent NBA basketballer had to break down for reporters, as though they were six-year-olds, the nonsense of being coerced into giving up his bodily autonomy to satisfy a US administration hell-bent on ensuring that its citizens have no say about what the state and Big Pharma can inject into their bodies.

Firstly, to resist the current normalisation of insanity, it’s important to keep reminding ourselves that, in the old sane world, it would be completely unacceptable to confront someone publicly about their personal medical choices. That said, the NBA star calmly asserted what is now an indisputable truth based on real-world data – that the vaccines don’t prevent infection and transmission of Covid.

So, it makes no sense for a professional athlete in the prime of his health and at negligible risk of a severe course of the disease to be injected with something that would offer him personally no benefit but has in fact racked up an impressive injury record. In the US as of 1 October 2021, a total of 778,685 adverse events, including 16,310 deaths, following COVID vaccines were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). In the UK, a total of 370,574 Yellow Card reports containing 1,220,312 suspected adverse reactions including 1,698 fatal events associated with the vaccine have been recorded by the UK government’s Yellow Card Scheme as at 29 September 2021. The MHRA itself estimates that only 10% of serious reactions and 2–4% of all reac­tions are reported using the Yellow Card Scheme (second page of the linked report). The US VAERS reporting system has similar underreporting estimates.

In referencing real-world data on vaccine efficacy, I have linked to an analysis of the UK Public Health England data which shows that:

“For the 60s age group, infection rates are 63% higher in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated, up from 53% last week, giving an (unadjusted) vaccine effectiveness of minus -63%. But that has been topped this week by the 40s age group, the vaccinated among whom now have an infection rate no less than 66% higher than the unvaccinated… With infection rates now, on this data, much higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated, what remaining justification can there be for vaccine passports, vaccine mandates, and any other policy based on the assumption that vaccines protect other people?”

This analysis has, of course, been done by independent media journalists. What does the UK mainstream media have to say about the ineffectiveness of the Covid vaccines? Well, not a lot. Which is why I have diagnosed the media as being ill. But what little it does say is a backhanded and deliberately deceptive admission that the vaccines aren’t working.

Not so artful dodging of the real issues

This Reuters article begins with a warning that “relying largely on vaccines without other measures could put unsustainable pressure on hospitals”. But at no point does it challenge the fact that vaccines were supposed to be the intervention that obviated the need for “other measures” (masks and lockdowns). Mass vaccination as a public health policy strategy was intended to reduce the burden on the NHS and allow society to ‘get back to normal’. Can’t score a goal? Just shift the goalposts! Vaccines have now become an additional measure.

The open admission of failure comes when the article admits that, despite 81.3% of people over 16 having received two vaccine doses, the chair of the British Medical Association is screaming out for “additional infection control measures”:

With high rates of [Covid] infection, we need additional infection control measures if we’re to keep the health service afloat this winter.” [Emphasis added]

To summarise: In locking down to protect the NHS, a backlog so huge has been created that the NHS cannot get through it concurrently with the normal winter respiratory illness season. It wants to keep locking down even though lockdowns are the surest way to worsen the waiting list and contribute to the premature deaths of people on it. In essence, the NHS has dug a hole for itself so deep that it can’t climb out. So, it has decided to just keep digging.

And just in case all of this wasn’t irrational enough, we are still being coerced into vaccines with the ever-looming threat of vaccine passports, despite the admission that vaccines haven’t provided much, if any, relief to the NHS Covid burden.

So why aren’t mainstream journos exploring some obvious lines of investigation? If, as a UK parliamentary committee has concluded, vaccine passports are “unnecessary and there is no justification for them in the science and none in logic”, shouldn’t reporters and journalists be asking why the government is fixated on imposing biomedical ID controls under which the right to participate in society will be predicated on our acceptance of regular injections of substances determined by the government, in concert with Big Pharma, to be in our best interests? Or, should we suffer side effects, for “the greater good”?

One possible clue to why other lines of enquiry are not being pursued is that what used to be called good old fashioned investigative journalism has now been branded as ‘conspiracy theory’. That term, for those of us who have retained curious and sceptical minds (the foundations of real science), is just a thought-terminating cliché.

Even if the vaccines had turned out to be a silver bullet, what right-minded democratic society would legislate to surrender control over our bodies to institutions that require constant vigilance for abuse and mismanagement? It’s immoral, unethical and, in normal pre-Covid times, would have been declared illegal in a heartbeat owing to our longstanding principles of voluntary informed consent based on the Nuremberg Code. Our body, our choice? Not when it comes to Big Pharma’s latest offerings.

Societies have been thrust precipitously into this brave new world of gene therapy that doesn’t quite seem to work, has a side-effect profile the like of which has never been seen in a vaccine before, but which must nevertheless be rolled out to every human on the planet. At a time when, more than ever before, we should be wrestling with concepts of rights, liberty and ethics, journos in Big Media have lost their voices. We hope their consciences are still troubling them.

There’s good news and there’s good news

When I first typed this sub-heading, it read: “There’s good news and there’s bad news” because plummeting Trust in Big Media seems, on the face of it, like a bad thing. But the reason for the plummeting trust is that people are waking up to the fact that Big Media is Big Brother and this is a good thing! Big Media, in attempting to censor and ‘fact-check’ its way to the ridiculous goal of being the single source of truth, is in the process of writing its own P45. Which is leading to more good things – opportunities for independent media to grow and increase the diversity of news and information sources.

Platforms dedicated to free speech like Rumble, Odysee and Telegram are rising out of the ashes of Big Media’s self-immolation and experiencing the kind of growth they could only have dreamt of pre-Covid. The vacuum of truth left by Big Media is being rapidly filled by real investigative journalists and independent media.

Fox News in the US is providing an incisive lesson to Big Media everywhere. A civil war is raging in the West between those who truly understand and are prepared to stand up for freedom and human dignity and those who want to crush it. Most of those on the wrong side of this war are unconscious victims of a complex mix of psychological warfare and their own belief systems which have robbed them of the capacity for critical thinking and personal autonomy. A few are simply authoritarians with a control agenda. Fox News is, for now, on the right side of that war and it is smashing the ‘liberal’ authoritarians at CNN and MSNBC cheering for liberty-crushing vaccine mandates and biometric ID passes.

In the second quarter of 2021, Fox News had four of the top five most-watched shows in cable news, with Tucker Carlson Tonight in first place. CNN experienced the biggest year-on-year drop in prime time, down 57%. I am not tribal in my politics and I am certainly not right-wing, but to the extent that Tucker Carlson’s searing and humorous deconstructions of liberal ruling-class tyranny and hypocrisy reflect my values, he has my ear and my respect. I don’t care where the truth comes from. I just know it when I see it and I don’t see much of it in any UK Big Media outlets.

The UK is growing its own crop of Tucker Carlsons outside Big Media. One of them is Neil Oliver of GB News. In Germany the journalistic void is being filled by celebrities who, in the words of the Swedish doctor Sebastian Rushworth, have responded to the “shocking lack of independence and critical oversight that has been exhibited by journalists ever since the pandemic began” with their own project to interview the large number of doctors and scientists who have thus far been side-lined by the mainstream media. Their project is called ‘Alles Auf den Tisch’ (‘Everything on the Table’) and interviews are on their site How successful have they been so far? The site crashed on launch due to the massive amount of traffic it was getting.

For over eighteen months, our society has been fed on a diet of fear, propaganda, and in-your-face censorship. It has made us sick, and the only medicine that is going to get us out of this blue funk is truth. Unvarnished and in large doses. Big Media voices are welcome to join us in dispensing this much-needed medicine, but we plan to do it regardless.

You can read more of Rusere’s work at