Some are abridged and/or edited. Click on the link to see the full article.
[commentary in square brackets]
(1) Watch Australia closely by Alex Berenson
(2)My City Gets In The Act—Taking Away Their Workers’ Rights and Freedoms
by Brian Peckford, Peckford42
(3) The Government Scientific Agency Oxymoron by Robert E. Wright, AIER.org
(4) ‘Waste of Time’ to Keep Vaccinating People: Ex-Head of UK Vaccine Taskforce
by Alexander Zhang, Epoch Times
(5) The Covid Vaccine War by Swiss Policy Research
(6) The Fallout from Supreme Court Ruling Against Biden’s Mandate Has Begun: Major Corporations Suspend Vaccine Requirement by Kyle Becker, Trending Politics
(7) Compulsory vaccination postponed in Austria and Germany due to ‘technical problems’
from Free West Media via Peckford42
(8) et tu Justice Brett Kavanaugh? et tu? SCOTUS decision a catastrophic mess for health care employees . . . will cause doctors and nurses to quit/laid off by Paul Alexander
(9) No One Could Have Known? by Thomas Harrington, Off-Guardian
(10) The Great Social Experiment: China’s Draconian Lockdowns and the Loss of Human Agency
by John Mac Ghlionn, Epoch Times
(11) Pfizer/FDA Corruption, Lethal Batches, and Autopsies Reveal Covid-19 Jab Genocide
by Corey Lynn, CoreysDigs.com
(12) Death from Covid ‘vaccine’ ruled suicide; insurance did not pay the life policy
(13) What Might Have Been: Calm, Protection, and Care
by Jeffrey A. Tucker, Brownstone Institute
(14) The Psychological Cruelty of Denying Natural immunity
by Jeffrey A. Tucker, Brownstone Institute
(15) Poilievre leads Conservative charge against taxing unvaccinated Canadians
by Harley Sim, True North
(16) Justice Centre taking legal action against Quebec for taxing unvaccinated
by Joseph Bielmeier, True North
(17) How We Will Win by Jeff Deist, Mises Institute
(18) They are making an example of Novak Djokovic. Here’s why
by Kit Knightly, Off-Guardian via Peckford42
(19) How did we get here? [on the rise of Leftism and woke ideology] by Tara Henley
(20) The Three Faces of Evil [abridged] by Karen Hunt, Off-Guardian
(21) The Shift and Deflection In The Covid Blame Game Is Underway
by Terry Burton via Peckford42
(22) How Fanatics Took Over the World by Jeffrey A. Tucker, Brownstone Institute
(23) Public Health Establishment’s COVID Flip-Flops Should Immunize Against Its Politicization
by Benjamin Weingarten, Epoch Times
(24) Canada’s Accidental Biosecurity State by Mikko Packalen, Brownstone Institute
(25) Microbial Storms by Eugène Ehren
(26) Quebec’s vaccination tax must be condemned outright by Joanna Baron, The Hub
(27) No, Those Who Pushed Lockdowns Can’t Hide From The Consequences Now
by Joy Pullman, The Federalist
(28) The Last Days of the Covidian Cult by CJ Hopkins, Off-Guardian
(29) Researcher Calls Out Censorship After Journal Tosses Adverse Event Study
by Petr Svab, Epoch Times
(30) Truth, freedom, new beginnings: For the way out of the crisis I am looking for answers to the following question: What to do? by Milosz Matuschek
(31) COVID Shots Make Omicron Worse from Mercola.com
1. “Watch Australia closely” by Alex Berenson
… when Omicron hits a highly vaccinated population with little pre-existing natural immunity, the early returns are not promising
[In other words, a mass vax program inhibits natural immunity, making a population more vulnerable. It’s as though they’re purposely making us vulnerable to disease (and overly dependent on pharmaceuticals)]
… Australia now averages more than 100,000 new Covid cases per day – equal to about 1.5 million in the United States. One fine day last week, it reported 175,000, the equivalent of about 2.5 million, maybe the highest per-capita total any country has ever reported. Not even six months ago, Australia was still chasing zero Covid and patting itself on the back for reducing infection.
[But we now know that this was premature because Covid occurs in waves, which no government policy or drug can stop]
… By the way, Australia is among the world’s most Covid vaccinated counties.
Its policy of open coercion and discrimination against the unvaccinated has “succeeded” – more than 95 percent of Australians 16 and over have received at least one vaccine dose, and 93 percent two doses. Those figures effectively represent full vaccination – many of the people left are probably simply too frail to tolerate Covid vaccines . . .
At this point two facts about Omicron are near-certain:
1: Vaccinated people are at HIGHER risk of being infected with Omicron than the unvaccinated (and whatever protection boosters offer does not last). In Scotland, another highly vaccinated country, vaccinated people are more than twice as likely to be infected as the unvaccinated – and people who have received a booster are 30 percent more likely. SOURCE
2: Omicron is less dangerous than earlier variants. But how much less dangerous is not entirely clear, because infections have risen so fast that hospitalizations and deaths are still catching up . . .
[the mRNA injections] substantially increase the risk of infection.
.. vaccinated people made up the vast majority of deaths from the Delta variant in the United Kingdom SOURCE
2. My City Gets In The Act—Taking Away Their Workers’ Rights and Freedoms
by Brian Peckford, Peckford42
[open letter to] Mayor and Council, City of Parksville, B.C.
I oppose your mandatory policy of requiring all your employees to be vaccinated in order to hold their jobs. This violates The Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Constitution Act of 1982 that I helped craft.
What you are doing violates Section 6 (2)(b) 6 (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada . . .
Additionally , you are violating Section 7–‘ every citizen has a right to ‘life , liberty and security of the person’ and Section 15–the right ‘ to equality before the law. ‘
No doubt you have been told by your lawyers and/or Provincial Government lawyers that this is all proper and within the Charter. They are wrong. It is likely that The Province has advised you that you are protected because of Section 1 of the Charter. You are not.
Section 1 is meant to be used when the state is in peril, war, insurrection. A virus with a 99% recovery rate and a fatality rate of 0.08% hardly qualifies as a peril to the state.
3. The Government Scientific Agency Oxymoron by Robert E. Wright, AIER.org
[This is an argument for “restructuring incentives” in scientific funding so as to avoid a repeat of the disaster that befell science and humanity over the last two years, whereby pharma companies working with government agencies co-opted science for their own narrow financial and political agendas at the expense of the rest of us]
“As the number of laboratories grows, the number of individuals handling dangerous biological agents grows as well, as does the potential for accidents. Unchecked expansion of laboratories with little federal oversight is a recipe for disaster,” contended Edward Hammond of the Sunshine Project, a now defunct nongovernmental watch-dog organization. He warned Congress that “the most likely source of a bio-terrorist event in the US is a US bio-defense lab.”
Or a Chinese one. While it might have made sense to outsource a dangerous chemical laboratory to another country, outsourcing viral gain-of-function research was remarkably irresponsible . . .
Many erred was in the belief that the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and other government scientific grant agencies are primarily interested in furthering science . . . Many biomedical scientists depend on Big Pharma and/or the federal trough for funding, and hence ultimately their jobs. They were rightly afraid to speak . . .
The United States must rethink how it funds scientific research. America might be best off if all government funding was phased out over a few years but barring that, a more decentralized, merit-based, or even randomized grant decision-making system needs to be implemented. And there can be no secret contracts between big corporations and government agencies in a democracy worthy of the word, especially when it relates to a substance the government is trying to force into everybody’s bodies.
4. ‘Waste of Time’ to Keep Vaccinating People: Ex-Head of UK Vaccine Taskforce
by Alexander Zhang, Epoch Times
It is a “waste of time” to keep vaccinating people against the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, the former chairman of Britain’s Vaccines Taskforce has said. Dr. Clive Dix, who played a key role in helping pharmaceutical firms create the COVID-19 vaccines, told LBC radio on Jan. 16:
“The Omicron variant is a relatively mild virus. And to just keep vaccinating people and thinking of doing it again to protect the population is, in my view, now a waste of time.”
Dix said the focus now should be on protecting vulnerable people, such as those over 60, 2 percent of whom remain unvaccinated. “We should have a highly-focused approach to get those people vaccinated and anybody else who’s vulnerable,” he said.
Dix said, “I think the thinking of the time was very much to stop infection and transmission where clearly these vaccines don’t do that” . . . Dix told The Observer newspaper last week that mass vaccination against COVID-19 should come to an end and the UK should focus on managing it as an endemic disease like flu . . . The UK government’s medical advisers have already acknowledged that it is “untenable” to jab the population every three or six months.
[NB – We should read between the lines here. After the drug companies pulled back, now public health officials get the message that giving boosters is a bad idea: it would kill a lot of people, so now after two years of nearly destroying the world the government health officials are backing down partially . . .
It should always have been voluntary, not mandatory and should never have been authorized for use for people who didn’t need it, ie. young people. The health officials are guilty of malpractice in a massive scale so they’re just trying to save face now.]
5. The Covid Vaccine War by Swiss Policy Research
New developments concerning “vaccine passports”, vaccine mandates, and protests against them – an updated international overview.
Back in March 2020 . . . Bill Gates, announced that the coronavirus pandemic “can only be ended” by “vaccinating almost the entire world” and by “introducing digital immunity certificates” . . .
All of Bill Gates’ predictions and recommendations turned out to be wrong (and highly destructive), but it is obvious that national governments continue to follow and enforce this strategy regardless . . .
In the meantime, it has become broadly accepted that the novel coronavirus was almost certainly engineered as part of US-Chinese dual-use virological research, a scenario that is consistent with either an accidental lab leak (in Wuhan or the US) or a deliberate release (similar to the 2001 anthrax letters, already linked to covid). The estimated global pandemic mortality currently stands at close to 20 million people, affecting primarily the elderly and people with metabolic preconditions.
China has now become the only country in the world to still pursue a “zero covid” policy. It does so at an enormous cost, shutting down entire mega cities upon first confirmed infections, transporting tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of citizens into make-shift quarantine camps, and running a large-scale, all-encompassing QR code population control system. At this point, it looks like “admitting defeat” in the battle against the virus could be a bigger threat to the Chinese government than the virus itself (especially since the emergence of omicron). It is not really clear what the Chinese endgame is, but the impact on global trade could be very significant.
The Russian parliament is in the process of passing a federal law implementing a national QR code “vaccination certificate” system, but has repeatedly postponed adoption of the law due to “strong public opposition” and “new challenges” posed by omicron. After India, Russia has become the second country in the world to reach a total pandemic excess mortality of 1 million deaths (an excess of about 30% compared to normal two-year mortality and about 0.7% of the total population; the median age of death is about 73 years, i.e. close to life expectancy). The total Russian infection rate is probably close to 80% by now.
Sweden has shown that, for most countries, a patient-focused, no-lockdown approach to the pandemic has been best; Sweden has experienced an excess mortality of about 12%, which is similar to or lower than in demographically comparable countries, such as Germany (10%), Switzerland (16%), Austria (19%) and the Netherlands (19%). Nevertheless, the Swedish government has also used the pandemic to grant itself far-reaching “emergency powers” and, against all epidemiological evidence, it has recently started to mandate “vaccine passes” for several public venues and events, excluding both recovered and tested people.
In Israel, criticism of national vaccination and booster mandates is increasingly being depicted as a “national security offense” by both the government and parts of the media (see this thread by an Israeli lawyer and leading civil rights activist). On the other hand, senior medical figures have begun to publicly ask the government to halt its repressive policies. For instance, the director of the largest Israeli hospital told the government to stop its “insane test and quarantine policy”, as omicron no longer posed a major challenge to hospitals. An open letter by Tel Aviv University professor Ehud Qimron, sharply criticizing unscientific and inhumane pandemic policies, has already been read by more than 5 million people in 16 languages.
[the article continues through a list of nations, including the United States, Great Britain, EU, Austria, Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, Spain, and Australia]
. . . Coronavirus as a “terror threat”? Obviously, none of the policies described above have any medical or epidemiological justification whatsoever. Instead, the coronavirus might be seen as a kind of invisible but omnipresent “terror threat”, similar to earlier supposed “terror threats”, that “requires” persistent government action and control to “protect the population”. Pandemic strategist Bill Gates already warned of future “smallpox terror attacks” and called for the creation of a “billion-dollar pandemic tasks force”.
Protests against vaccination mandates and passports
Numerous countries are seeing some of the largest protests in decades against vaccination mandates and vaccination passports. In Germany, for instance, there are currently more than 1,000 weekly protests with a total of about 300,000 to 500,000 participants. In Bulgaria, protestors recently tried to storm the parliament – for real, unlike the FBI-run January 6 “Storming of the US Capitol”.
How the CDC fooled the world
Throughout the pandemic, the CDC published numerous false and misleading studies that bolstered national and international political goals and guided social media censorship. Three recent examples illustrate the issue . . .
In conclusion, pandemic guidance by the U.S. CDC, as well as media reporting and social media censorship relying on it, have often turned out to be misleading and unjustified. To evade political misinformation campaigns, citizens should always double-check official claims.
6. The Fallout from Supreme Court Ruling Against Biden’s Mandate Has Begun: Major Corporations Suspend Vaccine Requirement by Kyle Becker, Trending Politics
The Supreme Court’s ruling against the Biden vaccine mandate for large employers was not only a devastating blow to the administration, but it did major damage to the media’s narrative about Covid vaccines.
The White House on Thursday pivoted to dismiss the Supreme Court ruling as the end of the vaccine mandate and continued to urge major companies to further the administration’s corporatist policies.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the OSHA mandate essentially means that in this pandemic it is up to individual employers to determine whether their workplaces will be safe for employees,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki claimed. “And whether their business will be safe for consumers.”
“So, President Biden, you will see this in his statement, will be calling on and will continue to call on businesses to immediately join those that have already stepped up, including one-third of Fortune 500 companies,” she continued.
“To institute vaccination requirements to protect their workers, protect their customers and communities.”
7. Compulsory vaccination postponed in Austria and Germany due to ‘technical problems’ from Free West Media via Peckford42
In February and March, respectively, both Germany and Austria would have introduced compulsory vaccination against Covid-19, something that has met with massive protests.
[I believe Austria has now signaled they are going ahead with it in February]
In step with the growing resistance among the populations in both countries, signals from leading politicians are now coming that what is called the “vaccination obligation” will not be introduced in February and March.
Technical problems and unsustainable time planning are said to be reasons for the coercive measures being postponed.
In mid-November, the Austrian government, made up of the conservative ÖVP party and the Greens, announced the introduction of a so-called “vaccination obligation” for all residents of the country to reduce, according to the government, the spread of Covid-19. This sent minor shock waves through Europe.
Most then understood that the introduction of compulsory vaccination and repressive measures against those who did not obey would be the definitive evidence that the Corona pandemic was being used as a pretext to establish a dystopian control and a police state.
The Compulsory Vaccination Act [is a] highly repressive tools to make citizens obedient to the Austrian state . . . Those who refused to be vaccinated would have faced stiff fines, while non-payers faced prison . . .
Popular protests are growing in strength . . . hundreds of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets at the risk of their own safety to show their opposition to the increasingly totalitarian state which is Austria.
8. et tu Justice Brett Kavanaugh? et tu? SCOTUS decision a catastrophic mess for health care employees . . . will cause doctors and nurses to quit/laid off by Paul Alexander
. . . This ruling makes no sense; why not allow for daily testing? what about COVID-recovered status? Nurses have natural immunity developed over the last 2 years; natural immunity is superior to vax . . . Who gets the Jackass award this week? This 5:4 decision is … a disaster … What is it that these idiots don’t get about natural immunity and that nurses or doctors who have recovered from COVID are naturally … Why can’t these nurses exercise their natural immunity?
[The naturally immnune] are actually safer to care for your loved ones than a vaccinated nurse [without natural immunity].
We have potent research in Ho Chi Minh city Vietnam, Israel, and Finland showing that double vaccinated nurses get infected, harbor massive viral loads, evidence low cycle count thresholds of the PCR test, and can potentially transmit virus to others including patients, and even when wearing PPE and masks…
Chau et al. looked at transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant among vaccinated healthcare workers in Vietnams. Of 69 healthcare workers that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 62 participated in the clinical study, all of whom recovered. For 23 of them, complete-genome sequences were obtained, and all belonged to the Delta variant. “Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020”.
Reporting on a nosocomial hospital outbreak in Finland, Hetemäki et al. observed that “both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections were found among vaccinated health care workers, and secondary transmission occurred from those with symptomatic infections despite use of personal protective equipment.”
In a hospital outbreak investigation in Israel, Shitrit et al. observed “high transmissibility of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant among twice vaccinated and masked individuals.” They added that “this suggests some waning of immunity, albeit still providing protection for individuals without comorbidities.”
. . . COVID infected nurses can stay at work and they can infect staff and patients, while naturally immune nurses who do not want a vaccine, can be laid off even though he or she is safer in terms of spreading virus?
9. No One Could Have Known? by Thomas Harrington, Off-Guardian
[This is an excellent article. He goes through the damage caused by lockdowns and mandates, then argues that those who promoted medical tyranny and now claimed they didn’t know are disingenuous. There was plenty of opportunity to learn the truth over the last two years. Even now there are still millions of people in denial about what’s happened and continuing on the destructive path — including in Canada.]
Events in recent days seem to suggest that the managers of the Covid narrative are attempting to effect a back-door climbdown of numerous of its longstanding articles of faith.
They are suddenly admitting that the PCR tests were deeply flawed and that huge numbers of the Covid hospitalized were admitted primarily for reasons other than the virus, from which we can deduce that many died often or even mostly because of other maladies.
They are handing out directives that say that diagnoses for Covid should be derived (who knew!) primarily from symptomology and not from testing. They also are now admitting that we are suffering a massive mental health crisis, especially among our young.
They are even—albeit in a weaselly way—admitting the reality of natural immunity when, as is happening in many places, they welcome the previously-infected to come back to work in hospitals and home care facilities with few questions asked shortly after their bouts of illness.
Just what they expect to gain from this is not clear. If I had to guess, I’d say they are banking, in their typical arrogant fashion, on the fact that most people lack any functioning sense of social memory.
[Those who now backtrack are responsible for] causing economic devastation and hence excess deaths, suicides, divorces depressions in much larger numbers than those killed by the virus [and] providing an already monopolistic and predatory online retailing establishment with competitive advantages in terms of capital reserves and market share that will make it virtually impossible at any time in the near or medium future for the country’s and the world’s small and even medium-sized businesses to ever catch up to them.
This will plunge huge sectors of the world-wide economy into serf-like ruin, with all that this portends in terms of additional death and human suffering.
[They also] causing increased misery and countless additional deaths in the so-called Global South where many people, rightly or wrongly, depend on the consumption patterns of us relatively fortunate sit-at-homers to make it through the week.
[They] destroyed much of what was attractive about urban life as we know it and lead to a real estate collapse of extraordinary proportions, turning even our few remaining showplace cities into crime-ridden reserves of ever more desperate people.
[They] forced state and local governments, already struggling before the crisis, and unable to print at money at will like the Feds, to cut their already insufficient budgets at a time when their broke and stressed constituents need those services more than ever.
[They] push “smart” monitoring of our lives, already intolerable for anyone still clinging to memories of freedom in the pre-September 11th world, to the point where most people will no longer understand what people used to know as privacy, intimacy or the simple dignity of being left alone.
[They] trained of a generation of children to be fearful and distrustful of others from day one, and to view bending to diktats “to keep them safe”, (no matter how empirically dubious the actual threat to them might be), rather than the courageous pursuit of joy and human fullness, as the key goal in life.
They know … that by the time the few conscientious researchers out there get around looking past the hype to debunk their initial storylines, the structures favorable to them put into place on the basis of the false narrative will have been normalized, and thus be in no danger of being dismantled.
… Sweden and other countries developed much more proportionate, culture-saving and dignity-saving ways to live safely and much more fully with the virus.
… Fauci has a well-documented tendency to see every health problem as being amenable to expensive pharmaceutical solutions (some might even call it corruption), even when other less intrusive, less expensive, and equally effective therapies are available.
… decisions to get on with life [during past pandemics] were not the result of a lack of scientific knowledge or lesser concern for the value of life, but rather a keener understanding in the more historically-minded heads of that time that risk is always part of life and that aggressive attempts to eliminate this most ubiquitous human reality can often lead to severe unwanted consequences.
That there were many prestigious scientists, including Nobel prize winners, who told us as early as March that this virus, while new, would in greater or lesser measure behave much like all viruses before it and fade away. And, therefore, the best way to deal with it was to let it run its course while protecting the most vulnerable people in society and letting everyone else live their lives.
[but there was already a desire among globalists to change the world and this was their opportunity and they took it]
That significant information platforms banned or sidelined the views of these high-prestige scientists, while aggressively circulating the words of jokers like Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, whose stupid and alarmist predictions of COVID mortality (the latest in a career full of stupid and alarmist, but not coincidentally, pharmaceutical-industry-friendly predictions), gave politicians the pretext for setting in motion perhaps the most aggressive experiment in social engineering in the history of the world.
. . . Repeat after me, “no one could have possibly known these things” and then check your screen to see, as citizens of Oceania, whether you are supposed to be worried this week about the threat from Eurasia or Eastasia. [a reference to Orwell’s 1984]
10. The Great Social Experiment: China’s Draconian Lockdowns and the Loss of Human Agency by John Mac Ghlionn, Epoch Times
Do lockdowns actually work? The answer appears to be a rather resounding no. The argument in favor of lockdowns—both from a scientific and medical standpoint—carries very little weight.
Not only are lockdowns ineffective, they are unnecessarily cruel. This cruelty comes in many forms: economically, psychologically, spiritually, and existentially. Human beings are social creatures. We are not designed to cut ourselves off from society. Extended hibernation is necessary for many animals, but it’s detrimental to human beings.
The cure, as they say, should never be worse than the disease. Lockdowns, especially mass lockdowns, pose a far graver threat to society than Omicron, a variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. But try telling this to the tyrants in Beijing.
In Xi’an, a large city and capital of Shaanxi Province in central China, millions of people now find themselves placed in restrictive lockdowns. The city, once called Chang’an or “Eternal Peace,” has become an Eternal Prison.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), according to reports, has reportedly set up “brutal, eerie-looking quarantine camps” throughout the city, just weeks before the country hosts the Winter Olympics.
Why has the CCP locked down the city? All in the hope of achieving “zero COVID.” China is now the last major country to pursue this rather ridiculous goal. I say ridiculous because the idea of “zero COVID” is just not realistic. We must learn to live with the disease . . .
Human beings cannot live in a perpetual state of fear. Just like the common cold, COVID-19, it seems, is here to stay. Governments must learn to adapt. People need to move on with their lives. Again, though, try telling this to the tyrants in Beijing, who appear to be doubling down on the most misguided of “zero COVID” strategies.
Of course, many Westerners, especially in the United States, will read this and say, “So what if China, our biggest rival, self-destructs.” However, as China becomes more isolated, it becomes more dangerous. The idea of a globalized China, I’m sure, fails to fill many readers with a sense of joy. But an isolated China would be much more dangerous . . .
In the aforementioned Xi’an, as the journalist Nicole Hao recently noted, Chinese authorities sealed residents’ homes, “but didn’t arrange for a reliable food supply.” These people, locked down for roughly three weeks, are “lacking in food and are on the edge of mental breakdown.”
There’s a perverse, social experiment being carried out in Xi’an, and innocent people are losing their minds. Some, sadly, will lose their lives. Some wonder if Hell is a real place—it is. Millions of people already live in it, and many of these people are situated in China.
. . . the people of Xi’an are literal prisoners, quite literally sealed off from society. When will they be freed? A week from now, a month, a year? Sadly, we don’t know.
11. Pfizer/FDA Corruption, Lethal Batches, and Autopsies Reveal Covid-19 Jab Genocide by Corey Lynn, CoreysDigs.com
Not only were Pfizer’s trials a fraud, but the FDA knowingly approved it, putting millions of people at high risk.
This report will show how autopsies reveal that the Covid-19 jabs are in fact killing otherwise healthy people, how there were intentional lethal batches released, and provide an incredible tool showing Pfizer trial fraud and the FDA’s negligence, so that people are armed with some of the most critical data to date in order to fight against this tyranny.
• Former Pfizer Chief Scientist Dr. Mike Yeadon confirmed that 90% of vaccine side effects came from less than 10% of the batch lots, which is documented and calculated directly from CDC’s VAERS, and means the batches do not contain the same ingredients. This shows solid evidence of foul play that was done intentionally, and is the biggest smoking gun to date.
• Death by Covid jab is not being tracked through to medical examiners. The deaths aren’t even being questioned or documented as Covid-jab-related. One U.S medical examiner took the time to trace 3 deaths between the ages of mid-30s to mid-50s that died from the Covid jab, and the autopsies verify this.
• Top German pathologist Dr. Arne Burkhardt’s autopsy research shows clear evidence that all gene-based vaccines, independent of manufacturers, produced the same result in the vaccines. In the organs of these people, in 90% he found autoimmune self attack by killer lymphocytes on the tissues. The main ones being the heart, the lung, then other tissues such as liver, etc. Dr. Bhakdi confirms these vaccines are killing the young and the old.
• In one central U.S. state, all-cause deaths didn’t fluctuate between 2015-2019. In 2020, it increased by 15%, and AFTER over 62% of Americans received the jab in 2021, the total deaths jumped a whopping 12% over and beyond 2020s 15% increase.
• Pfizer has paid out over $10 billion in fines for false claims, bribing doctors, manipulating studies, as well as deaths due to their drugs – and their Covid-19 trials were a complete fraud. The Canadian Covid Care Alliance put together a brilliant video presentation breaking this all down and provides an illustrative pdf as a tool.
• The claim by Pfizer was that the inoculations were safe and showed 95% efficacy 7 days after the 2nd dose. But that 95% was actually Relative Risk Reduction. Absolute Risk Reduction was only 0.84%.
• A Federal judge refused the FDA’s request to keep Pfizer documents from the public. Instead of the 75 years the FDA requested to produce all documents submitted by Pfizer to receive the Covid-19 jab approval, the judge ordered 55,000 pages be released each month, which should be completed within 9 months.
• The CDC Director admits that 75% of all Covid-related deaths have at least 4 comorbidities, and that the jab does not prevent transmission.
• According to CDC’s VAERS reporting system, In under one year, more people have died from the Covid jab than all other vaccines put together, for all time, and they still haven’t shut it down.
Autopsies Reveal Covid Jab Deaths Despite Attempts to Suppress
I spoke with a medical examiner who I’ve been communicating with for two years, to get a sense of what they are seeing during autopsies, as well as how tracking of deaths from the Covid jab are being handled, and how death certificates are being recorded. It was quite an informative discussion, and included much of what I have suspected.
There is a major flaw in the system. It is not set up to catch “vaccine” injury, for several reasons:
1) In many cases, jurisdiction has to essentially be waved by the medical examiner in the case of hospice and nursing homes, which means the medical examiner never gets to see the medical records, but still have to sign the death certificates.
2) There are investigators in the medical examiners office that contact the facilities where the death took place, and simply get a short narrative about the descendant’s past medical diagnoses from whomever answers the phone, and these investigators don’t dare ask about the “vaccine.” If a patient had Covid at the time of death, that will be added, but there is never any mention of complications after receiving the jab. So when the documents are passed on to the medical examiner to sign, they have no way of knowing if the person had been vaccinated.
3) In cases of deaths outside of nursing homes and hospice, such as from hospitals or residences, many families don’t even think to mention that their loved one recently received the jab because they believe it to be safe, so once again, when the documents reach the medical examiner, they would have to physically call the family with follow up questions and ask that specific question.
Quite frankly, none of this surprises me. I recently communicated with an individual whose job included the responsibility of logging adverse event reports for a large hospital network. However, any death-related cases were held by the higher-ups, and only adverse events were handed down to be entered. I imagine that is likely the process at most networks. But that all came to a halt when this person was told in early November to no longer enter the data, and without explanation. How many other hospitals and networks were given the same instructions, and are the deaths even being reported?
12. Death from Covid ‘vaccine’ ruled suicide; insurance did not pay the life policy from Peckford42
A wealthy elderly man [in France] with a high value Life Insurance policy to the amount of millions of euros… dies from the covid jab. His death as a consequence of being jabbed is not disputed by the doctors, nor his life insurers.
The Insurance company refused to pay the policy, citing that the taking of experimental drugs, treatments, etc., is excluded from the policy. The family takes the insurance company to court and they have just lost the case.
The judge stated, “the experimental vaccine side effects are publicised and the deceased could not claim not to have known about them when he voluntarily took the jab.
There is no law or mandate in France which forced him to be jabbed. Therefore, his death is essentially suicide.” Suicide is explicitly excluded from this particular policy and in fact from all life insurance policies in general.
This has been the finding of a major western world court system and there is zero doubt that insurance companies world wide will cite this case as legal fact.
Therefore, if anyone ever challenges you on whether these jabs are experimental or not, and that neither the pharma companies, nor govts, nor anyone else but YOU are responsible for accepting them and if you die, legally you have committed suicide. No insurance, no payouts, no refunds. You are on your own!
13. What Might Have Been: Calm, Protection, and Care by Jeffrey A. Tucker, Brownstone Institute
We’ll be putting together the timeline of this disaster for many years to come. It all comes down to those fatal days between January and March 2020, from the news out of China, to the lockdowns in Northern Italy, to the lockdowns in the US.
The documented and admitted record is clear and this is the source of scandal, in my view. Top public health officials in the US, UK, and Australia spent the good part of six weeks obsessing over whether the virus was a lab leak, accidental or deliberate, and therefore what the political spin should be if it turned out to be true.
Something certainly happened to change the script in the last week of February. On February 25, 2020, Anthony Fauci wisely told CBS News the following: “You cannot avoid having infections since you cannot shut off the country from the rest of the world… Do not let the fear of the unknown…distort your evaluation of the risk of the pandemic to you relative to the risks that you face every day…do not yield to unreasonable fear.”
The next day, something shifted. Fauci wrote an email to the actress Morgan Fairchild that read as follows:
“Thanks for the note and the offer to help. It would be great if you could tweet to your many Twitter followers that although the current risk of coronavirus to the American public is low, the fact that there is community spread of virus in a number of countries besides China…poses a risk that we may progress to a global pandemic of COVID-19… And so for that reason, the American public should not be frightened, but should be prepared to mitigate an outbreak in this country by measures that include social distancing, teleworking, temporary closure of schools, etc. There is nothing to be done right now since there are so few cases in this country [NB: no way he could know this] and these cases are being properly isolated, and so go about your daily business. However, be aware that behavioral adjustments may need to be made if a pandemic occurs.”
Suddenly, lockdowns were on the table. And we know what happened next. Fauci and Dr. Birx worked over the coming weeks to warm Trump up to the idea, culminating in the March 16, 2020, press conference that announced lockdowns to the nation.
Two weeks earlier, from March 3, 2020, at least, we had very good reports of the evidence out of China concerning the risk profiles of people who were vulnerable to the virus.
The new coronavirus is not an equal-opportunity killer: Being elderly and having other illnesses, for instance, greatly increases the risk of dying from the disease the virus causes, Covid-19. It’s also possible being male could put you at increased risk.
For both medical and public health reasons, researchers want to figure out who’s most at risk of being infected and who’s most at risk of developing severe or even lethal illness. With that kind of information, clinicians would know whom to treat more aggressively, government officials would have a better idea of steps to take, and everyone would know whether they need to take special, additional precautions….
Elderly patients “were more likely to develop ARDS,” the researchers wrote, suggesting how age can make Covid-19 more severe and even fatal: age increases the risk that the respiratory system will basically shut down under viral assault.
Youth, in contrast, seems to be protective. The WHO mission reported a relatively low incidence in people under 18, who made up only 2.4% of all reported cases. In fact, through mid-January, zero children in Wuhan, the epicenter of the outbreak, had contracted Covid-19. It’s not clear whether that’s because children do not show signs of illness even if infected.
Even cases among children and teens aged 10 to 19 are rare. As of Feb. 11 there were 549 cases in that age group, 1.2% of the total, China CDC found. Only one had died….
Co-morbidities also raise the risk of dying from Covid-19. China CDC’s analysis of 44,672 patients found that the fatality rate in patients who reported no other health conditions was 0.9%. It was 10.5% for those with cardiovascular disease, 7.3% for those with diabetes, 6.3% for people with chronic respiratory diseases such as COPD, 6.0% for people with hypertension, and 5.6% for those with cancer.
Again, this article ran on March 3, 2020. Everyone on planet Earth knew this two weeks before the lockdowns. So far as I know, the data has not changed that much since then. We knew that elderly people with health problems were the vulnerable population. We knew for sure that young people were not. We also knew that adults would struggle with this virus and would need care.
It’s not too much of a stretch, and nor does it take a great deal of topical specialization, to imagine the outlines of a good public health response. Inform the public of what is coming or what is already here. Alert vulnerable populations to stay away from environments where infection is likely to occur. Calm down young people and keep their lives functioning as normal. Get to work examining the best possible therapeutics for dealing with the sick, among which would surely include repurposed drugs that have had success in the past in dealing with such infections.
Otherwise, we could have done exactly what Fauci said we should do on February 25: “Do not let the fear of the unknown…distort your evaluation of the risk of the pandemic to you relative to the risks that you face every day…do not yield to unreasonable fear.”
Protect the old. Let the young live their lives. Research on the best means of treatment. Minimizing fatalities on the road to endemicity. In other words, the Great Barrington Declaration.
It’s not rocket science. Nor is it the clarity that only hindsight provides. This kind of response is precisely what prevailing information would have dictated to anyone.
Instead, all hell broke loose with wild and experimental lockdowns that seemed designed for the whole population to avoid the virus – well, not the whole population but the professional Zoom class in particular while “essential workers” exposed themselves to the disease. Other outrages included especially exposing elderly people rather than protecting them. Schools were closed. The medical system locked down. In other words, the policy response was the opposite of what public health would have recommended.
As a result, the public was at a loss as to the real risks. Elderly people underestimated their risk while younger people overestimated it, and by huge amounts. Young people even today are surprised by their mild symptoms while people in their 50s are older are stunned to find themselves under the weather for weeks at a time. After two years when finally the Zoom class is meeting the virus, they are rather amazed to discover its symptoms and treatments. That’s just remarkable, and a reflection of how the policy response never accounted for the disparity of risk but rather pursued a population-wide strategy that protected no one except the professional class for as long as possible.
Why did this happen? Why did Farrar, Fauci, Collins, Birx, and the whole rest of the gang that had been living on burner phones and holding secret meetings for a full month not openly explain to the public the risks and what to do about them? Why did they choose instead a policy of lockdowns, panic, and disorientation that resulted in astonishing economic, social, cultural, and political carnage?
We’ll be asking these questions for a very long time. But it is impossible not to imagine the counterfactuals. Early on, I got to work researching the responses to previous pandemics: 1968-69 and 1957-58, for example. The response was very clear. Keep calm. See your doctor if you are sick. Avoid the pathogen if you are vulnerable. And keep society functioning while we meet the virus as we always have: upgraded immune systems to take account of the newest threat. Yes, vaccines can be part of that if the pathogen is stable enough to be so treated.
For reasons we do not yet understand, this old wisdom and clarity that worked time after time in the past was tossed out and replaced with a new fangled scheme to lock down everything and shatter social functioning. We knew with certainty now that none of this was necessary because we had access to very clear and accurate reports on the demographics of risk. Nor did it work, by whatever metric you want to measure what it means to work. Nearly two years later, we have record cases, massive social division and anger, plus vast amounts of death, much of which might never have occurred had we taken a different approach.
Figuring out why sound public-health practice was rejected in favor of lockdowns is the job of writers and researchers for many years to come. But this much we know already. We had the information we needed to rationally address this threat. We had the experience and knowledge we needed to approach this responsibly and scientifically. A very small group of people on both sides of the Atlantic chose a different path.
14. The Psychological Cruelty of Denying Natural immunity
by Jeffrey A. Tucker, Brownstone Institute
Every sick child, and probably every adult at some point, asks that existential question: why am I suffering?
No answer is satisfying. To be sick is to feel vulnerable, weak, not in control, not in the game . . . For children, it is a scary experience. For adults too, when it lasts long enough.
From the depths of the suffering, people naturally look for a source of hope. When is recovery? And what can I expect once that happens? Where is the meaning and the purpose behind the ordeal?
For a conventional respiratory virus, and for many other pathogens, generations have known that there is a silver lining to the suffering. Your immune system has undergone a training exercise. It is encoding new information. That is information your body can use to be healthier in the future. It is now prepared to fight off a similar pathogen in the future.
From the depths of suffering, this realization provides that much-needed source of hope. You can look forward to a better, healthier life on the other side. You will now confront the world with a shield. That dangerous dance with pathogens has been won for at least this particular virus. You can enjoy a stronger and healthier you in the future.
For generations, people understood this. Particularly in the 20th century, when knowledge of natural immunity became more sophisticated, along with the documentation of herd immunity, this became culturally entrenched.
Nothing made the point more prescient than my bout with chicken pox . . . this is a normal sickness that I absolutely needed to get as a young person. I could then get a lifetime of immunity . . . It was my introduction to the reality of natural immunity. I learned not only about this one sickness but all kinds of viruses . . .
From the beginning of the current pathogenic crisis, this piece has been missing. Covid has been treated as a pathogen to avoid at all costs – personal and social. No price was too high to pay to purchase avoidance. The worst possible fate would be to confront the virus. We must not live life normally, we were told. We must reorganize everything around slogans: slow the spread, flatten the curve, socially distance, mask up, regard everyone and everything as a carrier.
After two years, this is still the case in many parts of the country. Public health authorities have not recognized, must less explained natural immunity. Instead our source of hope has been the vaccine, which the authorities said would turn you into a dead end for the virus. That seemed like hope for many. Then it turned out not to be true. Hopes have been dashed and we were plunged right back where we were before.
. . . It ends, as the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration said, with the arrival of population immunity. In this sense, it is like every pandemic that has come before. They swept through the population and those who recover have lasting immunity to the pathogen and probably others in the same family. This happens with or without a vaccine. It is this upgrade of the immune system that provides the way out.
. . . when you have the leading voices in public health seeming to go out of their way to pretend that natural immunity does not exist, you are going to throttle that knowledge in the general population. The immunity passports do not recognize it. The people who are fired despite having demonstrated robust immunities know this all-too-well.
Of all the scandals and outrages of the last two years – the incredible failings of public officials and the silence of so many people who should have known better – the strange silence on acquired immunity is among the worst. It has a medical cost but also a huge cultural and psychological one.
This is not just an arcane matter of science. It is a main means by which the population can see the other side of the pandemic. For all the fear, suffering, and death, there is still hope on the other side, and we can know this because of our awareness of how the immune system works.
Take that away and you take away the possibility of the human mind to imagine a bright future. You promote despair. You create a permanent state of fear. You rob people of optimism. You create dependency and promote sadness.
No one can live this way. And we do not have to . . . The people who denied us this knowledge, this confidence, have engaged in a cruel game with human psychology. What makes it worse is that they knew better. Fauci, Walensky, Birx, and all the rest, have the training and the knowledge. They are not unaware . . .
Why have they done this to us? To sell vaccines? To elicit compliance? To reduce us all to fearful subjects who are easier to control? I’m not sure we know the answers. It’s possible that natural immunity came to be seen by these technocrats as too primitive, too rudimentary, insufficiently technocratic, to be allowed as part of the conversation.
Regardless, it is a scandal and a tragedy with an enormous human cost. It will be generations before we see a full recovery.
That recovery can begin at least with awareness. You can examine all the studies and see for yourself how this goes. We are now up to 141 studies that demonstrate robust immunities after recovery, a much better form of immunity than can be induced from these vaccines. We should be happy for the studies but they should not have been necessary. We should have known based on prevailing science for these sorts of pathogens . . .
15. Poilievre leads Conservative charge against taxing unvaccinated Canadians
by Harley Sim, True North
Some prominent Conservative Members of Parliament are finally denouncing Quebec’s move to force people to take the COVID-19 shots under threat of “significant” financial penalties, with leader Erin O’Toole still ambivalent.
“This government overreach is the direct result of Trudeau’s hateful demagoguery, targeting a minority to divide and distract from his own failures,” Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre said in a tweet on Thursday.
Poilievre referenced a video clip that had resurfaced of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau demonizing Canadians who haven’t taken the COVID shots as “misogynists and racists.” Trudeau’s comments have been condemned internationally.
Poilievre is the most prominent Conservative MP to stand against Quebec’s move to make vaccination mandatory. In speaking out against the policy, he echoed earlier statements by Conservative MPs Michael Cooper, Garnett Genuis and Jeremy Patzer.
“Any tax targeting unvaccinated people is discriminatory and wrong. Period,” Poilievre said. His stand was supported by fellow Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman.
“A tax on the unvaxxed would be legally and ethically wrong. Full stop,” Lantsman said in a Tweet.
Poilievre and Lantsman’s remarks come two days after Quebec Premier François Legault announced his government would be exacting “health-care contributions” from Quebeckers who choose not to get the COVID shots.
Legault’s move followed federal Liberal health minister Jean-Yves Duclos’s suggestion that provinces should consider making COVID vaccinations mandatory.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) came out swinging against the new fee being imposed on Quebeckers and warned that forced vaccine taxes are the wrong way to go.
Federal CTF director Franco Terrazzano told True North that Poilievre’s comments should be much welcomed.
“We’re not going to tax our way out of a pandemic, so it’s great to see the Conservatives speaking out against this tax,” said Terrazzano. “Canadians are already overtaxed, and this could open the floodgates to a bunch of new taxes.”
“Some politicians want the unvaccinated to pay more today. But who are they going to go after tomorrow? All Canadians need to unite against this tax.”
Conservative leader Erin O’Toole mentioned the issue during a Facebook Live video later on Thursday but was less definitive in his opposition.
“I don’t like to see measures like we’re seeing in Quebec where the provinces don’t have the tools to manage COVID, going to tax people that are unvaccinated,” O’Toole said.
“We need to get vaccination levels up – get vaccinated, they’re safe and effective. But we have to work with people to make sure they do it, and we are not a country that traditionally punishes or imposes in the way that we are seeing. It’s easy to be frustrated. It’s easy to turn a frustrated 85% of the population against 10 or 15 other per cent of the population.”
On the provincial front, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and Ontario Premier Doug Ford have all said “no” to forcing vaccines on their citizens under threat of financial penalties.
British Columbia’s health minister Adrian Dix also said no to forcing the shots onto people who don’t want them.
“I can say definitively we will not be proceeding with a similar measure,” Dix told a press conference on Tuesday.
Premiers in Atlantic Canada have not ruled it out but say there are no plans yet.
The government of Quebec has not yet announced how much the financial punishment will be for those who haven’t taken the COVID shots, or when the fees will start being charged.
Quebec is only the second government in the western world to make COVID shots compulsory for all adults. Austria is scheduled to begin the policy in February, with fines of up to $4000 every three months for people unwilling to get the shots.
16. Justice Centre taking legal action against Quebec for taxing unvaccinated
by Joseph Bielmeier, True North
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has announced they will take legal action against Quebec’s plan to implement a “health tax” against those who choose not to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
The JCCF says the province’s plan to tax the unvaccinated violates Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“The proposed Quebec ‘health tax’ is an egregious violation of the Charter rights of Quebecers and an affront to equality which Canada was, in times past, known for,” said JCCF President John Carpay.
The JCCF argues that every individual has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.
“This is a blatant attack on a minority of society. Historically persecution of a minority through taxation has paved the way for further and worse measures. We will fight this discriminatory and unscientific tax in court and defend the right to bodily autonomy of Quebecers and all Canadians. This injustice has no place in Canada,” said Carpay.
Quebec currently has 78.3 % of its population double-vaccinated with over 85% having at least one dose.
Although Quebec premier François Legault did not indicate when the tax would be implemented, he did indicate that the amount would be “significant”.
Quebec is not the only government to tax unvaccinated people, as several European countries have brought in similar policies. Austria announced anyone unvaccinated over the age of 13 would have to pay 3,600 euros – or the equivalent of $4000 – every three months. The policy is set to come into effect in February.
Other countries have made fees specific to age groups. Greece and Italy have both implemented fines for those over the age of 60 who choose not to get the COVID shots. In Greece, this amounts to 100 euros monthly. In Italy, those who refuse to pay a fine of 600-1500 euros also risk losing their salaries.
Earlier in January, Quebec was also the first province in Canada to announce they would be moving to a three-dose vaccine passport. The new “health tax” would fall along the same lines as the vaccine passport and would have to be paid by those who choose not to receive three doses of the recommended COVID-19 vaccines.
The JCCF are not the only ones speaking out against the province’s “health tax”. As previously reported by True North, The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has also condemned any financial penalties targeting unvaccinated Canadians.
“Premier Legault is taking the unprecedented step of taxing Canadians based on their personal medical choices,” said Cara Zwibel, a CCLA lawyer and spokesperson.
“This is a divisive measure that will end up punishing and alienating those who may be in most need of public health supports and services,”
Zwibel claims that many unvaccinated people face barriers to accessing health care because of previous negative experiences from within the system.
Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre has also denounced the new policy, claiming it was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s rhetoric that encouraged the Quebec government. In a tweet on Thursday Poilievre stated, “(t)his government overreach is the direct result of Trudeau’s hateful demagoguery, targeting a minority to divide and distract from his own failures,”
Although Trudeau has not endorsed the “health tax”, he has made references to unvaccinated Canadians as “extremists, misogynists, and racists”.
Conservative MPs Michael Cooper, Garnett Genuis and Jeremy Patzer have also condemned the “health tax” while Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole seems hesitant to do so thus far.
17. How We Will Win by Jeff Deist, Mises Institute
. . . Tens of millions of Americans now believe both the US federal government and the major institutions in this country—from media to big corporations to universities to Hollywood to Big Pharma and the medical establishment—are actively working against their interests . . .
“We Will Win” is a ubiquitous hashtag on Twitter lately, code for the sense of change so many Americans feel but can’t yet articulate. We will win because socialism is incompatible with human nature and a productive material economy. We will win because the Fed’s crazed monetization of Treasury debt and its maniacal fetish for low interest rates are unsustainable . . .
We will win because Uncle Sam will run out of (valuable) money. We will win because entitlements ultimately are unpayable, at least in real terms. We will win because war, empire, and nation building have exhausted themselves and Americans of all political stripes want us out of the Middle East.
We will win because woke will fail of its own internal contradictions and infighting. And we will win because the digital age is inexorably decentralizing virtually every aspect of human life, and governments cannot escape this forever. So, We Will Win. But how long will it take, and at what price victory?
[i.e. we will win because those doing this are operating on ideologies incompatible with reality and human nature and are thus destined to fail without us even opposing them … but the price will be the destruction of the world as we know it. It will be a Pyrrhic victory]
Tennis star Novak Djokovic is being deported from Australia, after losing his final appeal the WTA’s top-ranked player will not be allowed to defend his Australian Open title.
It was reported this morning that an Australian court had refused Djokovic’s appeal against the cancellation of his visa, and as such he’s being put on a plane and flown out of the country.
To be clear: This is all because he’s not “vaccinated” against Covid19, and vocally speaks out against the practice. The government have clearly and publicly admitted as much…but we’ll get to that.
The rejection of Djokovic’s medical exemption and subsequent deportation has been accompanied by a wave of vitriol in the press the likes of which we have rarely seen.
One Australian sports presenter was “accidentally” recorded calling him a “lying, sneaky arsehole” in a video that was later “leaked” to the press.
The Spectator has one piece which is nothing more than a slew of ad hominem and mockery, against not just Djokovic but all “anti-vaxxers” and “conspiracy theorists”, calling the Serbian a “conspiracy super-spreader”. They have another blaming his “arrogance for his downfall”.
The Daily Mail ran a story headlined: “Welcome to the Wacky World of Novak Djokovic… and meet his equally wacky wife!”, and two more opinion pieces claiming his arrogance has “trashed his reputation” and calling him “a loser”.
The Guardian‘s Australian Political Correspondent Sarah Martin defends the decision and jokingly refers to it as a “no dickheads” immigration policy, attacking Djokovic’s “anti-science god complex” and calling him an “all-round jerk”.
The childish name-calling just doesn’t end. Even his fellow players are sticking the boot in.
Stefanos Tsitsipas attacked Djokovic for attempting to “play by his own rules”, adding “A very small minority chose to follow their own way. It makes the majority look like they are all fools”, which is at least true, but not in the way he means it.
Spanish star Rafael Nadal said Djokovic should just follow the rules like everyone else, perhaps flashing the kind of attitude which allowed a fascist dictator to stay in power in his country for 40 years.
Some players, at least, have come to Djokovic’s defense, including Australia’s own Nick Kyrgios, who has said he is “ashamed” of the way Australia has handled the situation and chastised other players for not showing solidarity with Djokovic.
But why is this happening? Why are they trying to punish such a public figure, and why now?
Well, firstly, I’m not sure it is about punishing Djokovic, and not just because getting to leave Australia is an odd thing to be considered any kind of punishment these days.
Rather, it’s about the performance of punishing him.
It’s about making an example of him. Not so much preventing him from playing, as much as denying him a platform.
The Australian government basically admits that in their legal justification for cancelling the visa.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said Djokovic had been barred from entry for “breaching the rules…it’s as simple as that.”
But he is either mistaken or lying, as he directly contradicts the case presented to the appeal court by the government.
Yes, the visa was first cancelled on a technicality about incorrect information but, a judge overruled that decision, allowing Djokovic to enter the country.
That’s when Immigration Minister Alex Hawke stepped in to personally revoke the visa under section 133 of the Immigration Act 1958.
Under this (worryingly vague) legislation, the Immigration Minister is granted the power to cancel any visa at all, if: “the Minister is satisfied that it would be in the public interest to cancel the visa.”
This was the argument put to the appeals court, that the minister can expel anyone, for anything, if he believes it to be in the best interests of the public.
That’s public interest, NOT public health.
Hawke admits in his written statement that Djokovic presents a “negligible risk of Covid19 infection” to those around him. So it’s nothing to do with protecting people from infection or stopping the spread of the virus.
Public statements from officials suggest that they consider any “anti-vaxxer” to be a threat to the public interest by undermining the vaccination programme. Thus they can justify barring entry to Djokovic (or, it should be said, any other “anti-vaxxer”) under the guise of “public interest”.
It’s about control, it almost always is. In short, the government are scared that Djokovic’s very presence in the country is a threat to their neo-fascist lockdown. If you look closely at the media messaging, there’s more than a little fear behind the wall of abuse and mockery.
Article after article is at pains to point out that “the majority of normal Australians want the Joker gone”, or some variation on that sentiment. Somewhat desperately selling the line that nobody agrees with, or supports, Djokovic’s position.
A statement which is given the lie by the regular huge protests taking place all across Australia’s major cities (like this one, just this weekend, in Sydney).
The Australian government are worried they’ve turned their country into a powder keg of public resentment, and that the slightest social spark could set it off. Increasing the size of the (already huge) protests against the lockdowns and vaccine mandates, maybe even tipping the country into full-blown chaos.
One of the Spectator articles mentions that Australians have been living in a “police state” for two years, and then vaguely references the subsequent public anger, even whilst attempting to downplay it, misrepresent its cause, and turn it against the unvaccinated.
Australia has fallen. Peace, prosperity and freedom have been sacrificed on the altar of “safety”, and Covid “vaccination” has become a quasi-religious rite in their country, even more so than the rest of the world.
As such, the unvaccinated are slandered, punished, threatened and othered at every turn. Locked down, locked up and locked out.
Can you only imagine what could happen if people found out it was all for nothing? Or that the heaven-sent vaccines aren’t the magical solution to all that ails us?
In this kind of political climate they simply can’t afford to have an “anti-vaxxer” on national television, healthy and athletic and winning championships against a field of vaccinated rivals.
Especially when three vaccinated players have already dropped out with “breathing difficulties”
Before anyone accuses me of a surfeit of cynicism, let’s review the actual words of Alex Hawke from the appeal procedure [our emphasis]:
I consider that Mr Djokovic’s ongoing presence in Australia may lead to an increase in anti-vaccination sentiment generated in the Australian community, potentially leading to an increase in civil unrest of the kind previously experienced in Australia
Elsewhere Djokovic is described as a “talisman of a community of anti-vaccine sentiment”.
This kind of brutal treatment of publicly unvaccinated famous faces will likely only intensify. It’s already spreading from country to country, with France announcing Djokovic will not be allowed to defend his French Open title unless he gets vaccinated.
It seems pretty clear that the public shaming of Djokovic is a power-play to secure what they perceive as their own tenuous grip on the narrative, one that could have far-reaching consequences moving forward.
Consider, Djokovic is not barred from entry just for being unvaccinated, but also because he has publicly spoken out against vaccination.
Australia is now not only requiring you be “fully vaccinated” to enter the country, but has barred someone for even expressing anti-vaccine sentiment.
It’s no longer enough to conform by action, you must now conform by speech. Next is thought, but even they would never try to legislate against that…right?
19. How did we get here? [on the rise of Leftism and woke ideology]
by Tara Henley
. . . The ideas expressed — ableism, safetyism, trigger warnings — aim to be as inclusive as possible. But the philosophy behind them originated in elite institutions. In both conception and dissemination, they are actually anything but inclusive.
Most people I’ve interviewed, and talked to socially, have no idea where all of this came from, and no understanding of how it’s gained such traction. The question for most people seems to be: Why have such extreme ideas spread?
There are several things that you need to know to understand why our cultural norms, from audience clapping to the use of the word mother (birthing person is the new term), have shifted so dramatically — and so fast.
The first has to do with young people and universities. As Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff explained in The Coddling of the American Mind, in the early 2010s you had a situation on campuses where young people were experiencing extremely high levels of stress.
This generation grew up overprotected by parents, but also driven extremely hard in the school system. They graduated high school into one of the most competitive, uncertain, downwardly mobile labour markets in recent decades. They were online constantly and status-obsessed, but also socially awkward and insecure and unhappy.
The institutions’ approach to dealing with these anxious young people, though, was not to help build resilience. It was, instead, to become surrogate helicopter parents — to cater to their neuroses and cave to their demands.
The result: a generation of young people who believe that their own emotional distress is of paramount importance — and that the world will bend to accommodate it. This class of students are, as of a couple years ago, moving into the workforce, and taking this worldview with them.
Coupled with that, you have a set of ideas in academia that has been ascendent since the 1960s, catapulted into the mainstream around the mid 2010s, and then rose to prominence in the unrest of 2020, albeit in a reconfigured version. This is what’s called critical theory.
This Marxist-inspired school of thought originated with the Frankfurt School of philosophers after World War II. It posits that life can be understood by looking at power relations, and that this lens should be applied to every interaction in our society. It divides people into the oppressors and the oppressed — who has “privilege” and who does not — argues that these power relations are hidden and require training to identify, and seeks to dismantle them.
Importantly, much of this work is meant to be about systems and structures, but as it has evolved in current practices, the focus is often on interpersonal relationships, and “microaggressions” in particular.
One of the most well known manifestations of this thinking is critical race theory — which includes legal academics like Kimberlé Crenshaw, who coined the now-ubiquitous term “intersectional” — but it has since spread to all sorts of disciplines, from musicology to medicine.
Critical theory sees all knowledge as social construction. It believes in “discourses” rather than truth. It sees language as capable of inflicting violence if the words support discourses that have been deemed harmful. It rejects the tenets of liberalism as growing out of, and supporting, bias and bigotry. Debating harmful ideas, according to critical theory, would only increase the damage. The goal is therefore to shut down all harmful discourse.
This philosophy is jargon-heavy and difficult to decipher. And, as a result of what’s called standpoint theory, it argues that people outside of protected groups cannot possibly understand and are therefore not qualified to contribute to the conversation.
This set of ideas has proven largely unpopular with people of all identity groups. In its current iteration, it is divisive in nature and inherently pessimistic. It offers no vision for the future and holds out no hope of redemption for those who have erred. It does not place emphasis on personal agency, nor on basic human commonalities or on building alliances across identity lines.
If the bleak economic conditions of late capitalism were the kindling, and the prevalence of widespread and debilitating mental illness was the dry heat, then social media was both the match that lit the fire and the oxygen that fanned the flames.
It’s impossible to overstate the role that social media platforms have played in spreading this thinking. Twitter in particular took these ideas out of the academic setting and pumped them into the collective consciousness with mind-boggling velocity and speed.
This ideology now dominates most institutions, from universities to the media, government to education, the arts to the nonprofit sector. Significantly, it remains an inherently elitist project. Which is why its goals are largely theoretical and interpersonal — and have little to do with the concrete conditions of most people’s lives. And it’s also why many salient critiques of it have come from the left in general, and Marxists like Adolph Reed in particular.
So, what do we call this new movement? The writer Wesley Yang calls it “The Successor Ideology,” since it replaces traditional liberal values. Columbia professor John McWhorter calls it “The Elect,” for its pseudo-religious overtones. The general public often thinks of it as identity politics. Centrists, heterodox thinkers, and conservatives call it “woke.”
But whatever you choose to call it, the social justice movement that’s sprung out of all this is focused mainly on shifting language and speech norms, on symbolic victories like toppling statues, and on building a vast, identity-focused human-resources apparatus that provides university graduates with lucrative administrative jobs.
This is how we wound up during the pandemic, in Toronto, with a largely racialized working-class population stuck on packed public transit, working precarious warehouse jobs for very little pay and filling emergency rooms — while the conversation on the left was almost entirely focused elsewhere.
There’s something else that we need to understand here. And that is that this new brand of leftism, as the conservative writer Douglas Murray has pointed out, is an inherently unstable proposition.
Since the 1960s, mainstream leftist political parties have abandoned their union base and have instead become parties of wealthy, credentialed cosmopolitans [but] . . . many immigrants and people of colour are culturally conservative . . . [and] the working-class isn’t as interested in conversations around preferred pronouns as it is in things like affordable housing and accessible health care.
The modern left, then, is on shaky footing. And it risks losing working-class voters of all races to conservative parties, which champion cultural conservatism and increasingly position themselves as advocates for working-class interests by dabbling in a handful of leftist economic policies. We saw this with Donald Trump and his rhetoric around trade.
As this all takes place, the left, living in its coastal bubbles of extreme economic privilege, has lost perspective on what ordinary people think, as the DSA convention clip so tellingly illustrates.
The left does not notice how out of step its ideas are with the public, which is why it was so surprised in 2016 when Trump was elected, and then again in 2020, when the Democratic party lost Black and Latino voters to the Republicans. The press is not in a good position to cope with any of this.
20. The Three Faces of Evil by Karen Hunt, The Off-Guardian
. . . On November 15, 2021, “[Maria], a German mother critical of the state’s Covid measures had her home raided and her children violently removed by police and child protective services.” Over the Christmas holidays, Maria and other protestors, have been standing outside the quarantine center imprisoning children in isolation. They have been singing Christmas carols in the hope the children can hear them.
. . . Cruise ships requiring 100% vaccinated passengers are being overrun by outbreaks.
December 27th, 106 NFL players were placed on COVID-19 reserve, bringing total to 505 in that month.
And in perhaps the most bizarre turn of events, half of the researchers at an isolated Antarctica Ice Center have come down with Covid. All of them are “fully vaccinated.”
Yet, incredibly, the frenzy to vaccinate every single person in the entire world, down to babies, continues at full speed. And why wouldn’t it? The fact that the vaccines don’t work has nothing to do with how successful they have been.
Not a single politician or media pundit that I can think of, except Candace Owens, has dared to even suggest the vaccines might be dangerous and we shouldn’t take them. They haven’t even spoken out against giving them to children.
. . . It is equally troubling that our politicians do not give an ear to the hundreds and now thousands of doctors and nurses, researchers and scientists who are sounding the alarm on the dangers this experiment poses.
Biden’s promise when he took office one year ago to “shut down the virus” turned into “slow the spread” to “there isn’t anything the Federal government can do about it” . . . this buffoon’s Christmas message was to bestow his blessing on the vaccinated while telling the unvaccinated to prepare for a winter of “severe illness and death.” Imagine wishing death on millions of people you are supposed to serve.
Canada’s Justin Trudeau had his own special holiday message for the unvaccinated: “They don’t believe in science/progress and are often misogynistic and racist…. This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: do we tolerate these people?”
. . . So, we have these schoolyard bullies running this scam across North America and the UK, not to mention the entire world, speaking rhetoric meant to incite hatred and violence, worthy of Hitler. And it is lie after lie after lie.
. . . There should be no more need to impose these procedures when this illness is now no deadlier than the common cold. Yet, the pace quickens, and the experiments continue on infants and babies.
. . . We want to believe things will get better in the coming year. Logically, they should. But we do not live in a logical world. We’ve been herded into a funhouse where sometimes it appears as if we are walking on the ceiling, sometimes we are elongated and skinny, sometimes short and fat, we wander from room to room, completely disoriented.
. . . After two years of this incongruity, the confusion is so rampant we cannot even get a straight answer about how many died from Covid. For all we know, most of them died from the flu. Plenty of people doubt Covid exists at all.
The PCR testing, touted as the “gold standard,” will end in 2022. Why? Because the CDC now tells us that it never worked in the first place. No apology, no acknowledgment that with such an admission every other “fact” they have told us could well be equally bogus.
. . . Reputable doctors warned against Fauci’s orders in The Great Barrington Declaration, stating: “As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.”
. . . Fauci could not abide anyone disagreeing with his edicts and instead of listening, he doubled down on his murderous orders . . . [Fauci helped] engineer “the largest upward transfer of wealth in human history.” [RKF]
[Lockdowns] led to a rise in depression, suicide, untreated cancer and other diseases, not to mention increased starvation in poorer nations, and death count could well be beyond anything humanity has ever previously seen.
. . . In the winter of 2020, just after we had celebrated the New Year—you could say our last year of innocence—the overlords determined the time was right and they hit us. Hard . . . Bruised and broken, beaten down from a steady diet of fear and guilt, we allowed ourselves to be imprisoned, muzzled, tracked and traced.
And yet, something amazing happened. Millions of us woke up. We began to question in ways we never had before. We began to notice how every media pundit repeated the exact same words. We saw Fauci’s lying contradictions. We grew more suspicious than we’d already been of drug companies. Why the mad rush? What weren’t they telling us?
We revisited those videos out of China with people dropping like flies in the streets. They were so obviously fake . . . And then, we asked ourselves, could the entire thing have been staged? We tried to voice our concerns. Naively speculating to our friends on social media, because surely other people saw it, too?
We were stunned to find that our questions were met with vicious attacks. If we dared continue, we were discredited, made fun of, even threatened with losing our jobs. Families and friends disowned us.
For many of us, our suspicions only grew. We researched more, beyond the State-sanctioned media. We found others who were asking questions, too. We realized we weren’t alone. We became part of a growing movement. When we saw highly regarded health specialists being discredited, and that they still refused to back down, they inspired us to do the same. We gained strength and courage.
21. The Shift and Deflection In The Covid Blame Game Is Underway
by Terry Burton via Peckford42 [edited, abridged]
. . . The medical authorities and politicians, after almost two years of enthusiastically and constantly stoking the hospitalization fear fires, are now, we are asked to believe, very earnest in their “realization” that people hospitalized with, rather than from Covid-19 should be counted differently.
The public is now, these authorities say, deserving of more accurate Covid-19 data information . . . these people no shame. Thousands of us having been saying this for almost two years.
The growing mountain of evidence of deceit and manipulation, by the political and medical authorities, is now too large to bury effectively . . .
[Many parents are now] seeing through the manipulation and contradictions, related to the injections, and they are not about to donate their kids to the mRNA experimental sacrificial altar . . .
The Justification and Blame (JAB) experts are preparing their deflection pre-game show, the institutional and corporate internal and external communication departments are working feverishly to wordsmith the daily deluge of deflection of responsibility for their Covid-19 crimes against humanity. One can expect to hear these types of convoluted, doublespeak wordsmith phrases indicated by * below:
- Them: The unique attributes of Covid-19 warranted an acceptance by society that measures be taken to engage alternative approaches.
Plain speak: “We authorized and insisted on deadly experimental materials being injected into your body without the foggiest idea of their long term consequences.”
- Them: When faced with a perceived threat, one must be prepared to undertake actions that are considered beneficial but subject to error.
Plain speak: “We will jump the gun, overreact and citizens should be prepared to die, if the “authorities” decide to gamble with your life.”
- Them: The myriad of signals that demanded a Covid-19 change, of course, were, unfortunately, on a frequency that wasn’t monitored by the applicable authorities.
Plain speak: “We don’t care what you say, you will be ignored and censored—period.”
- Them: To engage the development of warp speed, as it relates to vaccine development, justified by an urgency that embodies negative consequences.
Plain speak: “the thousands of deaths and millions of injuries associated with the Covid-19 experimental materials injections is an acceptable outcome.”
- Them: On occasion one must be prepared to acquiesce and follow the advice of those who possess the enlightened insight and knowledge.
Them: “do as you are told and be grateful” . . .
. . . There are a large number of these people, figuratively and literally, that “have blood on their hands” . . .
- Medical leaders and way too many doctors and hospital administrators
- Mainstream Media
- Social Media
- Educators (K-12 and post secondary)
- The judicial system
- Big Pharma
- Religious organizations (e.g., Pope)
- Military Leaders
- A number of NGO’s and social media tycoons
There is a need for justice for those injured and who have died (and will die) from these experimental injections:
Benjamin Franklin said “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.”
Solzhenitsyn wrote: “In keeping silent about evil . . . we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”
Policy makers and mainstream news anchors have promised the public that the COVID-19 vaccine rollout worldwide would reduce symptoms, and thereby cases and deaths associated with COVID-19 . . .
[But what we find from this international study is that] the vaccines were associated with a 38 percent rise in the number of Covid cases per million in the U.S. and a 31 percent rise in the number of deaths per million associated with Covid. [In other words, the mRNA shots killed people]
And many other studies have shown that the overall situation seems to get worse, not better.
[This is probably due to reduced immunity caused by the drug, which is probably the long-term objective of the pharma companies to begin with: to reduce the immunity of the world, making humanity susceptible to new diseases, requiring an endless regime of drugs]
Overall, the study found that 89.94 percent of the 145 countries studied experienced a rise in total deaths per million associated with Covid as a direct result of the causal impact of vaccines, while 86.78 percent of countries noted a rise in total cases per million of the virus as a direct result of the causal impact of vaccines.
The study reports: “Results indicate that the treatment (vaccine administration) has a strong and statistically significant propensity to causally increase the values in either y1 [variable chosen for deaths per million] or y2 [variable chosen for cases per million] over and above what would have been expected with no treatment.”
The study reached its findings after carrying out a causal analysis that compared pre- and post-treatment periods to determine the differences in cases and deaths since the vaccines were implemented using publicly available COVID-19 data. After eliminating the results from countries that had incomplete data or very low vaccination rates, they came up with 128 countries that had sufficient data on deaths and 103 for examining total cases, for a total of 145 unique countries.
Interestingly, the countries that noted the fewest Covid deaths in 2020 saw the biggest jumps in cases and deaths after the introduction of the vaccine, with some noting rises of as much as 1,000 percent. Some of the countries that fared the worst in this regard include Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam, Seychelles, Cambodia and Mongolia.
It’s a very disheartening finding, particularly for the many people who got these vaccines because they believed what governments around the world were telling us: that getting vaccinated would help the world get back to normal and allow people to enjoy their freedoms.
In many cases, people who had serious reservations about the potential risks of the jabs got them anyway because they faced losing their jobs and livelihoods. The vaccines were supposed to bring infections and deaths down, not up.
The study suggests a new approach to dealing with the pandemic: “These results should encourage local policy makers to make policy decisions based on data, not narrative, and based on local conditions, not global or national mandates. These results should also encourage policy makers to begin looking for other avenues out of the pandemic aside from mass vaccination campaigns.”
22. How Fanatics Took Over the World by Jeffrey A. Tucker, Brownstone Institute
. . . Dr. Rajeev Venkayya is the head of a vaccine company but introduced himself as former head of pandemic policy for the Gates Foundation . . .
Dr. Venkayya and I had a 30-minute conversation; actually, it was mostly an argument. He was convinced that lockdown was the only way to deal with a virus. I countered that it was wrecking rights, destroying businesses, and disturbing public health. He said it was our only choice because we had to wait for a vaccine. I spoke about natural immunity, which he called immoral. So on it went.
The more interesting question I had at the time was why this certified Big Shot was wasting his time trying to convince a poor scribbler like me. What possible reason could there be?
The answer, I now realized, is that from February to April 2020, I was one of the few people (along with a team of researchers) who openly and aggressively opposed what was happening.
There was a hint of insecurity and even fear in Venkayya’s voice. He saw the awesome thing he had unleashed all over the world and was anxious to tamp down any hint of opposition. He was trying to silence me. He and others were determined to crush all dissent.
“If you got everyone and locked each of them in their own room and didn’t let them talk to anyone, you would not have any disease.”
At last, an intellectual has a plan to abolish disease — and human life as we know it too! As preposterous and terrifying as this is — a whole society not only in jail but solitary confinement — it sums up the whole of Mecher’s view of disease. It’s also completely wrong.
Pathogens are part of our world; they are not generated by human contact. We pass them onto each other as the price for civilization, but we also evolved immune systems to deal with them. That’s 9th-grade biology, but Mecher didn’t have a clue.
The lockdowners, over the course of 15 years, had worn out the opposition. Lavish funding, attrition of wisdom within public health, and ideological fanaticism prevailed.
23. Public Health Establishment’s COVID Flip-Flops Should Immunize Against Its Politicization by Benjamin Weingarten, Epoch Times
What does it tell us that the medical establishment is now daily taking positions on significant matters relating to the Chinese coronavirus that its allies in Big Tech used to censor people over—many of which we have known the truth of since early in the pandemic?
It tells us that while The Science™ has in large part remained the same, the politics have shifted to such an extent in the face of the Omicron variant that the authorities feel compelled to recognize reality.
That is, it shows us that the “Trust The Science” crowd is—as should have been clear from the jump—political, and that it has invoked its favored line to end debate; to ensure the public submit to its edicts based on a “Science” that brooks no dissent.
Presenting select data, and without nuance, context, or balance, that distorted the public’s view of the threat—at bare minimum as reflected in Americans’ gross over-estimation of the Chinese coronavirus’s fatality across age cohorts under 65—and justified its draconian responses to it, suppressing countervailing evidence, and smearing and silencing those who present it is, of course, the height of anti-Scientific behavior.
Seen in this light, the Omicron variant is proving doubly beneficial: To the extent it remains as mild as all evidence to date suggests, it’s conferring some level of widespread immunity; at the same time, it’s exposing public health’s hyper-politicization by causing it to contradict that which it previously held sacrosanct, hopefully immunizing the public to such politicization.
Yet the unwillingness of the public health establishment to reverse its support for the most coercive, immoral, and arguably illegal policies, like vaccine mandates, at the very time the stated primary public health rationale—stopping the spread—has been rendered moot by the authorities’ own admission, indicates how dug in they may be. This only further exposes that politics and power, not public health, are paramount.
When total control over society is rooted in The Science, The Science collapses, but the control persists, it’s clear control was the point. It’s clear Science is a political faith.
The public health establishment is presently being exposed—in fact exposing itself in its rhetorical about-face—as being as corrupted at its top ranks as the Deep State did in pursuing President Donald Trump, and now his tens of millions of supporters. This corruption has implicated, been exploited by, and/or corrupted a slew of actors, as Russiagate did, including among them politicians, the media, the courts, Big Pharma, and the Woke-Industrial Complex—to devastating effect for American life, limb, and liberty.
As with the Deep State, Trump’s mere existence drew out the public health establishment’s politicization. Its hostility toward him was evident during the throes of a pandemic used above all else against him in an election year.
That hostility manifested itself in a number of ways, but perhaps most notably in (i) the dismissal of the Wuhan lab leak theory—the sordid backstory of which continues to be revealed to this day; and (ii) the dismissal of over-the-counter, early treatment remedies—potentially at the cost of thousands of lives based upon the successes of doctors in America and around the world with generic drug cocktails. The cost of subordinating all to the vaccines has only been exacerbated as their efficacy has proven to wane, and arguably as we see shortages in the less-emphasized areas of testing devices and alternative treatments.
In recent weeks, the reality that Science is often a stand-in for Politics has further revealed itself.
We have seen definitive proof that there was a concerted effort by NIAID Director Anthony Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins to run a smear campaign against the Great Barrington Declaration, and its eminent drafters, Harvard’s Martin Kulldorf, Oxford’s Sunetra Gupta, and Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya. Those doctors had the gall in the eyes of the public health establishment to challenge mass lockdowns in favor of protecting those most at-risk and allowing others to resume normal lives as of fall 2020.
Our authorities of course did the opposite: They endangered the at-risk in nursing homes, while locking down everyone else but the privileged social justice warriors, causing untold calamities for Americans’ health, well-being, prosperity, liberty, and justice.
We have also seen further definitive proof (pdf) in recent days that Drs. Fauci and Collins were aware of the merits of the Wuhan lab leak theory soon after the onset of the pandemic, but for evidently political reasons, chose not to pursue it. We already knew about the reflexive dismissal of a lab leak by not just the medical establishment, but virtually every other establishment once Trump and senior administration officials embraced it.
We now know public health officials had another rationale for rejecting the thesis: To appease the most culpable party in the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). That is the very CCP of course that under NIH’s direction, America had effectively collaborated with on potentially dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of the kind that could have led to this pandemic—though the NIH is adamant it did not.
Now, consider some of the things we’ve seen public health authorities and their mouthpieces flip-flop on—again, to positions that used to get people banned on Facebook and Twitter.
They now admit as we’ve long known that cloth masks do little if anything but serve to virtue-signal.
They now admit that substantial percentages of the very small number of children hospitalized are hospitalized with rather than from COVID-19—a distinction previously verboten in public discourse—and that likewise substantial percentages of the hospitalized generally are hospitalized with rather than from COVID-19.
They also admit they don’t have an accurate count of how many deaths during the pandemic were with versus from COVID-19—both an acknowledgment again of a crucial distinction of which we previously could not speak, and an inadvertent admission of an unwillingness or inability borne of either politics, or incompetence, to accurately record COVID deaths.
They now tell us openly—as the CDC more quietly acknowledged months ago—that the vaccines neither prevent infection nor transmission, and particularly so with Omicron, which again has rendered the vaccines even less efficacious than authorities implicitly admitted when they started endorsing boosters.
They’ve changed the definitions of “vaccine” and “vaccinated” as it’s been clear that the vaccines don’t immunize people, a move smacking of politics. Remember, they had initially argued vaccines would prevent infection and transmission. We were all in this together.
Today, claims are far humbler: Vaccines will prevent severe sickness and death, which of course is not wholly true since some vaccinated individuals do get hospitalized, and some do die, though disproportionately those suffering from four-plus comorbidities.
That the vast majority of people who have died with COVID in general have suffered from comorbidities, and on average four “additional conditions or causes,” is something that has also been clear for much of the pandemic, yet rarely if ever noted by authorities.
They have also signaled they’re going to change the definition of fully vaccinated—at least by default—once again, an indicator of their failure, and the ever-shifting goal posts.
They have changed the quarantine length subsequent to infection in a move seemingly driven by economics over Science.
They’ve flipped on schools, now acknowledging how devastating closures have been, when we’ve known from almost the very beginning that kids are exceedingly safer from COVID-19 than other age cohorts, and that locking them out would be crippling for children and their families.
Why the flurry of flip-flops?
Occam’s Razor suggests Omicron has exposed to all the inefficacy of the lockdowns, the mandates, and the vaccines authorities promised would serve as a panacea. Even the “sophisticated, vaccinated crowd” wasn’t spared from this latest variant.
So, in part, this may be an act of face-saving: Better to acknowledge undeniable facts over wholly continuing a COVID charade that would only do further harm to the authorities’ credibility.
But there’s something deeper at play as well.
Candidate Joe Biden said, during the 2020 campaign, while America had suffered 220,000 deaths ascribed to COVID that “anyone who is responsible for that many deaths should not remain as president of the United States of America.” He’s now responsible for a multiple of that.
There were surprise Republican wins or near-wins in COVID control-crushed blue states during the 2021 elections, and Democrats are poised to face a shellacking in the midterm elections as of this writing.
The likes of radically progressive Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot even went after the Chicago Teachers Union over its putatively COVID-related walkout.
It’s evident millions are sick and tired of policies that have self-evidently not worked, while breeding poverty and misery, and that a revolt may be brewing.
Hence, now the effort to downplay the high-level numbers once hocked—even terminating death figure reporting altogether; the shift to an “endemic” stage; and an effort to get off of hysteria footing—at least rhetorically.
The authorities are caught between a rock and a hard place as the actual science doesn’t comport with their control—and renders it farcical—but the imperative to control remains.
It should be clear now that when you hear “Trust the Science,” you should run. And then vote out the people who have ceded our life and liberty to public health technocrats and their adjuncts, and for those who will restore our, liberty, justice, and sanity.
24. Canada’s Accidental Biosecurity State
by Mikko Packalen, Brownstone Institute
The sorry state of Canada’s Covid response is glaring. Ontario is under lockdown. Quebec is under a curfew. Ontario, BC, Alberta and Quebec have started the year with closed schools. At the same time, the United States is open and leading U.S. politicians rebuke the rare remaining calls for lockdowns, insist passionately that schools be open too, and urge citizens to accept the virus as only one risk among the many that we encounter in daily life.
A reason for hope in Canada is that the country’s Covid response still took a massive step forward last year: Zero Covid was finally rejected as the guiding principle. Canadian politicians and experts had to admit that we do not have the technology to stop Covid. It was a tragic mistake to base policy on an unrealistic fantasy . . .
Covid vaccines’ effectiveness in preventing infections starts to wane quickly within mere months. Thus, even universal vaccination will not prevent the inevitable seasonal Covid surges.
Other technologies—testing, tracing, mask mandates, border closures, vaccine passports, lockdowns and school closures—never stood a chance of preventing Covid waves despite many false promises to the contrary from Canadian experts and politicians. This inability to stop Covid should not have surprised anyone. Pre-pandemic plans did not consider eradication realistic absent a vaccine that prevents infections effectively and durably.
The delay in accepting this reality about Covid was costly. The illusion that we have the means to stop Covid weakened politicians’ incentive to invest in expanding hospital capacity and protect those most vulnerable, such as people in long-term care homes. Lives were lost because of hubris. Canadians have reason to be grateful that the country’s experts and politicians finally gave up on the Zero Covid fantasy.
With the Zero Covid fantasy finally gone, what is the new organizing principle of Canada’s pandemic policies? The unfortunate truth is simple: nothing. There is currently no long-term goal or strategy driving Canada’s pandemic response.
Canada has sleepwalked into a biosecurity state.
In normal liberal democratic societies, elected officials and regulators select policies that mediate among multiple social goals. Policy alternatives come with both costs and benefits, so every decision made by policymakers involves trade-offs among desirable endpoints.
The biosecurity state in which Canada has arrived is markedly different. Covid policies are not the result of a careful, balanced, and public examination of the policies’ merits.
The government and media constantly exhort the people to focus their attention and effort on controlling a single disease. Restrictions, mandates, quarantines, and closures are imposed without regard to the enormous health and economic harms that individuals and society incur. Public health even neglected deadlier diseases like cancer and heart disease to pursue zero-Covid.
Covid policies are invented on the fly and change regularly. Testing, quarantine and isolation rules, for example, often change on short notice with little justification offered to support them. The boot of Covid policies is on citizens’ necks at all times and authorities keep moving it.
Covid policies are also opaque despite their all-encompassing and encroaching nature and the draconian fines and penalties that accompany them. The lack of transparency is understandable; the authorities too know how embarrassing many of the rules are. Yet, the policies come with no practical ways to challenge them.
The ad hoc nature of Covid restrictions has also meant that even the measures’ benefits remain uncertain today, almost two years after the pandemic began. Politicians and public health officials justify their policies with data on Covid cases, hospitalizations, and deaths but neglect the data on the harms of those policies.
Another defining feature of Canada’s biosecurity state is rampant discrimination against small business, the unmasked and the unvaccinated.
Early in the pandemic, the differential effect of the Canadian lockdowns on small and big businesses caused much debate. Now the shocking collapse of small business in Canada barely triggers a notice.
Masks provide a visible demonstration of how dulled our senses have become. While adults socialize in maskless gatherings, public health forces small children to wear masks all day indoors, outdoors, and during sports. Children are forced to bear the heaviest burden, with sharp disruptions in their lives, despite facing by far the smallest risk of harm from Covid itself.
Even supposed beacons of the Enlightenment—universities—also enforce this mask apartheid. For example, at the University of Waterloo, where I teach, faculty can meet each other maskless if they socially distance, but students meeting faculty or attending lectures must wear masks no matter how far apart they are from each other. This was before the university voluntarily shifted to isolated learning once again. It is notable that universities’ treatment of students during Covid is drawing increasing criticism.
In restaurants and events, public health mandates that workers wear masks all day while serving maskless guests. In the eyes of many among Canada’s ruling class, the poor and uneducated are powerless and unclean.
Vaccine passports ingrain the discrimination deeper yet. Canada now excludesunvaccinated young children from sports and school activities, even though many other developed countries have hesitated to approve the vaccines for healthy children. Canadians are so accustomed to ostracizing the unvaccinated that it hardly registers with the public.
The biosecurity state that has emerged in Canada is not the result of a conspiracy or a nefarious plan. Rather, the Canadian biosecurity state arose without thought or debate in a vacuum of long-term goals and careful planning. It is the result of governments—politicians and officials with the very best intentions—winging it rather than relying on long-established pandemic plans . . .
The Covid policies we see today in Canada are the product of pretending for two years that Covid can be stopped, that no trade-offs exist when it comes to Covid, and shunning debate on even the most obvious trade-offs and alternative Covid policies. The lack of attention to the human and economic costs of Canada’s Covid response has been appalling . . .
A 2013 book charts the rise of the biosecurity state and anticipates the dystopian world of COVID-19
In Men, Women: A User’s Manual, a Claude Lelouch film, a wealthy swashbuckling businessman troubled by abdominal pain goes to a Parisian hospital for an examination. Suddenly confronted with his own mortality, the otherwise optimistic businessman ruminates on one’s destiny. The worst, he tells the examining doctor, never disappoints (“Le pire n’est jamais décevant”).
But the businessman is too sanguine by temperament to dwell on the worst. Striking up an acquaintanceship with another patient in the waiting room — a struggling actor and inveterate worrywart also beset by stomach trouble — he tells his new pal as the two leave the hospital that, though the worst might never disappoint, it is also never certain (“Le pire n’est jamais certain”).
I often thought of that movie while reading Tempêtes Microbiennes. Essai sur la politique de sécurité sanitaire dans le monde transatlantique (Microbial Storms. An Essay on Health Security in the Transatlantic World — all translations are my own unless indicated otherwise).
Written by Patrick Zylberman, a French professor of health history, the book seems to have attracted limited attention among the general public, sufficiently limited that it has yet to see an English translation. That is a pity. Published seven years before the COVID-19 pandemic, Tempêtes Microbiennes anticipates the nightmarish global response to COVID-19 and goes a long way towards explaining how we’ve got to where we are now.
First, a little bit of history from Zylberman. Hard as it might be to believe this today, by the late 1970s the civilized world had come to feel decidedly pollyannaish about infectious diseases. With the development and extensive use of vaccines and antibiotics, and the taming or complete eradication of various diseases (countries such as Italy were able to entirely rid themselves of malaria, while in 1979 smallpox was declared to have been eradicated), many thought that human civilization had vanquished the transmission of pathogens. Budgets were cut, and an almost Fukuyamesque sense of the end of history seemed to prevail. It was hardly the best time to be an infectious diseases specialist.
By the turn of the century, everything had changed.
What had changed, exactly? Several things. First, the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s had put paid to the idea that plagues were a thing of the past.
Second, terrorism — or rather, the nature of terrorism — had evolved. Whereas terrorists had had clearly defined objectives in the past, terrorist threats now also came from apocalyptic sects and solitary individuals whose goal was to produce as much carnage as possible, threats that were underscored by the 1995 sarin attack in the Tokyo subway, the Oklahoma bombing in that same year, and the 2001 anthrax attacks.
Third, the collapse of the USSR and the resulting quasi-anarchic state of post-Soviet space had raised concerns about lax security standards at Russian labs that performed research on dangerous viruses and bacteria, and the risk of “brain drain” involving underpaid scientists willing to sell their expertise to unsavory actors. These developments would be further reinforced by such health crises as the SARS outbreak and the heat wave in France that would kill thousands of people in the summer of 2003.
All of this had caused a radical shift in the thinking of governments and policymakers. Biological threats, natural or manmade, were now increasingly seen as a security issue, and public health had gradually begun to be integrated into national security. Health security was becoming central to government policy. As Zylberman writes, this paradigm shift created a framework in which “the politicization of viruses meets the medicalization of warfare.”
The new framework rested on three pillars:
— the use of fictitious scenarios, whose purpose is to prepare for effective governing and administration in emergencies;
— the “logic of the worst,” whereby health policy is formulated based on the worst-case scenario; and
— a “superlative civicism” that requires citizens to act as participants in the execution of health policy, something that involves, among other things, a “doctrine that . . . consists of the absolute supremacy of the protection of public health over that of private life.”
This is exactly our reality today. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments have relied on models, projections, and worst-case scenarios to take emergency measures and beef up preparedness for anticipated waves. If the accuracy of these models and projections has been less than stellar, so much the worse for those who have had to submit to the measures — public health has established itself as an absolute concept that supersedes private life.
Additionally, consistent with the framework described by Zylberman, superlative civicism has served as a key tool of health policy throughout the pandemic. Behavioral psychology was applied to get the public to comply with health regulations, and the results must have exceeded all expectations, as many felt emboldened to go beyond self-policing to policing those around them.
We have seen people denounce neighbors for having clandestine get-togethers and police chiefs encourage citizens to shame “anti-maskers.” Superlative civicism has become so ingrained I have even observed little children — too young to understand the purpose of masks — reminding their parents to mask up. The now daily baiting and stigmatizing of the unvaccinated is also a form of superlative civicism.
While the goal of this paradigm — keeping society safe — might be praiseworthy, the actual result is what Giorgio Agamben appropriately calls a “sort of ‘health terror’” (Where Are We Now?, Eris, 2021, trans. Valeria Dani).
Biopolitics — that is, governmental control of the biological life of the citizenry — becomes the lodestar of government policy, leading to the rise of the biosecurity state in which one’s rights are subservient to considerations of public health, and where individuals are less citizens than agents of contagion who need to be controlled and monitored for their own good. Zylberman writes, “Public health undergoes a hideous metamorphosis, becoming a pure tyranny.” That sounds familiar.
When public health is welded to national security, it is logical that a health care crisis easily turns into a national security crisis. Thus, we currently find ourselves “at war” with a respiratory virus. This is an absurdity if there ever was one, not least because, as a virus needs hosts and everyone is a potential spreader, we are effectively at war with ourselves.
In this framework, anyone who opposes measures taken to help us “win the war,” for whatever reasons, is perceived to be helping the enemy. Hence the demonization of those who refuse to stay at home, wear masks, and take the vaccine.
The security measures taken in response to 9/11 — measures pertaining to air travel, for instance — were implemented as part of the war on terror.
As the risk of terrorism can never be entirely eliminated, a war on terror is a war that cannot end, which is why the post-9/11 security measures are still in place and can be expected to remain so in perpetuity. Likewise, with the incorporation of public health into national security, measures taken in a health crisis can also be expected to become permanent in some way, since the risk of future pandemics and other crises, health-related or otherwise, will never go away.
When Susan Michie, a behavioral psychologist advising the UK government on the COVID-19 pandemic in her capacity as a member of Sage committee, opined in an interview that social distancing and face masks might stay with us forever in some form, it is unlikely her opinion was influenced by her alleged communist sympathies, as many suggested at the time.
Michie was simply expressing a viewpoint that fully conforms to the biosecurity state framework, in which the public lives in a permanent state of high alert. As long as the framework is in place, a full return to normality might be well-nigh impossible.
How does one resist a biosecurity state? Just as superlative civicism is essential to sustaining the biosecurity model, massive civil disobedience will be needed to leave it. For resistance to be successful, the model has to be rejected by broad sections of the public. The real conflict of the microbial storm of our time is not between “maskers” and “anti-maskers,” or between the vaccinated and “anti-vaxxers.”
It is between those who are comfortable living in a biosecurity state (either because they have thus far found it tolerable, or because they haven’t yet realized what it is that they have signed up for) and between those who find such a state toxic; between those who put safety, or the illusion thereof, above all else, and those who believe there is more to life than risk management and the avoidance of death.
Zylberman concludes his work by pointing out that, in the existing health security framework, “reality is frightening not because it is real, but because it might become real.” But a reality that has yet to, and may never, become real is not reality. The challenge for those who want to resist the biosecurity model is to convince as much of the public as possible that few are the rewards of living in a society forever on guard against the unreal.
In the French movie I’ve mentioned earlier, both the businessman and the struggling actor fear the worst, the worst being cancer. As it turns out, only the actor is unlucky; the businessman is healthy. Yet the hypochondriacal actor goes on to survive, while the optimistic businessman ends up being killed — in a helicopter crash.
The worst, then, does not fail to disappoint, but it makes a mockery of all certainty. The worst is just that — uncertain. It cannot be planned ahead. To accept that is to accept the idea that some element of risk is inevitable, and that a healthy society needs to learn to live with it.
Living with some element of risk is not about being reckless, but about putting things into perspective. Given the continued erosion of our rights in the name of public health, perspective is something our society could surely use right now.
Federal health minister Yves Duclos offered an open door invitation for premiers to impose mandatory vaccination when he mused publicly about the likelihood of such a policy on January 7th. So it should be no surprise when Canada’s most illiberal premier, Quebec’s Francois Legault, walked through that open door a few days later with the announcement of a new “health care contribution” on the unvaccinated.
At the outset, it should be stated clearly: Quebec’s new proposed health tax on the unvaccinated is a terrible idea. It is likely contrary to the Canada Health Act and raises serious constitutional questions.
Tying healthcare costs to risk is not itself a novel concept. Private health insurers take into account individual circumstances when assessing premiums, including risks that may result from lifestyle choices such as obesity, high-risk activities, and vaccination against infectious diseases.
However, the government of Quebec is not a private health insurer. It must operate according to the principles of the Canada Health Act, chief among which is universality: health care is free at the point of service regardless of prior comorbidities, lifestyle choices, or past decisions to accept or refuse medical treatment. If the principle of universality is to be respected, the question of individual circumstances cannot justify additional burdens to treatment. Every citizen of Quebec who holds a RAMQ health card and pays taxes has equal access to care, full stop.
The consequence of Quebec’s clear violation of the Canada Health Act’s principle of universality ought to be the denial of federal health transfer payments to the province. But for obvious political reasons, that won’t happen. Not from this Prime Minister, and not when the targeted group is so deeply unpopular. But there remain constitutional and ethical problems with the proposition to tax the unvaccinated.
Section 1 of the Québec Charter provides that “Every human being has a right to life, and to personal security, inviolability and freedom.” It’s true that neither the Quebec nor the Canadian Charter protects economic liberty, so the tax itself is not a constitutional violation. However, imposing additional, and what Legault has called “significant” taxes, is a transparent attempt to coerce those who are unwilling to be vaccinated.
For most Quebeckers, an additional financial burden of several hundred dollars a month would be acutely stressful, and for some devastating. Especially when the past two years have created and exacerbated economic hardships for many. The suggestion that one could avoid this tax by acquiescing to the vaccine all but guarantees their choice to become vaccinated will be made under coercion, and not freely. This presents a clear interference with section 1’s right to personal security.
Imposing a fine as a condition to accessing an essential service such as health care goes above and beyond other prerequisites to engage in certain activities in society, such as wearing seatbelts to drive or refraining from smoking in indoor spaces. Access to health care is a fundamental need that arises from being a human being in a vulnerable body.
Quebec, like a few other provinces, actually does have a much more straightforward mechanism for compelling vaccination. Compulsory vaccination is explicitly permitted in its Public Health Act. And yet it’s safe to assume that no Quebecker would consent to a mechanism by which people were physically bound and had their arms injected with the vaccine. Why? We’re a country that respects the basic dignity of human beings and the principle of bodily autonomy and integrity.
The fact that an apparent majority of Canadians polled this week support the health tax, which indirectly achieves the same end of compelling individuals to be vaccinated against their will, highlights this cognitive dissonance.
Although the route of the health tax is less medieval than simple brute coercion, it raises additional concerns from a privacy perspective. Would implementing the policy require an amendment of existing health privacy laws in order to permit individuals’ vaccination status to be shared with the tax collectors?
It is also unclear if the government will be able to argue that a blanket tax on the unvaccinated is the least intrusive means available to them to blunt the real issue of the unvaccinated’s disproportionate occupancy of ICU beds. Unvaccinated individuals present wildly varying degrees of risk of hospitalization, depending on age, previous comorbidities, ability to work from home, and indeed prior infection. This has been acknowledged by countries such as Italy and Greece, who are only imposing the health tax on citizens over the age of 50 or 60 respectively who are at much higher risk of severe outcomes from catching the virus unvaccinated
In a pluralistic society, it’s unrealistic to expect a 100 percent vaccination rate. With 90 percent of eligible adults in Quebec vaccinated, any analysis of whether a measure aiming to punish the remaining holdouts must consider if other measures were possible before this one. The U.S. and UK have now approved Pfizer’s antiviral pill which reduces rates of hospitalization by 88 percent. Monoclonal antibody treatments are now available to high-risk individuals in Canada and are shown to reduce hospitalization by 80 percent.
Even in public health emergencies, certain norms of basic respect for human beings and their right to make free and informed decisions must not be trespassed. Charging mandatory levies against the unvaccinated simply crosses the line of what may be permitted in a free society, and should be condemned outright.
27. No, Those Who Pushed Lockdowns Can’t Hide From The Consequences Now
by Joy Pullman, The Federalist
[I like this article a lot because it talks about bringing to justice the perpetrators of this crime against humanity — which really must be done]
Did any of these people tell the truth back when it could have saved the generation that comprises the world’s future? Nope.
Americans are starting to feel the increasing collateral damage from our unprecedented, ineffective, and ill-advised Covid lockdowns. It was known before March 2020 that lockdowns would cause lifelong and avoidable damage to billions, yet the world’s ruling classes who claim to have earned their place atop a “meritocracy” strenuously demanded such damage be inflicted especially on children and other vulnerable people.
This ruling class used all their massive financial, communications, and government powers to ensure these tragic outcomes, even though anyone who was an actual expert—or, like me, just someone who reads and has common sense—predicted this false “cure” would hurt worse than the disease.
Now that people are beginning to more deeply feel the foreseeable evil consequences of ruling class responses to a novel virus, that ruling class is pulling what propaganda experts call a “limited hangout.” That’s admitting to bits of the truth in order to re-establish yourself as a credible authority while attempting to keep the whole truth hidden.
Limited hangout. Trying to build credibility by telling some of the truth. They’ll use this to continue to blame the unvaccinated and to push vaccination as what makes Omicron milder.
Why are they all of the sudden simultaneously changing the narrative, and effectively admitting that they have been over-counting Covid hospitalizations? Why is it so coordinated and simultaneous?
So we have outlets such as The Atlantic and The New York Times, which have throughout the Covid era worked as government butt-coverers, now publishing articles admitting that lockdowns and continued rolling blackouts of school instruction is irrevocably damaging Americans, especially children and even more especially the poorest. The kids, as I pointed out in April 2020 and numerous times thereafter, will never as a generation recover.
Suicide rate by age:
5-11 Pre-COVID: 0.17/100,000
That’s a 3,000 percent jump as kids age. Now consider that suicides among 5-11 year-olds tripled during lockdowns . . . We have lost just as many 5-11 year-olds to suicide as we have to COVID, per the CDC.
Now that the damage is done, major corporate media organizations have decided to pivot to acknowledge just enough of the truth to cover their complicity. The Atlantic, for example, last week published an article titled “America’s Covid Rules Are A Dumpster Fire” (It took you two years to figure out what was apparent within the first month?).
CNN’s Brian Stelter recently did a segment acknowledging the foreseeable “mental health crisis” from lockdowns that is causing suicides, ruining marriages, putting formerly perfectly normal kids into rocking fetal positions, and erasing the credibility of formerly mostly ignored “public health experts” at institutions like the Centers for Disease Control and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Stelter made multiple statements that have gotten numerous conservatives punished by and erased from social media, such as that “Covid zero is…an impossibility” and “the CDC has turned into a punchline.” The only reason @brianstelter is flipping on COCID hysteria is because the ruse is backfiring on Biden . . .Where was Stelter a year and a half ago, when data reflecting the exact same outcomes were also plentiful? Heck, Stelter was still legitimizing Covid panic one month ago, when CNN and other news organizations reinstituted lockdown measures amid omicron panic they helped inflame.
Six months ago, Stelter was indicating Fox News had “blood on its hands” for reporting less hysterically than all the other major media organizations about Covid.
Clearly, Democrats are becoming ensnared by their own trap, and they’re trying to get out with this public reversal of their messaging. The limited hangout is afoot.
. . . why did they spend two years on massive information suppression campaigns against scientists, politicians, podcasters, and just ordinary citizens who had some questions, contrary data, and objections to elites’ demanded Covid response?
Because it was politically expedient to sacrifice science, Americans’ civil rights, human lives, and the world’s future then, and it is not politically expedient to face the consequences for that choice now. And they think nobody can or will hold them accountable for their deadly and despicable lies.
All the misery these too-late admittals underscore appears to be true, but it also could have been prevented. CNN and The New York Times not only did nothing to help prevent this kind of irreversible damage, they willingly, even gleefully, participated in this completely unwarranted mass abuse of Americans.
The left lied, children committed suicide. The corporate left’s morally abominable Covid propaganda operation demands justice.
The people who could and should have known, and in fact likely did know, that lockdowns would harm millions of innocents while not protecting the vulnerable can never be trusted again. Did any of these people tell the truth back when it could have saved the generation that comprises the world’s future? Nope. They not only watched it happen, they cheered it on and viciously ostracized all who told the truth.
All these people have erased all their moral authority and their claims to expertise. The same goes for all the education “experts” and “leaders” who didn’t spend the last two years screaming at the top of their lungs that school shutdowns are a stupid, scientifically unwarranted, and evil idea. Yes, that’s basically all of them
. . . Experts who knowingly allow mass child abuse because they don’t want to harm their careers are not experts, they are cowards. They deserve not one ounce of public trust or even to retain their jobs. They certainly should have no public funds nor authority over any portion of the upbringing of American children. Not one parent or elected official should give these education and public health “experts” the time of day.
28. The Last Days of the Covidian Cult by CJ Hopkins, Off-Guardian
[This is a good article about the growing backlash and backtracking by those who promoted medical tyranny or who accepted it blindly for the last two years]
This isn’t going to be pretty, folks. The downfall of a death cult rarely is. There is going to be wailing and gnashing of teeth, incoherent fanatical jabbering, mass deleting of embarrassing tweets.
There’s going to be a veritable tsunami of desperate rationalizing, strenuous denying, shameless blame-shifting, and other forms of ass-covering, as suddenly former Covidian Cult members make a last-minute break for the jungle before the fully-vaxxed-and-boosted “Safe and Effective Kool-Aid” servers get to them.
Yes, that’s right, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, the official Covid narrative is finally falling apart, or is being hastily disassembled, or historically revised, right before our eyes.
The “experts” and “authorities” are finally acknowledging that the “Covid deaths” and “hospitalization” statistics are artificially inflated and totally unreliable (which they have been from the very beginning), and they are admitting that their miracle “vaccines” don’t work (unless you change the definition of the word “vaccine”), and that they have killed a few people, or maybe more than a few people, and that lockdowns were probably “a serious mistake.”
I am not going to bother with further citations. You can surf the Internet as well as I can.
The point is, the “Apocalyptic Pandemic” PSYOP has reached its expiration date. After almost two years of mass hysteria over a virus that causes mild-to-moderate common-cold or flu-like symptoms (or absolutely no symptoms whatsoever) in about 95% of the infected and the overall infection fatality rate of which is approximately 0.1% to 0.5%, people’s nerves are shot.
We are all exhausted. Even the Covidian cultists are exhausted. And they are starting to abandon the cult en masse. It was always mostly just a matter of time. As Klaus Schwab said: “the pandemic represent[ed] a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.”
It isn’t over, but that window is closing, and our world has not been “reimagined” and “reset,” not irrevocably, not just yet. Clearly, GloboCap underestimated the potential resistance to the Great Reset, and the time it would take to crush that resistance.
And now the clock is running down, and the resistance isn’t crushed … on the contrary, it is growing. And there is nothing GloboCap can do to stop it, other than go openly totalitarian, which it can’t, as that would be suicidal.
[Actually they are doing it in Canada, and have been doing it in Australia]
As I noted in a recent column: New Normal totalitarianism — and any global-capitalist form of totalitarianism — cannot display itself as totalitarianism, or even authoritarianism. It cannot acknowledge its political nature. In order to exist, it must not exist. Above all, it must erase its violence (the violence that all politics ultimately comes down to) and appear to us as an essentially beneficent response to a legitimate ‘global health crisis’ …”
. . . The thing is, if you intend to keep the masses whipped up into a mindless frenzy of anus-puckering paranoia over an “apocalyptic global pandemic,” at some point, you have to produce an actual apocalyptic global pandemic.
Faked statistics and propaganda will carry you for a while, but eventually people are going to need to experience something at least resembling an actual devastating worldwide plague, in reality, not just on their phones and TVs.
29. Researcher Calls Out Censorship After Journal Tosses Adverse Event Study
by Petr Svab, Epoch Times
Jessica Rose didn’t ask for any of this. She started to analyze data on adverse reactions after COVID-19 vaccines simply as an exercise to master a new piece of software. But she couldn’t ignore what she saw and decided to publish the results of her analysis. The next thing she knew, she was in a “bizzarro world,” she told The Epoch Times.
A paper she co-authored based on her analysis was withdrawn by the academic journal Elsevier under circumstances that raised eyebrows among her colleagues. The journal declined to comment on the matter.
Rose received her PhD in computational biology from the Bar-Ilan University in Israel. After finishing her post-doctoral studies on molecular dynamics of certain proteins, she was looking for a new challenge. Switching to a new statistical computing software, she was looking for an interesting data set to sharpen her skills on. She picked the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a database of reports of health problems that have occurred after a vaccination and may or may not have been caused by it.
She said she wasn’t looking for anything in particular in the data. “I don’t go in with questions,” she said. What she found, however, was disturbing to her.
VAERS has been in place since 1990 to provide an early warning signal that there might be a problem with a vaccine. Anybody can submit the reports, which are then checked for duplicates. They are largely filed by health care personnel, based on previous research. Usually, there would be around 40,000 reports a year, including several hundred deaths.
But with the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, VAERS reports went through the roof. By Jan. 7, there were over a million reports, including more than 21,000 deaths. Other notable issues include over 11,000 heart attacks, nearly 13,000 cases of Bell’s palsy, and over 25,000 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis.
Rose found the data alarming, only to realize authorities and even some experts were generally dismissing it. “Clearly, there’s no concern [among these authorities and experts] for people who are suffering adverse events,” she said.
30. Truth, freedom, new beginnings: For the way out of the crisis I am looking for answers to the following question: What to do?
by Milosz Matuschek [translated, edited]
This is a text that should invite you to pause for a moment. I was recently invited to a panel discussion that dealt with the question of whether journalism can still be saved.
. . . there is a need for deep social investigation, for a discussion about the reorganization of the foundations of our lives in all areas and is becoming more and more urgent. We cannot escape that.
About a year ago I started writing the series “The Corona Complex”, which is now available in five parts . . . At that time I wrote about the many inconsistencies that were piling up in front of us in many areas.
At the time, I was of the opinion that the corona narrative would probably not collapse on one big scandal, a “smoking gun”, but could ultimately succumb to a web of discrepancies. And I still hold that view. I picture a steamroller grinding to a halt in front of a wall of people who just won’t keep up.
. . . While the pressure on Fauci is increasing in the USA (keyword: “gain of function”) and countries like Spain are planning to treat Corona like the flu in the future, the question of compulsory vaccination is still being pushed relentlessly in Germany.
Apparently, before the narrative collapses, politicians are attempting one last, final escalation. [same in Canada]
But I am confident that politics will ultimately rise above this question.
Then at the latest the wave of reappraisal will start rolling.
What will we do when the Corona narrative has collapsed?
Apologies from newspapers for their uncritical reporting and a few resignations will not be enough . . .
31. COVID Shots Make Omicron Worse from Mercola.com
Omicron is rapidly overtaking other SARS-CoV-2 variants and currently accounts for 95% of all COVID cases in the U.S.
Research shows current COVID shots cease to provide any protection against Omicron 30 days’ post-injection, and at 90 days offers negative protection, actually making you more prone to Omicron infection.
This effectively makes COVID jab mandates obsolete, yet government and health authorities are still pushing Americans to get jabbed, and if already jabbed, to get a third booster.
Pfizer is now saying it will have an Omicron-specific shot ready in March 2022, at which point Americans will undoubtedly be told to line up for a fourth injection.
Professor Andrew Pollard, head of the U.K.’s Committee on Vaccination and Immunization who helped create the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot, said in a Jan. 3, 2022, Daily Telegraph interview: “We can’t vaccinate the planet every four or six months. It’s not sustainable or affordable”
While a third COVID booster shot started rolling out in late September 2021,1 and people have been bullied into getting it, that booster is no different from the first two doses. It’s not specific against Omicron, which is rapidly overtaking other variants and currently accounts for 95% of all COVID cases in the U.S.
A number of studies have already shown that the COVID shots offer very limited protection against the Omicron variant, yet the guidance doesn’t change. “Get the booster,” is the universal recommendation, but that’s like telling everyone to use a flu vaccine from one or even two seasons ago. Why take another dose of something that is significantly mismatched to the strains in circulation?
Omicron Makes Vaccine Mandates Obsolete
As noted by Dr. Luc Montagnier and Jed Rubenfeld, a lawyer, in a January 9, 2022, Wall Street Journal opinion piece, “Omicron Makes Biden’s Vaccine Mandates Obsolete,” there’s no evidence the COVID shots reduce infections from this rapidly spreading variant.
“It would be irrational, legally indefensible and contrary to the public interest for government to mandate vaccines absent any evidence that the vaccines are effective in stopping the spread of the pathogen they target,” Montagnier and Rubenfeld write, “Yet that’s exactly what’s happening here …
As of Jan. 1, Omicron represented more than 95% of U.S. COVID cases, according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Because some of Omicron’s 50 mutations are known to evade antibody protection, because more than 30 of those mutations are to the spike protein used as an immunogen by the existing vaccines, and because there have been mass Omicron outbreaks in heavily vaccinated populations, scientists are highly uncertain the existing vaccines can stop it from spreading …
The Supreme Court held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) that the right to refuse medical treatment could be overcome when society needs to curb the spread of a contagious epidemic. At Friday’s oral argument, all the [Supreme Court] justices acknowledged that the federal mandates rest on this rationale.
But mandating a vaccine to stop the spread of a disease requires evidence that the vaccines will prevent infection or transmission (rather than efficacy against severe outcomes like hospitalization or death).
As the World Health Organization puts it, ‘if mandatory vaccination is considered necessary to interrupt transmission chains and prevent harm to others, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission.’ For Omicron, there is as yet no such evidence. The little data we have suggest the opposite.”
COVID Shots Increase Omicron Infection Risk
The pair go on to cite Danish research showing the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots have no statistically positive effect against Omicron infection after just 30 days. Worse, 90 days’ post-injection their effectiveness goes negative, making those who have received the jab more susceptible to Omicron infection than the unvaccinated.