Winter and beyond – Part II: The Pivot to Financial Armageddon

By Rusere Shoniwa

You can find more of Rusere’s work at 

This two-part piece stitches together commentary on different facets of the totalitarian Great Reset agenda to illustrate how a worst-case scenario might unfold this winter and beyond. Although in some respects this piece is UK specific, most of the cabal’s strategies apply globally, and any differences can be put down to cultural specificity and local politics. Part I dealt with the implications of the puppet switch taking place in the UK; whether covid as a tool of oppression is now a spent force, and; how virus mania and the pandemic industry might evolve.

In part II, I’ll look at the economics underpinning everything. Economics is not the only reason for the current diabolical situation, but it’s the main one, and it will be the predominant tool of oppression, as indeed it always has been. I’ll then synthesise part I and the economics of part II to shine a light into the darkened recesses of the minds of those who have perpetrated the atrocities so far. We know the endgame: it’s total control. Unless we know how they plan to get there and how bumpy the ride will be, we might not be able to resist when events unfold.

The 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) heralded the destruction of the global financial system. The entire decade that followed was about keeping it on life support while the world’s real policy makers at the Bank of International Settlements formulated a plan to reset it. They’ve had at least 10 years to formulate a reset that not only ensures financial institutions and global corporates retain and consolidate power, but also that the serfs are more tightly controlled than ever, giving global oligarchs even more freedom to do pretty much anything they want with impunity.

It’s no coincidence that here in the UK, the fabulously minted ex-banker and hedge fund partner Rishi Sunak is in the final pick for the leader of the Conservative Party and the premiership. Who better to market a financial snake-oil cure than a financial snake-oil salesman? He’s probably the WEF’s first pick but Truss, currently the front-runner, will do just as well with a bit of extra coaching. The loser will more than likely have a cabinet post anyway so they’ll be working together to keep the Good Ship Reset firmly afloat. 

The new leader’s job will be to get his or her prefects in cabinet and Westminster to line up behind the narrative of how ‘the pandemic’ and evil Dr StrangePutin have put us in dire straits. The good school pupils (aka the British public) will be required to continue footing the bill for the controlled demolition of the economy that began with covid lockdowns, and, crucially, we will be presented with a ‘solution’ that entails surrendering our autonomy as self-governing human beings.

The debt balloon is about to get popped

Since the 2008 GFC, the US Fed, Bank of Japan, ECB and Bank of England have injected a combined $25 trillion into the banking system via “quantitative easing” purchase of bonds, as well as buying back the worthless assets that were created by the banksters in the lead-up to the GFC. Sowing this empty money is now reaping a whirlwind of inflation. 

A significant chunk of this money put into the banking system was then lent to major corporates, which used the money not to finance the real economy – there isn’t one, because the West offshored its real economy a long time ago – but to inflate the value of their company stock. How does this happen and why is it done? When shares are bought back from shareholders, the total number of shares in the market is reduced. This raises the relative ownership stake of each investor, which in turn increases the market value of the shares that remain in their portfolio. 

It effectively consolidates the ownership stake of each shareholder into a smaller bundle of shares that, barring other market factors, retains the total value that was held before the buyback. It’s a win-win – they effectively get a cash ‘dividend’ pay-out from the buyback while retaining the total value of their stock in the remaining shares still held. It gets even more win-win because distributing cash to shareholders in this way is often more tax effective than through a straightforward dividend.

GFC II actually ignited in September 2019 when the credit markets began seizing up again with junk debt. Between September 2019 and March 2020, the Fed injected more than $9 trillion into the banking system, equivalent to more than 40% of US GDP. Essentially this was another bailout, only much bigger than the first one but silent and virtually unreported.

All told, we’re now sitting on a $303 trillion balloon of post-2008 debt, according to William Engdahl of Global Research, or $305 trillion according to the Institute of International Finance. Global debt is approximately 3.5 times greater than global GDP. There’s only so much air you can blow into a balloon before it bursts, and the question now is not if but when it will burst. Engdahl’s theory of how this balloon might soon pop is worth sharing because it explains the interplay between the bond market, inflation and central bank rate hikes. Crucially, he maintains that central bank policies are deliberately intended to cause a disorderly debt implosion. 

This makes sense if you believe, as I do, that the additional debt expansion generated by covid lockdowns was a primary monetary objective of the lockdowns and not a second order action taken reluctantly by governments out of concern for people’s welfare. If they had been truly concerned about people’s welfare, they would have simply protected the small minority of people at risk instead of ripping apart the entire economic and social fabric with brutal lockdowns. Had they kept calm and carried on, it’s obvious that covid wouldn’t have registered on most people’s radar. So yes, one objective of lockdowns was to pile more debt on top of the funny money they were forced to print in the lead-up to lockdowns to prevent a seize-up of markets that they were not yet prepared for in 2019.

The central bank rate hikes currently underway purport to target inflation but will not have any effect on inflation given the root cause of it – the debt bubble caused by central bank money-printing, euphemistically called ‘quantitative easing’. The intended effect of rate hikes is to seriously deflate the bond market, which is the heart of the financial system.

The global value of the government, corporate and agency bond market is, according to Engdahl, in the region of $250 trillion. The value of a bond instrument is determined quite differently to, say, stock market shares. Because they have a fixed face value and interest payments, their market price at any given point is determined by discounting the expected future cash flows from the bond back to a present value. This discounted value is hugely influenced by inflation and current interest rates. Counterintuitively, the bond market loses value as inflation and interest rates rise. That’s because inflation combined with a fixed bond interest rate that is declining relative to the market rate of interest results in a lower discounted valuation of the bond.

Here’s the clincher – to the extent that banks hold bonds, as bond prices fall, the value of bank capital falls and the nearer we get to another banking collapse. When that happens, the old go-to formula of zero interest rates and continual money printing will be over. The new solution put forward will be a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) system in which all money is centrally issued and controlled. And of course, the CBDC will control you. A banking collapse is a false pretext for introducing CBDCs, but this could be a collapse like no other, and it’s possible that there will be no limit to what the public will agree to as a ‘solution’ when confronted with such a complex and far-reaching financial disaster. Most people have no idea that mouse-click money printing has continued unabated since 2009, and that it is the primary reason for the impending implosion. Quantitative easing, aka money printing, will not even be mentioned in the mainstream press as the house of cards collapses.

To be sure, the bond market isn’t the only potential source of collapse. Central bank monetary tightening is putting pressure on the stock and housing markets too. It’s likely to be some combination of all three, but there’s no certainty as to which domino will fall first. There are two key things to remember about the coming recession: first, it is driven by a debt crisis and, second, the tool being used to address it – rate hikes – is debt unfriendly. This combination of events means the debt reckoning is probably around the corner. The policies will expose worthless debt that was not issued to generate productivity and, let’s face it, that is a key characteristic of Western debt exemplified by corporates borrowing from banks in order to pay out dividends in the form of share buy-backs. The central banks themselves can’t predict precisely how the massive deleveraging will pan out, but they know it’s going to be ugly; and they need that ugliness to move the reset agenda forward.

A tale of two inflations

There is another source of inflation, and that of course is energy, fuel and food. This is not caused by a fundamental supply source problem. Its cause is a supply chain disruption and a manufactured one at that. A spanner has been thrown into the supply chain. The inflation is real in the sense that the prices of these commodities are going through the roof. But it is manufactured in the sense that its trumpeted cause – the Ukraine crisis – was unnecessarily driven by NATO allies who had absolutely no business using Ukrainians as cannon fodder in a proxy war with Russia aimed at, among other things, bringing about regime change in Russia.

In the same way that Russia was obliged to back down from using Cuba as a nuclear missile staging post in 1962, NATO and the US had no business expanding NATO right up to Russia’s border by pushing for Ukraine to become a member of NATO. When Russia responded in similar bellicose fashion as the US did when the shoe was on the other foot in 1962, the EU churlishly cut off its nose to spite its face by boycotting Russian gas, on which it relies heavily. Rather than facilitate the peaceful negotiation that all sides knew would have rendered the current conflict a hypothetical debate in a history lesson, Germany’s politicians chose instead to invite their citizens to burn wood this winter, possibly including furniture, to stay warm.   

The Ukrainian supply chain inflation must be seen for what it is – decoy inflation. It’s a smokescreen to hide the elephantine inflation in the room caused by the biggest money-printing spree in modern history. It gives Western governments cover for the pain that ordinary people will be made to feel and the rationing that will likely follow. When the debt ponzi scheme collapses, the public will be sold a host of fairy tales, none of which will make any mention of the small matter of $303 trillion of central bank funny money, 3.5 times greater than global GDP. Putin, Ukraine and whatever other bogeyman can be mustered on the day will be the spoonful of sugar to make the CBDCs go down.

The job of the UK’s incoming premier in September will be to steer the coming financial Armageddon towards digital and financial enslavement. The well-meaning but naïve Martin Lewis, the money saving expert, breathlessly issued his warning that “we are sitting on a financial timebomb that’s due to explode in September”. Energy bills are expected to rise 65% in October on the back of a 54% rise that has already happened in April. Energy bills alone will consume a third of the income of those on the new state pension and more than a third of the income from the old state pension. The Government support programmes offered in May to offset the previous increases will do nothing to ease this impending assault in September. These rises are unaffordable for all but the most affluent.

I say Lewis is ‘naïve’ for two reasons. Firstly, because he believes that the incoming Prime Minister will be trying to ameliorate the impact of this explosion on poor people when in fact they will be operating in accordance with a key sociopathic principle governing the Great Reset – never let a good crisis go to waste. Under this maxim, the pain of ordinary people is not just a by-product of the policies; it is one of the most important ingredients in the Great Reset formula.

Secondly, Lewis makes no mention of the $303 trillion post-2008 ponzi scheme debt that is, as the nice people in the banking industry would say, about to be “deleveraged”. Inflation, interest rate hikes and therefore the whole cost of living crisis, are not simply unfortunate by-products of central bank policies – they are just some of the wrecking balls being used to demolish the old system.. People are simply the eggs to be broken in the making of their new omelette.  

Another important direct consequence of rate hikes is making home loans and mortgages unaffordable, which in turn may see a collapse of the housing market and repossessions. In 2021, banks were already making plans to become huge landlords: all part of the plan for us to own nothing and be happy. It’s diabolically ingenious. First make money from creating junk debt to fuel the housing market and then, when it all comes crashing down, seize the houses and rent them back. Credit card debt and consumer loans will take a similar beating as consumers default. 

The big picture

The looming financial crisis combined with the impact so far from lockdowns, virus mania and the broken economy could dovetail into this worst-case scenario for totalitarian enslavement, which includes some lucid points made recently by Mike Yeadon

  • A controlled demolition of the broken financial system is underway. It began with covid lockdowns whose objectives were to: expand debt even further to accelerate the collapse; accelerate reliance on digital technology and introduce more control and surveillance applications like health passes; decimate independent small and medium-sized businesses to increase the reliance of individuals on the state for a Universal Basic Income and to transfer business from independents to corporates; transfer taxpayer wealth to Big Tech, Big Pharma and other large corporate sectors that benefitted from lockdowns, and; condition the populace to accept maximum control by the state through the state-of-emergency governance paradigm.
  • Supply chain disruptions that began with lockdowns have been accelerated with the manufactured Ukraine/Russia crisis. The resultant crippling food and gas price increases will be used as strawmen to deflect attention from the deflation of the debt balloon created by bankers and central banks.
  • The supply chain disruptions are creating food and energy shortages that may spark huge unrest. This unrest will be met with further authoritarian control measures like martial law, or some variant of it, and rationing using QR code digital ID systems. This is already happening in Sri Lanka. The digital ID system is effectively already in place with the various health passes that have been issued around the world and, for rationing purposes, will be extended to those who have so far resisted coerced vaccination and the accompanying digital ID.
  • As people rise in anger, they may succeed in deposing paid puppets of their invisible paymasters who determine global policy. But if they are not ready to reject the control systems that will be put forward as ‘solutions’, the global cabal will welcome these uprisings as vehicles to advance their authoritarian agenda. Conflict is in fact the dialectic through which the changes they seek are accelerated. Nearly all revolutions are followed by counterrevolutions.
  • Once digital ID applications are widespread, they can be used as levers by the biomedical security state to make access to food and fuel conditional on taking up all the latest ‘vaccinations’. The obsession with compulsory ‘vaccination’ is emblematic of the 21st century totalitarianism. There must be no room for manoeuvre, and control over you is not total until resistance to bodily autonomy has been broken down, until the human body can be ‘hacked’ without your permission and without you understanding what is really going on once they’re under your skin.
  • As the debt bubble is rapidly deflated, there is likely to be some sort of banking crisis to signal another monetary system collapse. Recall the predicted bond market turmoil and its potential effect on banks’ capital. This time, the rescue mechanism served up will be CBDCs – a false pretext since the real problem is debt with no underlying assets with value to support it.
  • The endgame is mandatory digital ID combined with CBDCs. The two interact with each other like a socket and plug. The mandatory digital ID creates an individual record of everything you do and who you are. The CBDC platform will then punish or reward you based on the digital ID information fed to the CBDC platform about what you do and who you are.
  • Because your digital footprint will be linked to your finances, permission to transact on your CBDC account will be conditional on ‘good’ behaviour in all spheres of your digital ID.
  • Access to your funds will be limited if: you’ve been downloading ‘misinformation’ like this article; you’ve finished your quota of 90 grams of meat per month (why aren’t you enjoying the exotic tarantulas Sainsbury’s has imported from Brazil?); you’re not up to date with your covid, monkeypox, smallpox, HIV, and flatulence boosters. The possibilities for behavioural management are endless. You won’t need to be ‘nudged’ anymore. You simply won’t eat if you don’t get vaccinated or if you dare to entertain theories about climate change that contradict the orthodoxy issued by Big Brother.
  • That CBDC platform will be administered on a supranational centralised platform run by a tech giant like Amazon cloud services. In time it will come to serve as a complete and centralised record of your entire financial and digital footprint. You will be a node in the matrix. A data point in a data set. A thing in the internet of things. You will exist at the mercy of a ruthless machine governed by AI designed to recognise and crush dissent.
  • CBDC controls can also be geographically determined. Trying to have a good time 10 miles out of your carbon permitted radius? Sorry but combatting global warming will require the serfs to be on a tight leash.
  • The concept of an enforced carbon rationing and personal carbon trading system linked to your bank account has been around since at least 2006. Under a personal carbon trading system, it is now proposed that less well-off people who need money to, say, to pay their rent to the landlord bank that repossessed their home could sell carbon credits to wealthier people to use for travel abroad on holiday. That’s the global cabal’s idea of an ‘equitable’ world – poor people scraping up enough money for subsistence by selling ‘carbon emission rights’ to wealthy people, guaranteeing that the latter can jet off every two months for their Bali break without stressing about having to share aircraft cabin space with the hoi polloi.
  • Extra mileage will be gained from energy cost inflation by using it as an incentive to guilt people into eating bugs, wearing an extra jumper in winter instead of turning up the heating and gifting their cars to scrap metal dealers, all to appease the carbon emission gods.

It doesn’t have to be this way

This is a worst-case scenario, and things never pan out exactly the way we or our adversaries think they will. But this is what the global oligarchy wants. There have been more than enough statements from WEF mouthpieces and their army of dead-eyed puppets in government to confirm it. You wouldn’t have read this far if you didn’t think there was half a chance this scenario could be plausible. This means that, unlike many, you now have a choice ahead of you.

It’s vital to understand that they are determined to follow through on their planned agenda. This is because serious crimes have been committed, and to halt the agenda now would invite prosecution. It is unquestionably criminal for governments to shut down societies and destroy livelihoods, education and access to health without any scientific basis or evidence and with no cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate that a net benefit to society would accrue. Even before taking into account the trail of death and injury covid ‘vaccines’ have left in their wake, it is criminal in and of itself to coerce people into taking unwanted medical treatments. And yet it was done. Repeatedly. Across the entire planet. The only reason people are refusing to acknowledge these and other crimes is because their scale is so huge that it beggars belief.

For those who have planned these crimes or willingly complied with absurdly degenerate policies, there is no going back. For their own survival, they are operating in coup d’état mode: the only way to avoid prosecution for their crimes is to successfully normalise them and institute a sick society in which people come to accept their loss of autonomy and freedom as a normal state of affairs driven by pandemic hysteria, climate change hysteria, Russia/Ukraine hysteria, Cold War II hysteria or whatever nightmares are conjured to justify despotism under ceaseless states of emergency. While a coup d’état is in progress, it is illegal. If the coup plotters succeed, they become the de facto rulers and are recognised as the new government. So, they will not blink until they are defeated, and it is not politicians or billionaires like Musk who are going to defeat them either. It is ordinary people who need to say no.

If you take pride in being a self-respecting, autonomous and sovereign human being, then just say No to CBDCs and digital IDs that force you to sacrifice your freedom of thought and action. Freedom may well come with responsibility, but that responsibility does not include a circular and self-defeating right or responsibility to curtail the freedom of others. Say No to high-tech feudalism being planned by technocratic governments taking orders from the corporate oligarchy of billionaires. Say No with the confidence that any alternative we choose for ourselves will be infinitely better than that chosen for us by billionaires and their cronies like Sunak. Say No in the confidence that those who caused the unfolding economic chaos cannot possibly be trusted to offer a good faith solution to the mess they have created. Say No in the confidence that doing so will result in the bill for this mess being picked up by those who caused it – the banking, tech, pharma, energy and media oligarchy. 

They will tell you that if we don’t do as we’re told, the whole ship will sink. Don’t fall for it. We were successfully held to ransom in 2008 and they’ll try it on again. When they’ve paid the price for their arrogance and stupidity, they will have lost their power to rule over the world with fear, propaganda, lies and psychological manipulation. This is our time not to blink.

Winter and beyond – Part 1: Tone at the Top and New Virus Mania

By Rusere Shoniwa

You can find more of Rusere’s work at 

This two-part piece stitches together commentary on different facets of the totalitarian agenda to illustrate how a worst-case scenario might unfold this winter and beyond. Although in some respects this piece is UK specific, most of the cabal’s strategies apply globally, and any differences can be put down to cultural specificity and local politics. In part I, I’ll look at the implications of the puppet switch taking place in the UK; whether covid as a tool of oppression is now a spent force; and, how virus mania and the pandemic industry might evolve.

In part II, I’ll look at the economics underpinning everything. Economics is not the only reason for the current diabolical situation, but it’s the main one, and it will be the predominant tool of oppression, as indeed it always has been. I’ll then synthesise part I and the economics of part II to shine a light into the darkened recesses of the minds of those who have perpetrated the atrocities so far. We know the endgame: it’s total control. Unless we know how they plan to get there and how bumpy the ride will be, we might not be able to resist when events unfold.

The past two winters have been the seasons of the Covidian cult, although its power began to wane early this year. In the UK, a beleaguered PM responded to the Partygate scandal by dropping restrictions at the end of January, and the resistance movement started to feel as though the flame of covid hysteria was burning itself out. Even in those parts of the Western world where addiction to covid fear porn persists among a significant section of the population, totalitarian governments are being forced to come to terms with growing covid fatigue. 

Germany, Europe’s largest economy, seems to be seeking a compromise between sanity and the psychotic Covidian cult by legislating to police its citizens’ bodies through ritual mask humiliation and coerced vaccination for six months of the year. Germany’s new brand of fascism will replicate the scapegoating and public shaming that initiated its last descent down the slippery slope by making non-compliers identify themselves as unvaccinated in public. If German citizens have the temerity to decide that their bodies are their own and not the state’s by refusing vaccination, they will be publicly humiliated with enforced public mask wearing. As C J Hopkins points out, all Germans “will have to present their ‘vaccination papers’ (or their ‘recovery papers’) to enter a restaurant, or a bar, or go to the cinema or the theatre, and basically to do anything else in society”.

By the Spring of this year, the UK had officially dropped pretty much all of its totalitarian covid containment architecture; but that must not be misconstrued as deviation from the Great Reset agenda. The UK Covid cult is, as we’ll see, alive and well and there is no guarantee that we won’t witness a resurgence of UK Covidianism this winter.

Tone at the top

On Sunday 17th July, we learnt that Kemi Badenoch was the surprise non-World Economic Forum (WEF) front-runner in the Conservative Party membership polls. This might have been problematic for the puppeteers but, luckily for them, the Tories elect their leaders using the Iranian method of leadership selection – the MPs do the hard work by putting forward suitable candidates and the membership then rubber stamp the MPs’ choices by choosing between two very similar products with different packaging. On Tuesday 19th July, a little over 24 hours after the surprise polling results became known, order was restored with Badenoch’s expeditious removal from the MPs’ ballot. You’ve got to admire the efficiency with which that paroxysm of populism was so swiftly nipped in the bud. Badenoch’s flirtation with Tory leadership came and went so quickly, I got whiplash watching her enter and exit the stage.

Badenoch seemed to be the country’s best bet for a WEF rebuttal, but that doesn’t mean Schwab wouldn’t have made her an offer she couldn’t refuse. She’s a politician after all. But her speedy removal from the leadership race probably saved the WEF chairman a bothersome phone call to Tory HQ. Things were put back on track in the blink of an eye and, with the choice now between Truss and Sunak, a safe pair of globalist hands is guaranteed to continue steering the UK ship through Great Reset waters.

So, what kind of tools might the globalists pull out of their Torquemada’s  toolbox? The covid trojan horse, though not yet dead, has been flogged to within an inch of its life. One part of its deadly payload – ‘vaccines’ and vaccine passports – will require a new pandemic, a new fear, to deliver more of the control agenda. And boy, have they been pulling out all the stops to supply one (more of which later). 

Both candidates have made veiled promises to rule out a repeat of lockdowns, which suggests a pivot away from covid containment policies. But it’s important to understand that u-turns are no longer a political embarrassment; they’re part of the normal landscape. 

While lying has always been a core element of the politician’s job description, it used to be something they tried hard not to get caught at. Under covid, however, shameless, in-your-face lying with impunity has evolved into standard operating procedure. It’s a deliberate part of normalising the abnormal – to make confusion and 180-degree turns so normal that the public accepts broken promises as simply part of the landscape of turbulent times. The idea behind it is that politicians are no longer lying; they’re just adapting to fast-changing circumstances and the public needs to cut them some slack! Stability for any reasonable length of time is now a thing of the past. 

Under an onslaught of u-turns and lies, you are meant to not only stop trying to compare yesterday’s and today’s political statements, but also to no longer care what happened yesterday, just so long as you know what orders to follow today. The global cabal are trying to remake the world in 10 years; working in this cauldron of turmoil requires the public to accept that what was said yesterday will, 50% or more of the time, be ancient history today. 

The medical bureaucracy

If we are pivoting away from covid, the UK’s medical bureaucracy doesn’t appear to have got the memo yet. This is understandable since, under covid control, we witnessed one of the greatest ever bureaucratic power grabs by the medical establishment and, unsurprisingly, they’re not ready to call time on destructive lockdowns, forced masking and forced ‘vaccination’ simply because the public is tired of it.

They want it to continue, not for a little while longer but, in the words of one of their communist supremos, and without a hint of exaggeration, “forever”. The Editors of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Health Service Journal (HSJ) recently told the Government that, in their humble opinion, there should be an immediate return to all the destructive restrictions which have flattened society and not “the curve”. Why? To save the “dying” NHS. Like all addicts, the NHS wants more of the bad medicine that is killing it – restrictions. Restrictions caused care backlogs to balloon to unmanageable levels. And yet what does the NHS want? More restrictions, which will only inflate a care backlog bubble already at bursting point.

Given the changing tone at the top, it’s not likely that the NHS will get its fix of renewed restrictions other than token gestures to keep it from throwing a complete fit. It looks as though extreme covid containment as a tool of oppression has exhausted its usefulness in the UK, and our dictators are pivoting to new strategies and tactics in their quest for total control under the Great Reset/Building Back Better/Sustainable Development/Green agenda.

There are similar signs in the US, where, on 11th August, the CDC dropped several covid containment pillars, indicating a channelling of its bureaucratic energy elsewhere. Among other changes, the requirement to quarantine has been dropped regardless of vaccination status, and social distancing is no longer recommended. However, the trend of waning covid hysteria is not uniform across the US, as blue states like California continue to pay homage to the covid death cult by abusing children in school with masks and insisting on masking in general indoor settings.

As for the pandemic industry, it seems its near-term goal is to wring covid dry with ridiculous variant-specific boosters and its new treatment pills like Paxlovid, for which the medical establishment has decided to cut out the middle-man (your doctor) so you can get it direct from your pharmacy. Needless to say, the search for a new virus nightmare is well underway, as we shall see.

Virus mania gets more manic – planting the HIV vaccine seeds

Joseph Mercola points out that as far back as January 2020, Indian researchers published a paper claiming segments of the SARS-COV-2 viral RNA appeared more closely related to HIV than other coronaviruses. The researchers also claimed that SARS-CoV-2 responded to HIV medications. The researchers came under pressure to retract the paper but not before Luc Montagnier, the Nobel prize winning discoverer of HIV, agreed with their assessment.

Also recall that in December 2020, an Australian vaccine was abandoned after trial participants returned false HIV positive results. The linked article is a classic MSM covid ‘science’ report. The most hilarious paragraph in the report is this one:

“But it also generated HIV antibodies in some recipients – which meant it showed false positives for HIV. Further testing proved the HIV wasn’t there.”

The first sentence says in plain English that “generat[ing] HIV antibodies…meant it showed false positives for HIV”. Then you read an explainer on HIV tests and false positives, and it starts off by explaining the basis of the HIV test:

“HIV tests are based on the detection of antibodies to HIV.”

After you’re done scratching your head over the BBC statement, you realise it looks like an out-and-out lie, and not a particularly clever one at that. The explainer (not the BBC article) on false positives gets equally hilarious, by the way, as it states:

“The main cause of false positive results is that the test has detected antibodies, but they are not antibodies to HIV – they are antibodies to another substance or infection. Tests are not meant to react to other types of antibodies, but it sometimes happens.” [emphasis added]

And there is no further explanation on why “it sometimes happens”. Translation: the HIV test, designed to test for HIV antibodies, sometimes detects other unrelated antibodies. Why? Because, in virology, shit happens.

Now, I’ve deliberately side-tracked into this false positive saga partly because it relates to the main point about the possible link between covid vaccines and HIV, partly for the sheer entertainment value of illustrating the risible quality of MSM science reporting, but also to make the point that, to put it mildly, all is not what it seems in virology. But I recommend reading the explainer I’ve linked, if only the bits I’ve highlighted plus the bit under the heading “Reactive results and follow-up testing”. Then ask yourself how much crazier an HIV test-driven pandemic would look than even the raging insanity of covid.

Let’s return to the tree-trunk of this argument. 

Wind the clock forward to 2022, when sceptical scientists and doctors are recognising that the covid jab, which instructs the body to make part of the viral RNA closely related to HIV, is causing AIDS-like immunodepression – VAIDS (vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). Because of its immune suppressive action, the covid jab may well be increasing susceptibility to AIDS.  In July, Chinese officials granted conditional approval for Azvudine, an HIV drug, to be used as a covid treatment.

Note that in December 2021, both the Biden administration and the UK Health Security Agency announced their commitment to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic by 2030. Dutifully on cue, the hyenas in the mainstream media launched an AIDS awareness campaign in February 2022.

In 2022, the NHS stated that it will “expand opt-out testing in emergency departments in the highest prevalence local authority areas”. In other words, HIV blood screening will be a default setting in emergency care unless you explicitly opt-out. The UK’s leading HIV charity is fully on board, stating: “HIV testing must become mainstream in the NHS.” Will all people be properly informed of the opt-out? The medical bureaucracy was pretty blasé about ditching informed consent for covid vaccination so I can’t see them suddenly rediscovering ethics and principles on opt-out testing. 

So, we may be witnessing the beginnings of another test-propelled casedemic being deployed with HIV/AIDS and, with a highly vaxxed population carrying a protein produced in their blood with remarkable similarities to HIV, it might not be that long before we have an HIV/AIDS ‘pandemic’ that, fortuitously for Big Pharma, coincides with its AIDS vaccine development.

AIDS vaccine research has drawn a blank for over 30 years, but human trials for an mRNA HIV vaccine are now underway. With the Overton window on length of time and quality of clinical trials for vaccines completely smashed by the Wild West covid vaccine show, it would seem foolish to bet against a ‘safe and effective’ AIDS vaccine hitting the market in the next 6 to 18 months.  

So, that’s HIV and its strange link to covid. 

Virus mania gets more manic – monkeypox and the smallpox vaccines

By May 2022, the focus had switched to the first ever global monkeypox outbreak following another one of those prophetic biosecurity simulations held last year that amazingly predicted the exact week in which a monkeypox ‘pandemic’ would take off. Continuing with the never-ending series of strange coincidences, this particular outbreak of monkeypox is the first in which gay and bisexual men are at highest risk of infection. This has prompted a vaccination drive directed at this cohort.

Despite the best efforts of the pandemic industry to get people to lose their minds over monkeypox, it appears there’s only so much plague-iarism the public can take in a given time span. The population’s capacity for virus hysteria, though vast, has been entirely spent on covid for now, leaving a deficit of mass psychotic energy for new-fangled poxes. So, we’ve been given another summer off. The summer breaks are integral to the ebb and flow of the control game. To respond constructively to pain, you must have some respite from it. It will return.

The failure of monkeypox to capture the public’s imagination has caused undisguised consternation for the vaccine pushers. In the manner of a school master reprimanding his prefects, the Pfizer member of the pharma cartel has registered its disappointment with public health authorities’ failure to get the monkeypox ‘pandemic’ off the ground. Illustrating the revolving door corruption that is integral to the incestuous relationship between the pharma cartel and its ‘regulators’, this frustration was expressed by Scott Gottlieb, a former FDA commissioner and now Pfizer board member.

It is not a lack of effort that explains the failure of the pharma cartel’s regulatory enforcers to get monkeypox to deliver the next vault of vax cash. The head goon at the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, demonstrated why he was the WEF’s and Bill Gate’s favourite pick for the job by unilaterally overruling a WHO advisory panel to declare monkeypox a “public health emergency of international concern”. The panel had voted against this by a majority of nine to six. Displaying a creative interpretation of elementary school mathematics, Ghebreyesus called this a tie and claimed that, in overruling of the panel, he was acting as a “tie-breaker”. I wrote about ever changing definitions as a feature of the pandemic industry’s smoke and mirrors goalpost shifting. To this, they have now added the Orwellian bending of simple mathematics. In the darkened corners of Ghebreyesus’ mind, 2 + 2 can indeed sometimes equal 5. 

Some perspective on monkeypox – as of 11th August, there are 26,000 recorded cases worldwide (0.0003 percent of the global population) and a total of 10 deaths, all occurring in Africa, where monkeypox is endemic. Ghebreyesus’ dictatorial overruling of the WHO’s monkeypox advisory panel is proof, if proof were needed, of how the WHO intends to enforce the pandemic industry’s will over the entire planet should it succeed in getting the nations of the world to relinquish their sovereignty to full-blown medical dictatorship under its proposed Pandemic Treaty.

At any rate, virus mania would not be complete without vaccine hysteria and two vaccines have been lined up for use against monkeypox: Jynneos, which is licensed for use against monkeypox, and ACAM2000, which is approved for use against smallpox but has also been made available for use against monkeypox. Both are actually smallpox vaccines developed some 20 years ago and have not been tested in the context of this monkeypox outbreak so there is no clinical data on how they would be expected to fare against the monkeypox currently circulating. And yet oddly they were licenced for use against monkeypox in 2019, two years before this monkeypox outbreak.

Interestingly, HIV-positive subjects who participated in clinical trials for Jynneos actually saw a rise in HIV virus counts. That’s an interesting safety signal. In the case of ACAM2000, for up to 21 days after vaccination, vaccinees are at risk of being infectious carriers of the vaccinia virus, one of the poxvirus family, because this vaccine is administered as live vaccinia virus, which gives rise to an infection at the vaccination site. This can result in spread of the infection to other parts of the vaccinee’s body through touch. It can also result in spread of infection to other people through contact with the infected vaccinee. If you’re wondering at this point whether it makes sense to be vaccinated with ACAM2000, you are not alone.

But wait: there’s more. The ACAM2000 vaccine causes myopericarditis at the rate of 1 per 175 people, which is a 10-12 times greater rate than the 1 in 2000 rate for myocarditis caused by covid vaccines in young men. That’s a stunning claim, so I dipped into the CDC paper to confirm this statistic and, sure enough, there it is: “myopericarditis also occurs with ACAM2000 (estimated rate of 5.7 per 1,000 primary vaccinees based on clinical trial data), but the underlying mechanism is unknown.”

Virus mayhem and the vaccine smorgasbord … and don’t forget polio 

Let’s see if we can synthesise this witch’s brew of viruses and vaccines disguised as science. 

There is an evidence trail suggesting that SARS-COV-2 viral RNA might be more closely related to HIV than other coronaviruses. This might explain why covid jabs are causing some recipients to experience AIDS-like immunodepression or VAIDS (vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). Whatever you do, don’t you dare put on your conspiracy theorist thinking caps and try to link any of that to the simultaneous announcement of policies in the US and the UK at the end of December 2021 to eradicate HIV by 2030. And for heaven’s sake, let’s not be cynical by insisting that the approval of mRNA HIV vaccines currently in clinical trials is a done deal just because covid and monkeypox vaccines were rubberstamped with minimum fuss about due scientific process. I’m sure it’ll be different with HIV vaccines. 

As for monkeypox, thank heavens that can be knocked on the head with smallpox vaccines. Okay, so the smallpox vaccines haven’t been clinically tested for efficacy in this monkeypox outbreak, but the rules of the science and vaccine game have changed. You can’t keep up with viruses if you’re going to insist on testing the vaccines properly against them. You’ve just got to go with the flow and see what works. 

Funny how they’re allowed to go with the flow on vaccines, but ivermectin, which was robustly proven in the field by doctors and in clinical trials, is a no-no.

Sorry, have I mentioned polio yet? No? Well, take a look at this article, which says in one sentence “there have been no cases of polio detected directly in the U.K.” [emphasis added] but, in the very next sentence, it claims there is an “outbreak”. That’s the word it uses. Outbreak. The article claims that “scientists have discovered the outbreak through an indirect route” – sewage. [emphasis added]. One lesson you might draw from this is that there are no lows the pandemic industry will not stoop to, including sewage, to find what it’s looking for.

It also makes you wonder about the meaning of the word “outbreak”. In a previous piece, I looked at how fluidity in the glossary of pandemic terms has become a critical feature of the pandemic industry, giving it generous latitude to interpret events and facts in expedient, if not irrational, ways. Can you have an outbreak with no cases reported? If polio is being, ahem, deposited into the sewage but no one is visiting the doctor with polio symptoms, then do you have a polio outbreak? Sounds like the polio version of: “if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it falling, did it make a sound?” Any takers for asymptomatic polio? The precedent for humans being disease vectors without being sick was set two years ago so maybe people aren’t going to question the outbreak-of-polio-in-the-sewage theory. But I think we should question it. Covid has taught me two lessons about official government narratives and mainstream reporting: believe nothing and question everything.

At any rate, you are now all walking, talking polio threats and the key takeaway at the end of the polio-sewage article is the advice of the expert virologist: “If you’re not up to date on your polio vaccine, now’s the time to go out and get up to date”. Why am I not surprised to see that nudge?

Another question you may be asking about the polio “outbreak” is, why on earth are we even talking about it when the last confirmed case in the UK was in 1984? Fear not – the polio ‘outbreak’ article explains the mysterious return of polio with no cases. The blame – if indeed it is possible to assign blame for something you’re not quite sure has really happened – is being placed squarely at the feet of the covid ‘pandemic’ because it has “disrupted childhood vaccination programs around the world”. Was the UK programme disrupted? I suppose if covid could stop the minds of 90% of the population from working, then it probably had the power to stop childhood vaccinations. At any rate, this seems like a strong argument for not declaring pandemics in the first place since they only lead to knock-on pandemics.

Finally, if I were one of those dreadful depopulation ‘conspiracy theorists’, I’d be wondering how the men in white coats might seek to ramp up the toxicity of already toxic vaccines. Could they just dish them out all at once in a vaccine smorgasbord, with each reacting with the other in exponentially harmful ways? In August in the UK, there was a period of two weeks in which a desperate push for polio, monkeypox and covid booster vaccines was all crammed into the same radio news broadcast. They didn’t mention the HIV vaccine, soon to be added to the list. I will not be at all surprised if a flatulence vaccine comes to market in 2030 to celebrate Zero Emissions Day.

In part II, I’ll discuss the pivot to financial Armageddon and how virus and vaccine mania might dovetail with the financial chains that are being wrought for us.

You can find more of Rusere’s work at 

‘I do not consent’: one nurse’s story of vaccine injury, state abuse and emotional trauma


Sign up to the Looking Glass newsletter here.

The Looking Glass speaks to the brave nurse who recently took to Facebook to tell her story and call out the Government’s brutal vaccine mandates for healthcare workers, that still remain in place.

“I’m being thrown in the gutter like a piece of dirt.” Chloe posted this video to Facebook on 13 June. Watch it here.

Chloe, a dedicated nurse who loved her job, spent Christmas day last year in hospital suffering severe heart problems after her second Pfizer injection. Diagnosed with pericarditis and heart dysrhythmia resulting from the jab, she was denied an exemption for the booster. Instead of putting herself at risk of more harm, she chose to walk away from the career she loved.

Just hours after seeing her last patient, she posted an emotional and heartfelt video to Facebook calling out the mandates, and accusing the Government of throwing her and others like her on the rubbish pile. Chloe’s message struck a chord with Kiwis everywhere and the video spread like wildfire.

Despite being hounded by the mainstream media, who she felt would twist her words and “crucify” her, she chose to retreat and prioritise her own well being. The whole experience has severely tested her, physically, psychologically and emotionally.

Now she’s ready to speak up again, and this is the first interview she has given.

The back story

Chloe has been a nurse for 19 years, and knew she didn’t want to have the jab from the get go, and when the mandates came into force in October she and others in her workplace were proactive about meeting with HR to discuss alternatives like PPE and testing regimes. As we’ve seen repeatedly, however, there was no give in the system and Chloe was stood down for several weeks.

But it wasn’t long before the financial reality of the situation hit her. With three children and mortgage repayments that had recently increased, she began to ‘freak out’ and relented. Under duress, she had her first jab in November.

Nurses were broadly against the mandates and did not agree with what was happening but felt they had no control, she says.

“We are firm believers in informed consent, it’s the basis of nursing and it’s being completely negated. I actually wrote on my consent form ‘I do not consent, I’m doing this to keep my job’. I had my first vaccine absolutely balling my eyes out, so to me that’s not a form of consent to start with.”

After her first injection, Chloe says she was fine. But three weeks later it was time to have her second jab or face losing her job. She had it on 22 December, again crying, again writing on her form ‘I do not consent’.

But this time it was very different. Within 24 hours she knew something was wrong.

“I was woken up at 3am on 23 December with chest heaviness and palpitations. I sort of got up, had a cup of tea and thought ‘it’s all in my head’, and went back to bed. And throughout the day of the 23rd, that [feeling] came on and off – the chest heaviness and palpitations. And then on the 24th I started to get chest pain that was radiating through my left shoulder – and for me, that’s alarm bells. So I went straight to the health centre and they did an ECG.”

Chloe’s consent form on the day she took the jab that resulted in pericarditis and heart dysrhythmia, states ‘I do not consent’.

In the course of her work Chloe says she had routinely seen serious vaccine injury after the Pfizer rollout, and says it was invariably written off as either resulting from anxiety or as a pre-existing condition. In advance of her first jab, she had the presence of mind to get a full medical examination, including an ECG, which clearly showed that she had been healthy prior to the injections.

So when she was rushed to hospital with suspected myocarditis after an ECG at the health centre showed she had ST depression (a change in heart rhythm), there was no equivocating about the fact that the jab had caused her symptoms.

Because it was Christmas Eve, and she was a health professional, they allowed her to self-discharge and she went home to spend Christmas with her family. But the next day, she had gotten worse.

“On the 25th I could barely speak, I couldn’t string a sentence together properly, the chest pain was worse and radiating through the left shoulder, so I went straight back.”

She was then diagnosed with pericarditis and heart dysrhythmia from the jab, and later she was also diagnosed with chronic fatigue. Had she not had the ECG and full medical, she believes she would have been told it was due to a pre-existing condition.

No exemption

Chloe points out that she’s not alone – these injuries are now common, but they are being swept under the carpet and passed off as normal. She was unable to even see a cardiologist until May, because they are so inundated with cases like hers, she says.

Despite returning to work after six weeks to pick up a few shifts, she was still suffering extreme fatigue. So, when the boosters were mandated, she decided to go for an exemption. A long wait ensued for an echocardiogram, and when she finally had it, because there was no visual indication of permanent damage, her application for an exemption was denied.

Chloe says she was deeply traumatised by the decision.

“As a medical professional, when somebody has a risk, an allergy to a medication, you do not give them that medication. I had a serious problem with my heart and they are telling me it’s safe to have [the booster]. It defies all medical reasoning. They declined my exemption and I was terminated.”

She had her last shift in June and was stood down for four weeks, with her official last day being 21 July. Chloe’s viral video was posted after her last shift, when she was feeling particularly emotional. She was not prepared for the attention it received.

“I didn’t think. I didn’t think. I just posted it on my page thinking my friends would see it. It was just so wrong what was happening to so many of us. And I was heartbroken. I had just seen the last patient that I’m going to see in I don’t know how long, and I love my job.”

To make it worse, the video sparked a backlash from some quarters. She was trolled by keyboard warriors, and hounded by media. She was accused of making up her symptoms to get out of the jab, of being a conspiracy theorist and an actress. Someone even asked her why she didn’t “follow the science”.

Not only did she thoroughly research the injection – as she notes, nurses are very good researchers and are taught to be – she personally witnessed horrific side effects and had filled out CARM reports for patients. While this was going on, nurses were being gagged by administrators and were not permitted to say anything other than that the jab was ‘safe and effective’.

She was told that she was not allowed to discuss the mandates, or her personal experience on work property. But she says she never recommended the jab to anyone, instead telling people to research it thoroughly before going ahead, and she refused to inject anybody with it herself.

“It’s just wrong, as a nurse, the things I have seen. Forty-year-olds having heart attacks, 30-year-olds having strokes. I’ve seen pericarditis in children with heart arrhythmias and palpitations, and being told that it is anxiety. It’s wrong, it’s so wrong. And they are not being recognised or listened to. There are so many people suffering from these injuries. I honestly feel that the medical professionals are too scared to do anything, to speak up. I certainly was.”

A vindication

But Chloe says she can hold her head high and face her detractors now, as ACC recently approved her claim for vaccine injury. She is still having to fight to get financial compensation, but her medical records were scrutinised and thanks to her ECG and pre-med, ACC accepts that her injuries were caused by the jab. A “major win”, she says.

Despite this, she has plumbed the depth of depression as a result of her experience and when the mandates were dropped for everyone bar health workers, she says she was a mess.

“Psychologically that hit me hard. Really, really hard. I have never been in such a dark place in my life. So bad that I sought help and was under a psychiatrist’s care.”

A naturally active and sporty person before this experience, she’s now focusing on her kids and her health, and taking each day as it comes. Her heart rate still shoots up with exertion, but she has faith that with time and patience and care she can be 100% again.

And while it’s still a struggle financially, she’s feeling better inside herself and says a weight has lifted now that she can speak her mind – and she’s extremely reticent about ever going back to a full time position.

“I don’t need anybody telling me what to do with my body in order to keep my income. I can’t risk it. I have never experienced anything like it in my life. I didn’t feel like a human being. It was horrendous.”

A new advocacy group for nurses has been formed to get the healthcare mandates dropped.

Nurses for Freedom

Now, months after the mandates were first introduced, she says there is a fire back in her belly and she’s working to help other nurses who want to push back against Government overreach.

Along with a wider group of nurses across the country, under the banner of Nurses for Freedom, they are pushing back to get the mandates for health workers dropped – the only ones still remaining, despite a crisis in healthcare due to worker shortages.

The group is open to nurses who have been mandated out of their jobs, vaccine injured or just those who simply don’t agree with this policy.

Chloe believes the tide is starting to turn and people are beginning to question the basics of the vaccine narrative, which more and more realise are nonsensical.

“We were told that it stopped the spread, it does not stop the spread. We were told it would lessen the symptoms, it does not lessen the symptoms. For me, catching covid was nothing compared to my vaccine injury.“

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: 


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.


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.”


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.”


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 .

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

Photo of woman interviewing sceptic by fizkes from Adobe Stock.


(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

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:
The session will be recorded.

Psst! The dead elephant in the room was vaccinated


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 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 (

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 ( 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, 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.’

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

‘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 

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 

[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 –

[3] Trust WHO documentary, 2017, timestamp 22:30 –

[4] Trust WHO documentary, 2017, timestamp 19:50 –

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

By Rusere Shoniwa

You can find more of Rusere’s work at

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.