• Subtle and overt neurological injuries are one of the most common results of a pharmaceutical injury.
• The COVID-19 vaccines excel at causing damage to cognition, and many of us have noticed both subtle and overt cognitive impairment following vaccination that relatively few people know how to address.
• For a long time, the hypothesis that the vaccines impaired cognition was “anecdotal” because it was based on individuals observing it in their peer group or patients.
• Recently large datasets emerged which show this phenomenon is very real and that the severe injuries we’ve seen from the vaccines (e.g., sudden death) are only the tip of the iceberg.
• In this article we will review the proof that vaccines are doing this and explore the mechanisms which allow it to happen so we can better understand how to treat it.
Note: I originally published this article a year ago. I am republishing it now because a robust dataset emerged which regrettably validates the hypothesis I put forward then.
When the COVID-19 vaccines were brought to market, due to their design I expected them to have safety issues, and I expected over the long term, a variety of chronic issues would be linked to them. This was because there were a variety of reasons to suspect they would cause autoimmune disorders, fertility issues and cancers—but for some reason (as shown by the Pfizer EMA leaks), the vaccines had been exempted from being appropriately tested for any of these issues prior to being given to humans.
Since all new drugs are required to receive that testing, I interpreted it to be a tacit admission it was known major issues would emerge in these areas, and that a decision was made that it was better to just not officially test any of them so there would be no data to show Pfizer “knew” the problems would develop and hence could claim plausible deniability. Sadly, since the time the vaccines entered the market, those three issues (especially autoimmunity) have become some of the most common severe events associated with the vaccines.
At the start of the vaccine rollout, there were four red flags to me:
• The early advertising campaigns for the vaccines mentioned that you would feel awful when you got the vaccine, but that was fine and a sign the vaccine was working. Even with vaccines that had a very high rate of adverse events (e.g., the HPV vaccine), I had never seen this messaging before. This signified it was likely the adverse event rate with the spike protein vaccines would be much higher than normal.
• Many of my colleagues who got the vaccine (since they were healthcare workers they were able to get it first) posted on social media about just how awful they felt after getting the vaccine. This was also something I had never seen with a previous vaccine. After some digging, I noticed those with the worst vaccine reactions typically had already had COVID and that their reaction was to the second shot rather than the first, signifying that some type of increased sensitization was occurring from repeated exposures to the spike protein. Likewise, the published clinical trial about Pfizer’s vaccine also showed adverse reactions were dramatically higher with the second rather than first shot.
• Once the vaccine became available to the general public, I immediately had patients start showing up with vaccine reactions, many of whom stated they received their flu shot each year and never had experienced something similar with a previous vaccination. One of the most concerning things were the pre-exacerbation of autoimmune diseases (e.g., spots in their body they previously would occasionally have arthritis in all felt like they were on fire). After I started looking into this I realized people were seeing between a 15-25% rate of new autoimmune disorders or exacerbations of existing autoimmune disorders developing after the vaccine, a massive increase I had never seen any previous vaccine cause. Note: this was demonstrated by a February 2022 Israeli survey which showed 3% of vaccine recipients experienced a new autoimmune disorder and that 24% experienced an exacerbation of a pre-existing one, a rheumatologic databasepublished in the BMJ that found 4.4% of recipients experienced an exacerbation of a pre-existing autoimmune disease, and a survey by a private physician of 566 patients which found vaccination spiked their inflammatory markers, causing their five year risk of a heart attack to go from 11% to 25%.
• About a month after the vaccines were available to the public, I started having friends and patients share that they’d known someone who had unexpectedly died suddenly after receiving the vaccine (typically from a heart attack, stroke, or a sudden aggressive case of COVID-19).
This was also extremely concerning to me, because reactions to a toxin typically distribute on a bell curve, with the severe ones being much rarer than the moderate ones. This meant that if that many severe reactions were occurring, what I could already see was only the tip of the iceberg and far, far more less obvious reactions were going to be happening, to the point it was likely many people I knew would end up experiencing complications from the vaccine.
Note: the above graph is only illustrating one aspect of the picture as there will also be a much larger number of minor reactions, and even more invisible ones (e.g., a symptom occurs years down the road) or no reaction at all.
I tried to warn my colleagues about the dangers of this vaccine, but even when I pointed out Pfizer’s own trial admitted the vaccine was more likely to harm than help you, no one would listen to me. Not being sure what else to do, but not be willing to do nothing, I decided to start documenting all the severe reactions I came across so I could have some type of “proof” to show my colleagues.
This was something that was extremely important at the time since no one was willing to take on the personal risk of publishing something that went against the narrative (that vaccines were killing people) in the peer reviewed literature. Shortly after Steve Kirsch kindly helped launch my Substack, I decided to post the log I’d put together, and since there was a critical need for that information (as many had seen the same things I’d observed but no one was reporting them), the post went viral and created much of the initial reader base that made my Substack possible.
It was immensely time consuming to do the project (especially the verification of each story that was reported to me), so I ended the project after a year. During that time, I came across 45 cases of either a death (these comprised the majority of the 45 cases), something I expected to be fatal later on (e.g., a metastatic cancer) or a permanent and total disability. Additionally, in line with the previously described bell curve, I also came across many more serious but not quite as severe injuries.
What I found remarkable about this was that through a passive reporting system in my own limited social network (I learned of these cases because people reached out to me or someone off-handedly shared them with me), I alone found enough cases of severe vaccine injuries to justify pulling the COVID-19 vaccines from the market, yet, our healthcare authorities, who had access to thousands of times as much data as I did chose to pretend nothing was happening. Furthermore, from my own dataset (due to it being large enough to contain all the common COVID vaccine injuries), I accurately predicted most of the vaccine injuries that would be subsequently seen and only now (years later) are gradually being acknowledged.
In turn, we are now seeing clear signs that excess mortality has spiked across the globe, large polls are finding that one fifth of Americans know someone they believe were killed by the vaccines and because so much trust has been lost from this cover up, public health authorities are at last admitting there may be a problem—but they didn’t say anything until now because they “didn’t want to create vaccine hesitancy,” which coincidently is the same excuse which has been used for decades (e.g., Dr. Meier, a distinguished professor called out this behavior after the government unleashed an easily preventable polio disaster in 1955.
Patterns of Vaccine Injury
I’ve had a long term interest in studying pharmaceutical injuries because many of my friends and relatives have had bad reactions to pharmaceuticals. In most of these cases, ample data existed to show that reaction could happen (often to the degree it strongly argued against the pharmaceutical remaining on the market) and yet almost no one in the medical field was aware of those dangers, hence leading to my injured friends never being warned before they took the pharmaceutical or even while the injury was occurring (e.g., the doctor said they’d never seen anyone have those reactions, that whatever was happening was due to anxiety, and that they would soon end — when in reality it became a lifelong condition because the patient didn’t stop the drug in time).
My bell curve theory originally came about from examining all of their cases. I thus was interested to know if the distribution of adverse events from the spike protein vaccines would match what I had observed with previous dangerous pharmaceuticals and if what I saw personally did or did not match what everyone was reporting online (which is part of why I put so much work into making sure the log was both accurate and detailed).
One of the things that immediately jumped out at me during that logging process were the multiple cases of a friend’s parent in a nursing home receiving the vaccine, immediately undergoing a rapid cognitive decline which was “diagnosed” as Alzheimer’s disease and then dying not long after. At the time, I assumed these were most likely due to undiagnosed ischemic strokes as that was the most plausible mechanism to describe what I’d heard, but I was not certain as I could never examine any of these individuals for signs a stroke had indeed happened.
Note: despite many deaths in the nursing home population due to COVID and the vaccines, the number of people awaiting admission to a nursing home has significantly increased (shown by this large data set from the Netherlands). Given that individuals typically do not want to go to a nursing home unless they are no longe able to take care of themselves, this suggests that something new is causing the rapid development of debilitating cognitive impairment (e.g., dementia) in the adult population. Likewise, as Ed Dowd has repeatedly documented, there has been a large increase in physical and cognitive disability throughout the adult population which has significantly impacted the economy because of how many workers are being lost to vaccine injuries.
Steve Kirsch was contacted by a whistleblower who reported there has been a 25 fold increase in sudden dementia at the nursing home where she works. Similarly, like the cases shared with me, Kirsch has noted that (like me) he has frequently been contacted by relatives who reported a sudden onset of dementia in their beloved relative which was then swept under the rug. Furthermore, he has also collected numerous other forms of evidence corroborating this is indeed happening. These cases are really sad because the elders in nursing homes have very little ability to advocate for themselves, and most people will just write the cases off as “Alzheimers,” rather than seeing the red flag staring them in the face.
These cases were very concerning to me, as they signified (per the bell curve) that there was going to be a much larger portion of people who would develop less severe cognitive decline following vaccination.
Note: one of the most common types of injuries from pharmaceuticals are neurological injuries which both impair cognitive function and create psychiatric symptoms. This places patients in a difficult situation of being gaslighted by the medical system. This is because their doctors assume the psychiatric symptoms the patients are experiencing are the cause of their illness rather than a symptom of it, leading to the patient being told the illness is all in their head and continually referred for psychiatric help. One of the best examples of this occurred as a result of the abnormal heart rhythms (e.g., rapid anxiety provoking palpitations) caused by the vaccine damaging the heart which were consistently diagnosed as being a result of anxiety, even when a subsequent workup I requested showed heart damage was present. Remarkably, in the early era of vaccines, many doctors (as detailed here) acknowledged that vaccines caused neurological injuries which manifested as psychiatric symptoms, but now that recognition has been almost completely forgotten.
As I began seeing more and more signs of cognitive impairment following vaccination, I realized that what I observed mirrored what I had previously seen with chronic inflammatory conditions such as mold toxicity, HPV vaccine injuries, and lyme disease. Some of the examples included:
• Many people reported having a “COVID” brain where it was just harder for them to think and remember things. I sometimes saw this occur after more severe cases of COVID, but more frequently after vaccination, along with many instance of patients who per their timeline clearly developed it from the vaccine but nonetheless believed it had come from COVID.
• These issues tended to be more likely to affect older adults, but younger ones were more likely to notice (and complain) about them. In the case of older adults, I typically learned about them from someone else who had observed the cognitive decline rather than directly from the individual.
• I saw numerous cases of vaccine injured individuals who had trouble remembering or recalling the word they knew expressed what they were trying to communicate (this is also a common mold toxicity symptom).
• I had friends and patients who told me their brain just didn’t work the same since they’d received the vaccine. As an example, a few colleagues told me they started losing the ability to remember basic things they needed to practice medicine (e.g., medication dosages for prescriptions). They shared that they were very worried they would need to take an early retirement and that they thought it came from the vaccine but there was no one they could talk to about it (which understandably created a lot of doubt and anxiety).
• I saw cases of coworkers demonstrating noticeable (and permanent) cognitive impairment after I’d assumed they’d received the vaccine. Their impairment was never mentioned or addressed (rather the physician kept on working, did not perform as well, and in some cases retired).
• I met significantly injured vaccine injured patients who told me one of the primary symptoms was a loss of cognitive functioning they had taken for granted throughout their life. In many cases following treatment of their vaccine injury, their cognition also improved.
• Colleagues who treated vaccine injured patients told me cognitive impairment was one of the common symptoms they saw and was particularly noteworthy because they had never seen anything like that happen to young adults. To quote Pierre Kory:
In my practice of treating vaccine injuries, one of the three most common symptoms I see is brain fog. So many of my patients had been in the prime of their lives, can now barely function, have significant cognitive impairment and need a lot of help from our nurses to carry out their treatment plans. I never imagined I would see any of this in people far younger than me and instead I see it every day. I bear witness to an immense amount of suffering on a daily basis that is hard to put into words.
• One of my friends (a very smart immunologist) developed complications from the first two vaccines and based on their symptoms was able to describe exactly which parts of their immune systems were becoming dysregulated. Against my advice, they took a booster and reported they suffered a significant cognitive impairment never experienced before in their lifetime. I feel this case was important to share as it illustrates how an exacerbation of a vaccine injury can also cause an exacerbation of cognitive symptoms.
Note: I also saw significant cognitive impairment occur in individuals who were acutely ill with COVID-19. This was not as unusual since delirium is a well known complication in patients hospitalized with a systemic illness (e.g., sepsis), but it seemed to happen more frequently than usual. However, in almost all cases, COVID-19 cognitive impairment resolved after their illness (even when they had been critically ill and required hospitalization) whereas the cognitive impairment I saw from the vaccines was often permanent (unless it was treated).
I specifically wanted to write this article for two reasons.
First, unless you’ve talked to a lot of people who have been through this, it’s really hard to describe what it’s like to gradually lose your mind and the basic cognitive function you relied upon to navigate the world—especially if everyone around you is telling you that it’s not happening and it’s all in your head. I wrote this article to give a voice to those people.
Second, despite Alzheimer’s disease being the mostly costly disease for America, most providers know fairly little about it and instead use it as a blanket diagnosis for anytime a patient shows signs of impaired cognition. This, I in turn would argue has been because there is minimal interest in understanding the causes (and treatments) of Alzheimer’s disease as there is so much more money in “research” for it and productive expensive (but useless and harmful) drugs for it.
Evidence of Cognitive Impairment
At the same time I was observing these effects, many rumors were also swirling around online that the vaccines would cause severe cognitive impairment and that we would witness a zombie apocalypse from the vaccine injuries.
This apocalypse of course never happened (which again illustrates why it is so important to be judicious with what one pronounces will come to pass—as our movement has repeatedly damaged its credibility by making easily outlandish and easily falsifiable predictions). Nonetheless, many have observed a suspicion cognitive impairment was occurring. For example to quote Igor Chudov’s article on the topic:
I own a small business and deal with many people and other small businesses. Most provided reliable service, would remember appointments, followed up on issues, and so on. I noticed that lately, some people have become less capable cognitively. They forget essential appointments, cannot concentrate, make crazy-stupid mistakes, and so on.
In my own case, in addition to poorly performing colleagues, the most evident change I noticed was a worsening of drivers around me and had quite a few near misses from impaired driving.
The great challenge with these situations is that it’s very hard to tell if something is actually happening or your perception is simply a product of confirmation bias. For this reason, while I was comfortable asserting my belief the COVID-19 vaccines were causing the severe injuries on either end of the bell curve, I avoided doing so for many of the less impactful injuries in the middle where it was much more ambiguous if what I was observing was “real” or simply my own biased perception of the events around me. Because of this, amongst other things, I never mentioned the changes in driving I observed.
Note: after I posted the original article many of the readers stated they too had observed a significant worsening in the behavior of drivers around them. I was then pointed to this dataset, which suggests this issue was happening, but is difficult to properly assess because COVID-19 can also cause cognitive impairment and less people were driving in 2020 and because the dataset still has not been updated since 2022.
Recently, Igor Chudov was able to identify another dataset from the Netherlands which further corroborated that we were indeed facing a massive cognitive decline:
Primary care data for January to March 2023 showed that adults visited their GP more frequently for a number of symptoms compared to the same period in 2019. Memory and concentration problems were significantly more common than last year and in the period before COVID-19. Where these symptoms are concerned, the difference compared to 2019 is growing steadily in each quarter.
In the first quarter of 2023, there was a 24% increase in GP [general practioner] visits related to memory and concentration problems among adults (age 25 years and older) compared to the same period in 2020. This is evidenced by the latest quarterly research update from the GOR Network. The increase in memory and concentration problems of adults seems to be a longer-term effect of the coronavirus measures as well as SARS-CoV-2 infections.
More specifically they found:
• No increase was observed in adults under 25 years old.
• A 31% increase was observed in those 24-44 years old.
• A 40% increase was observed in those 45-74 years old.
• An 18% increase was observed in those over 75 years old.
Note: previous rounds of this survey, in addition to the cognitive issues described above, found that since 2019, the general population has also experienced worsening mental health (e.g, anxiety, depression or suicidal thoughts), sleep problems, tiredness, and cardiovascular issues (e.g., shortness of breath, dizziness or heart palpitation).
Typically, patients, less than 75 years old are unlikely to visit their doctors for cognitive issues. Taken in context with this data, it means there is a stronger case that the (massive) increases in cognitive issue for those under 75 were caused by something that happened after 2019. Additionally, since there were already a large number of visits for cognitive impairment in the elderly, the lower percentage increase is slightly misleading in quantifying the extent to which everyone was affected. For example to quote the previous report:
Primary care data showed that adults visited their GP somewhat more frequently for sleep problems in October–December 2022 than in the same period in 2019. This was particularly striking in the oldest age group (75 years and older).
All of this data put health officials in a bit of an awkward situation since publishing data demonstrating large scale cognitive impairment directly undermines the narrative they previous had committed themselves to. Nonetheless, the authors of the report were significantly more candid than many others before them:
The source of this increase in memory and concentration problems is unclear. A possible explanation could be that COVID-19 measures caused accelerated cognitive decline among people who were starting to have problems with memory and concentration (66 years on average).
COVID-19 was of course cited as a potential cause (which, as discussed above can sometimes cause long term cognitive impairment):
A supplementary explanation could be that some of these people have long-term symptoms after COVID-19. Various studies have shown that memory and concentration problems are common in post-COVID symptoms. Other infectious diseases, such as flu, can also cause these symptoms. However, recent studies have shown that long-term memory and concentration problems are much more common after COVID-19 than after flu. In addition, these symptoms are more common in older age groups. The figures provided by GPs are consistent with this expectation.
Fortunately, the authors acknowledged that long COVID could not be the primary explanation for what was occurring, and instead alluded to the elephant in the room—the vaccines.
Finally, Ed Dowd has identified numerous government datasets demonstrating that widespread impairment and disability has occurred since the vaccine rollout. Likewise, VAERS detected a massive spike in cognitive issues being reported to it after the COVID vaccines hit the market.
Note: one of the key components of the COVID-19 vaccine push was to make it politically incorrect to raise any data-based objections to the vaccines, and thereby stifle any inconvenient discussions of the topic which would have exposed how dangerous these products were. Because of this, I repeatedly heard stories (like this one) of liberals (including famous ones) who had severe vaccine injuries but could not discuss them with their peers, as doing so meant being outcasted from their social group and being cut off from job opportunities, in effect placing them in a similar position to where gay men were in the early 1980s (as coming out often meant being ex-communicated by many close to you). Fortunately, things are now changing (as there are too many injuries to hide) and we are beginning to see more and more prominent individuals “come out of the closet” and admit they were vaccine injured.
Data Transparency
Making decisions has always been difficult and history is rife with catastrophic errors made by individuals who got it wrong. Because of this, a variety of solutions have been developed over the years (e.g., having a committee go through a process to decide something as it is unusual to have a leader who excels at making excellent decisions), all of which have serious short comings.
In recent years, we’ve had a push for data to become the means to making decisions. On one level, I think this is an excellent approach. For example in sales and the internet (which is where I suspect much of the push for data originated from), large amounts of data are used on a daily basis and constantly used to refine how a marketing campaign internet platform is set up so that it can maximize profits.
However, in many cases (e.g., those outside of business and sales), that same incentive to optimally utilize the data and adjust what’s being done due to the data does not exist. Because of this, while we have a large emphasis on gathering data, most of it is never utilized. For example, in medicine, we force our healthcare workers to do an immense amount of data entry, yet, we never combo the electronic health records to determine which drugs are unsafe or ineffective (which is very easy to do). I would argue this is because the healthcare system receives so much unconditional money they have no incentive to produce better results and because the pharmaceutical industry receives so much money for toxic drugs, it has every incentive to keep them on the market.
In order to enshrine this paradigm, industry had to both create the mythology that data should both be viewed as the ultimate authority we must all be subservient to, but simultaneously not be something that is publicly available. This in turn was done by arguing that data was “costly proprietary information and intellectual property must be protected” or that it “contained personal health information which could not ethically be disclosed to protect the patients.”
In turn, science has very much become us being expected to trust the team of “experts” who analyze a dataset, and not surprisingly, this process lends itself to corruption.
For example, the only publicly available vaccine injury database VAERS, exists because activists forced it to be required by law, and ever since it was made, the government (along with the medical establishment and the media) has done everything it can to undermine VAERS (discussed further here). Because VAERS reputation had been sullied, for the COVID vaccines, a new monitoring system, V-Safe, which was designed to address the short comings of VAERS was created. However, before long, activists discovered that V-safe did not allow the majority of adverse reactions to be reported in it, and furthermore would not make the data available for outside analysis. Instead, we were given access to a Lancet publication which concluded that:
Safety data from more than 298 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine administered in the first 6 months of the US vaccination programme show that most reported adverse events were mild and short in duration.
Reports of seeking medical care after mRNA vaccine were “rare”… Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations; however, these events are rare. Vaccines are the most effective tool to prevent serious COVID-19 disease outcomes and the benefits of immunisation in preventing serious morbidity and mortality strongly favour vaccination.
Through lawsuits, activists were eventually able to obtain the V-safe data where they then discovered the above study had lied and there were a lot of serious issues within that database. For example, the above article claimed 0.8-1.0% of vaccine recipients required medical care, whereas the raw V-safe data show 7.7% did—on average 2.7 times, which meant that every 4.8 vaccinations caused one medical visit.
Likewise, throughout the pandemic, we had almost all of the scientific journals refuse to publish anything which challenged the narrative (e.g., I’ve been in touch with numerous teams that have run into an endless number of roadblocks to publish contrarian data). Yet, simultaneously, those journals were willing to contort the existing (poor quality) data as much as possible if that supported the narrative (e.g., Pierre Kory has shown how multiple studies whose data demonstrated ivermectin benefitted patients concluded ivermectin was useless and then widely promoted for having debunked ivermectin).
Similarly, Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci were essentially responsible for the disastrous COVID-19 response (e.g., useless but harmful mass testing, masking and lockdowns), as both within the White House and in the (fawning) media, they relentlessly and successfully pushed for those approaches regardless of how much protest they met. As both news clips and eye witnesses testimonies showed, Fauci and Birx constantly used “the data” to justify their their approach (e.g., when challenged, Birx would often say “I’m all about the data” while Fauci always cited “the data” whenever he advocated for a policy on national television).
However, Scott Atlas (who was with them on the White House COVID-19 task force) discovered that they both never presented scientific papers to the task force, lacked the ability to critically evaluate scientific research, they did not understand basic medical terminology, they would make patently absurd and non-sensical interpretations of their data, and adamantly refused to consider any of the data which challenged their narratives. In many cases, what he witnessed was so absurd he likened it to being in the Mad Hatter’s tea party from Alice and Wonderland, whereas I felt it was a real life version of this iconic Whitehouse scene from Idiocracy.
Because of the widespread lack of data transparency, a few different approaches exist.
First many (e.g., Drs. Peter Gøtzsche and Malcolm Kendrick) have gradually become experts in “data forensics” and being able to identify the tricks the pharmaceutical industry uses to doctor research so that the data always ends up supporting the sponsor’s desired conclusion. What I personally find depressing about this is that a fairly repetitive playbook is used to doctor studies, but the top medical journals consistently turn a blind eye to this, always publish that deceptive research, and in most cases refuse to correct it once the public points out the fraud.
Second, many (e.g., Steve Kirsch) argue that if data is not made publicly available, one must assume it’s incriminating and the data’s owners are lying about what’s in it (e.g., that the COVID vaccines are safe and effective). For example, for decades activists have been trying to get access to the data from the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (as it has the information which could definitively say if vaccines are safe or effective) but they’ve had no success—which in turn suggests that database is full of incriminating information for the vaccine program. Likewise, given the disconnect between what I was seeing with COVID-19 vaccine injuries and what the government was reporting (the only message we ever heard was “safe and effective!”) it was clear to me the government had very bad data and had made the decision to do whatever could be done to cover it up—a prediction which sadly has continued to hold true.
Third, we have to rely upon publicly available datasets which happened to capture the effects of vaccination programs (e.g., the one which tracks annual disability rates in the USA registered a huge spike after the COVID-19 vaccines hit the market). Unfortunately, while these clearly show that an issue exists which needs to be investigated, they do not definitively prove causality, and hence are often dismissed on that basis (much like VAERS is).
Fourth, we have to rely upon whistleblowers. Unfortunately, when this happens, the national government typically targets them for violating “patient confidentiality.” For instance, when a New Zealand whistleblower released fully anonymized data showing the vaccines were killing people, his government charged him with crimes carrying a maximum seven year prison sentence.
All of this hence leaves us in a very disorienting position—how do we know who to trust? In turn, I would argue one of the largest reasons so many people trust the audacious lies the government tells us is because the alternative (not knowing who or what to trust) is arguably even worse.
In my own case, I’ve developed a very simple rule for navigating the scientific literature (and many other sources of information as well).
Step 1. Determine the biases and conflicts of interest of the publication source (e.g., most medical journals and their editors take a lot of money from the pharmaceutical industry and hence do not want to upset their sponsors—an issue we sadly also see in the mainstream media).
Step 2. Determine if the conclusion of a published study agrees with, challenges, or is relatively neutral to it’s publisher’s bias.
Step 3 Use this formula:
• Agrees with publisher—high likelihood the study is wrong and it’s probably not worth your time to look into it.
• Disagrees with publisher—high likelihood the study is correct and that a very high bar had to be passed for it to be published (along with significant pressure being exerted behind the scenes).
• Relatively neutral for the publisher—you can take the paper at face value when you analyze its methods and conclusions to see if they had a reasonable way to derive their conclusion. Additionally, while the most prestigious medical journals are corrupt, this category is the one area they shine in and often ensure high standards were met for publication.
South Korea’s Data
In November 2023 and March 2024, some very interesting data emerged from a team of South Korean researchers where they looked at the electronic health records for a quarter and then half of the population in Seoul (2.2 million for the first study and then 4.3 million for the second) and then compared the rates of a variety of new (non-serious) medical conditions in those vaccinated and unvaccinated over three months. From this, they found a variety of medical conditions had a significant increase in the vaccinated. Those increases were as follows (with a range existing depending on how long after vaccination they were compared and which COVID vaccines they received).
This was essentially a dataset we had been trying to get for over 2 years and it matched what we’d seen (e.g., many of these conditions such as shingles and alopecia [hair loss] appear to be strongly linked to vaccination). In turn, it both demonstrated that the vaccines were causing massive harm to society as millions of Americans suffer from these diseases and hence millions more developed them.
Unfortunately, after I analyzed them, I realized it was not appropriate for me to discuss them here as they were pre-prints rather than published articles, which either meant that they had fraudulent data (as it was quite extraordinary they got access to this data) or they were too politically incorrect for any journal to want to publish. While I felt the latter was much more likely, I was not sure which is was, so I avoided publishing that article (which was hard to do given how much time I’d put into it) as I did not want to fall into the trap of promoting something because it promoted my pre-existing biases and then misleading the audience here.
Note: if for some reason these studies disappear I have included the pre-prints below.
Correlation Between Covid 19 Vaccination And Inflammatory Musculoskeletal Disorders
We hence tried to reach the authors (no success) and I patiently waited for the articles to leave the preprint server (which has still not happened).
However, recently. three other studies were published by the same team using the same dataset. The first one, (also from March 2024) analyzed the increase of ten common autoimmune disorders (autoimmune hepatitis, ankylosing spondylitis, hashimoto thyroiditis, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, primary biliary cholangitis, rheumatoid arthritis, graves, vitiligo, lupus).
This one stated only vitiligo was increased (by 174%), so it seemed plausible to me it could have been published, as it made a token admission the vaccines were bad (as they had a rare side effect from a disease most people don’t know about). Then, when I looked at the data, I noticed a few of the other conditions appeared to have also increased. In turn, since those increases weren’t mentioned in the article, I took that as a sign the article was deliberately omitting incriminating information from its conclusion so it could make it to publication (this happens a lot). Additionally, I was surprised the authors did not evaluate for polymyalgia rheumatica, as this seems to be one of the autoimmune disorders most distinctively associated with vaccination.
That article made me more confident the initial results were real—however since it was published in an obscure journal, I reserved judgement on it. Recently however, two very important ones came out.
Two weeks ago, the first was published in Nature (one of the top medical journals). It found that COVID vaccination resulted in a 68% increase in depression, a 44% increase in anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, and somatoform disorders, a 93.4% increase in sleep disorders, a 77% decrease in schizophrenia, and a 32.8% decrease in bipolar disorder. I was really surprised to see this be published, and took it as a sign there may have been a decision made to begin disclosing some of the harms of vaccination in the official medical literature. Additionally, I took this as an indication that this was an indirect admission neurologic issues also followed vaccination (due to the strong link between neurologic and psychiatric symptoms).
Note: the previously mentioned Israeli survey found that 4.5% of those who received a vaccine developed anxiety or depression, and 26.4% who already had either experienced an exacerbation of it.
Around the same time (three weeks ago) another article was published in a mainstream journal (or to be more exact “accepted for publication”). It analyzed individuals over 65 and found COVID vaccination increased the risk of mild cognitive impairment 138% and the risk of Alzheimer’s by 23%, and a smaller increase in vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease the authors did not deem to be significant.
To put this in context, given that America spends over 300 billion dollars per year on Alzheimer’s disease, this single datapoint effectively means that the COVID vaccines cost the United States around 100 billion dollars. Additionally, as the authors only tracked the difference over 3 months (and it increased over time as these are both progressive diseases), the actual cost is likely greater, especially given that the elderly keep on receiving boosters. Likewise, it also makes a very strong argument for anyone who believes the vaccines damaged their cognition that this indeed happened.
Why Are The Vaccines Causing Cognitive Impairment?
My specific interest in studying spike protein vaccine toxicity arose because I suspected I would see many similarities to other pharmaceutical injuries I had observed previously and treatments that had developed for those injuries could be used to treat COVID-19 vaccine injuries. On Substack, I’ve tried to focus on explaining the areas that I believe are the most important to understanding this, zeta-potential, the cell danger response (CDR) and the treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. Note: Each of these is interrelated with and often causes the others.
Zeta Potential: Zeta potential (explained in detail here) governs if fluid in the body clumps together (e.g., forming a clot) or remains dispersed and capable of freely flowing. Additionally, it also influences if proteins will stay in their correct formation or misfold and clump together (with Alzheimer’s disease being characterized by misfolded proteins in the brain). Many different issues (discussed here) emerge when fluid circulation (be it blood, lymph, interstitial fluid or cerebrospinal fluid) becomes impaired. Since the spike protein is uniquely suited for impairing zeta potential, we have found restoring zeta potential (discussed here) often is immensely helpful during COVID-19 infections and for treating COVID-19 vaccine injuries. Many of those approaches in turn were initially developed from working with other vaccine injuries and cognitive decline in the elderly. Note: the spike protein also has a prion forming domain, and many believe its responsible for the highly unusual amyloid (fibrous) blood clots seen in COVID-19 victims. Additionally, the COVID vaccines have been linked to extremely rare (and fatal) protein misfolding disorders such as the rapid dementia caused by CJD (discussed further here).
Cell Danger Response (CDR): When cells are exposed to a threat, their mitochondria shift from producing energy for the cell to a protective mode where the cell’s metabolism and internal growth shuts down, the mitochondria release reactive oxygen species to kill potential invaders, the cell warns other cells to enter the CDR and the cell seals off and disconnects itself from the body. The CDR (explained further here) is an essential process for cellular survival, but frequently in chronic illness, cells become stuck in it rather than allowing the healing response to complete.
Note: one common cause of impaired cognition are neurons becoming stuck in the CDR and hence not performing their cognitive tasks.
Understanding the CDR is extremely important when working with complex illnesses because it explains why triggers from long ago can cause an inexplicable illness, and why many treatments that seem appropriate (specifically those that treat a symptom of the CDR rather than the cause of it) either don’t help or worsen the patient’s condition. Many of the most challenging patients seen by integrative practitioners are those trapped within the CDR, but unfortunately, there is still very little knowledge of this phenomenon.
My interest was drawn back to the CDR after I realized that one of the most effective treatments for long COVID and COVID-19 vaccine injuries was one that systemically treated the CDR. Since many of the therapies that have been developed to revive nonfunctional tissue was developed by the regenerative medical field, I wrote an article describing how these approaches are applied to restore localized regions of dysfunctional tissue (which is sometimes needed to treat vaccine injuries) and another on the regenerative treatments that treat systemic CDRs (and are more frequently needed for vaccine injuries).
Alzheimer’s Disease (AD): since AD is one of the most costly disease in America, billions of dollars are spent each year in researching a cure for it. This research (which began in 1906) has had a very narrow focus on removing amyloid from the brain, and since the production of amyloid is a protective response from the brain, the decades of work to remove it have gone nowhere. Nonetheless, the FDA is presently working hand in hand with the drug industry to push forward ineffective, quite dangerous but highly profitable treatments for AD.
Remarkably, effective treatments do exist for AD and my colleagues have developed a few different methods that have successfully treated the condition. Additionally, one neurologist, Dale Bredesen developed a method for reversing AD that he proved worked in mulitiple publications (included a recent 2022 clinical trial)—something which no one else has done, but remarkably has been almost completely ignored by the neurological field.
All of these successful approaches utilize the following principles:
• Restore both the blood flow to the brain and the lymphatic drainage from it (which safely removes amyloid plaques). This often requires restoring the physiologic zeta potential and having a healthy sleep cycle. Additionally, AD is commonly linked to damage to the lining of the brain’s blood vessels, which is unfortunate because one of the most frequent toxicities of the spike protein is injury to the blood vessels (which has been shown in many autopsies—including within the brain).
• Treating the CDR (which causes chronic inflammation) and reactivating brain cells that became trapped in an unresolved CDR (which amongst other things requires reclaiming a healthy sleep cycle, providing the nutrients the brain needs to sustain itself, and mitigating the damage of neurotoxins like inhaled anesthetics).
Note: Bresden’s approach also emphasizes the importance of addressing chronically elevated blood sugar or insulin levels.
One of the most important things to recognize about AD is that it is a slowly worsening disease which often progresses over decades. In the early stages of AD (where it is the most reversible), minor cognitive changes occur, which (when possible to autopsy) correlate with tissue changes within the brain. In rarer instances, individuals can instead have a rapidly progressing form of Alzheimer’s (e.g., from Lyme) which strikes at a younger age and is often linked to the toxin exposure. Given how quickly the increase in AD appeared in both the patients I know and this dataset, I suspect it’s very likely the mechanisms behind the rapidly progressing forms of AD play a key role in the cognitive impairment and dementia we are seeing from these vaccines.
Conclusion
Many of the most successful people I know are willing to go against a crowd and act in spite of being afraid (e.g., they resisted the peer pressure to get the vaccine because they felt it was a good idea). Likewise, rather than looking to an authoritative source for advice, they tend to create preliminary assessments of what’s going on based on the limited data that’s available to them, and then act on it rather than waiting for a clear and definitive answer (or at least a safe one) to present itself.
In turn, as I’ve gotten to know many of the prominent dissidents in this movement, I’ve found they all had those traits in common (which likewise many of my extraordinary medical mentors did as well). For example, Steve Kirsch used this capacity to become a successful Silicon Valley entrepreneur. When the vaccines came out, he “trusted the science,” and immediately got one, but before long noticed numerous people he knew had had severe injuries from them, and rather than be in denial about it, recognized that chain of injuries was statistically impossible, began digging into it, realized the existing data showed we had a huge problem, and then began speaking out on it despite the fact much of the (left wing) peer group he’d belonged to for decades disowned him for doing so.
In my own case, for the COVID vaccines, I had initially come in with expectation (which formed as the virus broke out in Wuhan) that whatever “emergency” vaccine was pushed for it would have significant issues and the adverse events would be by and large covered up by the government (or only “discovered” years down the line). In turn, I concluded it was far more preferable for me to feel confident I could treat the infection when I eventually got it and develop natural immunity than it was to take a risk with the vaccines.
However, once I began seeing a high number of red flags the moment the vaccines hit the market, I realized that I had made a big miscalculation and these things were incredibly dangerous so I needed to shift my focus to preventing people from being harmed by them.
Furthermore, I took the bell curve theory into account and assumed that if I was seeing occasional deaths or severe cognitive degeneration following vaccination, it was likely that far more cases of cognitive impairment were occurring, and as this recent Korean study shows, that is indeed the case.
It is thus both quite tragic and remarkable that we now have a leadership which has so little accountability to produce quality results that things like the basic scientific process (which helped our country become one of the most powerful nations in history) is being completely disregarded and replaced with a dogmatic system which refuses to consider basic data points which more and more are proving themselves to be immensely costly to our nation.
Everything we are seeing now was incredibly predictable and represented a systemic failure in our system and a profound societal decline that must be reversed if we want our nation to be something which continues to provide the basic things we have taken for granted from it for most of our lives. I am especially worried as prior to COVID-19, our society was already struggling to reverse this decline, and since that time, we’ve been hit by a wave of cognitive impairment which can only further diminish our ability to address this.
Regina doctor Tshipita Kabongo has admitted to unprofessional conduct in relation to two sets of charges brought against him by the oversight body for Saskatchewan physicians.
That’s according to Bryan Salte, associate registrar for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CPSS).
The 2024 charges also made reference to inappropriate prescription of Ivermectin, as well as cannabinoids, benzodiazepines, Vitamin B12, and supplements.
Charges brought by that oversight body are not criminal charges but pertain to conduct that does not comply with the rules that govern its members.
Salte advised, via email, that a hearing was held with regard to Kabongo’s matters in June, and a penalty was imposed on him.
With regard to penalty, the CPSS council decided Kabongo is to receive a written reprimand.
In addition, his licence is to be suspended for one month, starting Aug. 1, 2024.
He is to practice only under the supervision of “a duly qualified medical practitioner approved by the Registrar.”
“The requirement for supervision will continue until the Registrar concludes that Dr. Kabongo is no longer required to practise under supervision,” the council decision states.
The supervisor is to provide the CPSS with reports as to the status of Kabongo’s practice.
Kabongo is also directed to pay costs associated to the investigation and the hearing in the amount of $44,783.72. This amount is to be paid in 24 equal instalments, beginning August 1.
If he fails to pay these costs as required, his licence is to be suspended until he pays in full.
He was found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct.
In a decision released this month, the college said Kabongo failed to follow the its policy on alternative therapies, which says patients have a right to make decisions about their health care but doctors who choose to use complementary or alternative therapies have to do so in a way that’s informed by medical evidence and science.
“It is unethical to engage in or to aid and abet in treatment which has no acceptable scientific basis, may be dangerous, may deceive the patient by giving false hope, or which may cause the patient to delay in seeking conventional care until his or her condition becomes irreversible,” the policy states.
The college’s decision on Kabongo said one or more of the prescriptions he gave out weren’t medically necessary, he failed to recommend other evidence-informed treatment options, and he didn’t properly document the prescriptions in medical records.
As a result, Kabongo will be suspended from practising for one month in August. He’ll have to have someone supervise him when he returns to practising, and he’ll have to pay the cost of the investigation and hearing, which added up to $44,783.72.
Ivermectin is a drug meant to treat parasites as an oral medicine and rosacea as a topical medication. However, some on social media promoted it as a cure for COVID during the pandemic which began in 2020.
In the fall of 2021, Health Canada and several medical groups in Saskatchewan put out public messages warning people against the use of Ivermectin for COVID, particularly the stronger and more dangerous veterinary formulation.
“There is no evidence that Ivermectin works to prevent or treat COVID-19 and it is not authorized for this use. To date, Health Canada has not received any drug submission or applications for clinical trials for Ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19,” explained a public notice from Health Canada issued in October, 2021.
A memo issued around the same time by the College of Physician and Surgeons, along with several other Saskatchewan medical groups, said that while there have been studies on Ivermectin, the study limitations like sample sizes and confounding factors mean that conclusions couldn’t be drawn, and so Ivermectin was disapproved of for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.
This is yet another example of criminal behavior by a College, this time by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan.
It is time to start filing criminal charges against College Officials.
These Colleges, through their actions, have killed thousands of Canadians already and if Canadians don’t take the Colleges back, the Colleges will continue to take many more lives in the future.
Newly released internal documents from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Germany’s federal disease control and prevention agency, reveal a stark disconnect between expert knowledge and public health messaging during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Stefan Homburg, a public finance expert and retired professor from Leibniz University of Hanover, brought “seven shocking RKI files” to the attention of the English-speaking world in a video published June 19.
The January 2020 to April 2021 documents suggest that scientific advisers tailored their COVID-19 medical and policy recommendations to align with political directives rather than available evidence.
Commenting on Homburg’s video, former Pfizer Vice President Michael Yeadon, called the political interference with RKI’s scientific analysis and recommendations “appalling” and RKI’s continuing compliance “cowardly.”
‘This event was wholly political’
RKI played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s COVID-19 response. The recently disclosed files include internal meeting minutes from the agency’s crisis management team.
RKI subsequently made over 2,500 mostly unredacted pages publicly available on May 30, citing “public interest in the content of the COVID-19 crisis team protocols.”
According to the RKI’s introduction to the released files, the minutes “reflect the open scientific discourse in which different perspectives are addressed and weighed up.”
The institute cautioned that individual statements in the documents “do not necessarily represent a coordinated position of the RKI and are not always understandable without knowledge of the context.”
Yeadon wrote, “I don’t think there’s an equivalent document which admits repeatedly that this event was wholly POLITICAL and decisions entirely driven by non-technically qualified political people at the top of government.”
‘Experts knew this but stated the opposite’
Homburg discussed how the RKI documents expose several discrepancies between internal expert discussions and public health messaging:
COVID-19 severity: Contrary to public messaging, internal discussions suggested COVID-19 might be less severe than typical influenza. “More people die in a normal influenza wave,” one entry reads. “The main risk of dying of COVID-19 is age.”
“Right — 83 years to be precise, in Germany,” Homburg said.
“Rather, the public was fooled and forced for years to wear FFP2 masks,” Homburg said.
School closures: Experts recommended school closures only in heavily affected areas. “School closures in areas that are not particularly affected are not recommended,” the documents state.
However, Homburg observed, “In the same week, politicians decided to close all German schools for months.”
Vaccine effectiveness and herd immunity: As early as January 2021, RKI experts questioned the propaganda around herd immunity. One entry reads, “Are we saying goodbye to the narrative of herd immunity through vaccination?”
“Pfizer’s preceding clinical trial had not demonstrated protection against serious illness and they had not even tested protection against transmission,” Homburg pointed out. “The experts knew this but stated the opposite in public and even before our courts.”
Vaccine side effects: One file reveals concerns about serious side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine. “Sinus thrombosis is a side effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine,” the document states. “There is also a 20-fold increased incidence in men.”
Homburg alleged that shortly after this statement, “German politicians pretended to get the AstraZeneca vaccine.” He showed images of various newspapers announcing vaccinations by Chancellor Angela Merkel, Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach and others.
Despite this internal acknowledgment, Homburg noted, “The experts did not inform the population about this danger, but insisted that AstraZeneca was safe and effective.”
‘Corona was a singular fraud’
The documents reveal a concerning level of political influence on scientific recommendations. One entry starkly illustrates this pressure: “Still high risk, order from the Federal Health Ministry: nothing will be changed until the first of July.”
This directive apparently led to pushing high-risk assessments despite declining case numbers. Homburg argued that this political interference helped the continuation of pandemic mandates.
“In fact, nothing was changed for three years,” he said. “To recall, in summer 2020, Corona cases were approaching zero and the public wanted a halt to the measures.”
The files also expose the experts’ fears of losing their advisory roles if they didn’t comply with political directives. One entry reads, “If the RKI does not comply with the political requirement, there is a risk that political decisionmakers will develop indicators themselves and/or no longer involve the RKI in similar assignments.”
“Corona was a singular fraud,” Homburg concluded. “The virus replaced influenza while the total number of illnesses remained unchanged.”
German politicians divided on response
The documents’ release ignited a fierce debate about the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, reaching the German Bundestag. The following is adapted from Schreyer’s April 30 report on Radio Munich (translated from German).
On April 24, 2024, the Parliament deliberated on a motion by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) parliamentary group to establish a commission of inquiry to review the Corona period. The proposed commission would examine the limits of intervention rights of state and federal governments and review the roles of relevant actors such as RKI.
The debate revealed deep divisions among political parties. The AfD and Free Democratic Party (FDP) supported the establishment of an inquiry commission, while the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Green parties (also called Alliance 90) opposed it, arguing for alternative approaches such as a citizens’ council. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU) faction suggested a federal-state working group instead.
Some politicians expressed concerns about the RKI files. CDU member Simone Borchardt argued that the handling of the RKI documents — first releasing them with redactions, then later allowing access to unredacted versions — suggested a deliberate attempt to control or limit information.
The debate also touched on broader issues, with some calling for amnesty for citizens who violated lockdown measures. Others warned against seeking scapegoats or spreading “half-baked conspiracy ideas.”
Since Schreyer’s report, the political landscape in Germany has shifted significantly. The June 2024 European parliamentary elections saw a decline in support for the governing coalition parties, while the far-right AfD made substantial gains, likely strengthening the position of those critical of the government’s pandemic response.
Yeadon called for increased activism to bring more attention to Homburg’s and Schreyer’s revelations, especially in light of the recent “drumbeat of ‘avian influenza’” or bird flu.
“This task cannot be left to a small number of us with the information, because we are so effectively gagged in relation to reaching large numbers of people that the perpetrators are no longer concerned about us speaking out,” he wrote.
From 1996 to 2003, he served on the Scientific Advisory Board at Germany’s Federal Ministry of Finance. He also was a member of the Federalism Commission of the Bundestag and Bundesrat from 2003 to 2004, and the Sustainability Council of the Federal Government from 2004 to 2007.
He authored several textbooks on macroeconomics and tax theory and has been regularly called upon as an expert for Bundestag hearings on tax and financial legislation.
Homburg was generally regarded favorably in the press until 2020 when he began questioning Germany’s pandemic policies. Since then, he has written scientific articles and blog posts on the coronavirus crisis and related topics, published podcasts and participated in interviews and talk shows.
A systematic review of autopsy-related literature following COVID-19 vaccination found that 73.9% of the 325 deaths were linked to the shots, suggesting “a high likelihood of a causal link” between the shots and death.
However, Preprints with The Lancet removed the study from the server within 24 hours, “because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology,” according to a statement on the SSRN page, The Daily Sceptic reported.
The paper had been viewed over 100,000 times.
Authors submitting papers to Lancet journals for review post their work to the SSRN to make it publicly available while it undergoes peer review.
The authors said autopsies should be performed on all deceased people who have received one or more COVID-19vaccines and that vaccinated people should be clinically monitored for at least one year following vaccination. They called for further research into the issue.
McCullough told The Defender :
“Our study faced unprecedented censorship from the Lancet SSRN preprint server and was taken down after massive downloads by concerned physicians and scientists across the globe.
“Lancet did not want the world to know that among deaths that were autopsied after COVID-19 vaccination, independent adjudication found that the vaccine was the cause of death in 73.9% of cases.
“The most common fatal vaccine syndromes were myocarditis and blood clots. Investigative journalists should probe Lancet to uncover who was behind unethical suppression of critical clinical information to the public.”
Makis announced the publication of the “Lancet censored” paper on X last week.
McCullough also noted the project was approved through the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health and used a standard scientific methodology to evaluate the studies for inclusion in the review.
The authors subsequently posted on the Zenodo preprint server, while the review underwent peer review at Forensic Science International. It was downloaded over 125,000 times.
Preprint servers were established to address inefficiencies in academic publishing. The peer-review process typically takes months or more, delaying the real-time sharing of scientific findings with the public.
Also, many journals are proprietary and can only be accessed through expensive personal or institutional subscriptions.
Preprint servers offer a location for scientific reports and papers to be available to the public while the paper goes through peer review — making scientific findings available immediately and for free and opening them up to broader public debate.
There is no peer-review process for preprints, although there is a vetting process.
Preprint servers are intended to be neutral and to post all research conducted with a clearly explained and reproducible methodology, according to Vinay Prasad, M.D., MPH, who reported last year that his COVID-19-related work was subject to similar censorship.
Thirty-eight percent of Prasad’s own lab’s submissions to preprint servers were rejected or removed — even though those same articles eventually were published in journals and extensively downloaded.
Preprint servers have become “gatekeepers” for what science gets published, Prasad said.
When The Lancet took down the paper, The Daily Sceptic’sWill Jones wrote that given the credentials of the authors, “It is hard to imagine that the methodology of their review was really so poor that it warranted removal at initial screening rather than being subject to full critical appraisal. It smacks instead of raw censorship of a paper that failed to toe the official line.”
The Lancet Preprints did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment.
Findings have wide-ranging implications
The authors searched the published literature archived in PubMed and ScienceDirectfor all autopsy and necropsy — another word for autopsy — reports related to COVID-19 vaccination, where the death occurred after vaccination.
They screened out 562 duplicate studies among the 678 studies initially identified in their search. Other papers were removed because, for example, they lacked information about vaccination status.
Ultimately 44 papers containing 325 autopsies and one necropsy case were evaluated. Three physicians independently reviewed each case and adjudicated whether or not the COVID-19 shot was the direct cause or contributed significantly to the death reported.
They found 240 of the deaths (73.9%) were found to be “directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination” and the mean age for death was 70.4 years old.
Primary causes of death included sudden cardiac death, which happened in 35% of cases, pulmonary embolism and myocardial infarction, which occurred in 12.5% and 12% of the cases respectively.
Most deaths occurred within a week of the last shot.
The authors concluded that because the deaths were highly consistent with the known mechanisms for COVID-19 vaccine injury, it was highly likely the deaths were causally linked to the vaccine.
They said the findings “amplify” existing concerns about the vaccines, including those related to vaccine-induced myocarditis and myocardial infarction and the effects of the spike protein more broadly.
They also said the studies have implications for unanticipated deaths among vaccinated people with no previous illness. “We can infer that in such cases, death may have been caused by COVID-19 vaccination,” they wrote.
The authors acknowledged some potential biases in the article.
First, they said, their conclusions from the autopsy findings are based on an evolving understanding of the vaccines, which are currently different from when the studies evaluated were published.
They also noted that systematic reviews have bias potential in general because of biases that may exist at the level of the individual papers and their acceptance into the peer-reviewed literature.
They said publication bias could have affected their results because the global push for mass vaccination has made investigators hesitant to report adverse events.
They also said their research did not account for confounding variables like concomitant illnesses, drug interactions and other factors that may have had a causal role in the reported deaths.
“Autopsy is not only a service to the doctors who were responsible for the patient, but it is a public service for our health system.” – Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt
Many cases of sudden death and severe disease are being reported since the rollout of the COVID-19 gene-based vaccines. Early on, several doctors and scientists warned that the COVID vaccines would lead to several complications including autoimmune disease, blood clots, strokes, and more. Additionally, The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, data showed a strong correlation between the vaccines and adverse events. But how does one determine in an individual case that the vaccine was the cause of death or the adverse event? It is through pathology.
An early pioneer of pathological investigations into vaccine adverse events was Prof. Arne Burkhardt — a senior, highly accomplished pathologist from Germany. Prof. Burkhardt came out of retirement in 2021 to examine the autopsy and biopsy materials of vaccinated patients. The work of Prof. Burkhardt not only provided strong evidence of vaccine causation, it substantiated the professional medical hypotheses of doctors and scientists around the world.
Journalist Taylor Hudak interviewed Prof. Burkhardt in his laboratory in Reutlingen, Germany, shortly before his death in May 2023. Prof. Burkhardt explains several of his findings in detail as well as which testing mechanisms he uses. Additionally, he shares his perspectives on the public health industry and academic and medical science as well as what motivates him to do this work.
Want to send a check to support TLAV, or just words of encouragement?
Use our new P.O. box:
Ryan Cristian
1113 Murfreesboro Rd. Ste 106-146
Franklin, Tn 37064
“Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.”
The McCullough Foundation, informative update on the current H5N1 global situation has received considerable attention and garnered valuable feedback. Here are the key takeaways:
Practice of culling (mass destruction of entire healthy flocks) when a PCR test is found positive to “eradicate” the virus is futile and may work to constrain the food supply. The current strain H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4.b is not thus far causing necropsy or radiographic confirmed fatal pneumonia in birds or mammals.
H5N1 host range expansion into migratory birds and mammals likely occurred as a result of gain-of-function serial passage research and a lab leak [or release].
Increased transmissibility of H5N1 has a tradeoff of decreased virulence. Using legacy human mortality rates from cases in Southeast Asia is not appropriate. The US has never had a fatal human case of bird flu.
Fear-mongering promulgated by the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex is designed to promote mass vaccination of animals and humans with lucrative pre-purchased contracts to the vaccine manufacturers and their NGO backers. Mass vaccination into a highly prevalent pandemic promotes resistant strains of the virus in the vaccinated.
If human-to-human spread occurs in the future as expected by many, it will be the product of gain-of-function research that has gone on for years with the goal of creating harm to human populations.
Be prepared with early prevention and treatment strategies on hand. Courageous Discourse has covered dilute iodine nasal sprays and gargles, oseltamivir, hydroxychloroquine, and other antivirals. The Wellness Company has extended its Contagion Kit to cover the case of serious human avian influenza in the event it occurs.
Poultry farmers are finding out that culling and vaccination of poultry may be futile as migratory water fowl spread H5N1 from farm to farm.
Kong, et al, from College of Veterinary Medicine, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China, tested a new poultry vaccine on 10 chickens. While the new product protected the birds from a lethal dose of the virus, the chickens retained it in the nasopharynx and were able to shed the virus theoretically to more animals.
It appears the only method that will remain for farmers is to allow for natural immunity with wave after wave of bird flu expected as mallard ducks and other species spread H5N1 around the globe. Mass vaccination of birds and humans appears ill-advised with current products.
Joining us today is Michael Connett, lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ in the #FluorideLawsuit. We discuss the history of the lawsuit, what’s at stake, and how people who are concerned about the fluoridation of the water supply can get involved in the fight against this uncontrolled medical intervention.
Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!
Apparently, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo is to blame for the outbreaks.
After several measles cases were reported in a Florida school, Ladapo allowed parents to choose whether they wanted their healthy children to attend school during that time, even if they were unvaccinated against the disease.
In a letter to parents, Ladapo wrote “Due to the high immunity rate in the community, as well as the burden on families and educational cost of healthy children missing school, DOH is deferring to parents or guardians to make decisions about school attendance.”
The advice sparked outrage because it contradicted the CDC’s official advice which recommends a 21-day ‘quarantine’ for individuals who have not been vaccinated against measles or do not have prior immunity.
Ladapo was labelled “anti-vax,” accused of being the Governor’s “lap dog” making maverick proclamations that would pose “an unacceptable danger to the health of Florida residents” and fuelling the growing distrust in vaccines across the board.
Criticism of Ladapo escalated after he appeared on a podcast in late 2023 and called the covid-19 vaccines “the Anti-Christ of all products.”
And when the FDA failed to adequately address his concerns that billions of DNA fragments found in the vaccines might lead to cancer, he called for the halt of their use in Florida.
Recently, I spoke with Ladapo about his reaction to the measles outbreaks, covid-19 vaccines and the diminishing trust in public health. His calm, candid and authentic approach shone through.
DEMASI: Dr Ladapo, thanks for your time today.
LADAPO: You too Dr Demasi. Hey, can you call me Joe? Then I can call you Maryanne.
DEMASI: No problem, Joe. You’ve been blamed for the measles outbreaks across America. What do you say about that?
LADAPO: Oh, it’s completely political Maryanne. When I tell people that, all in all, we had maybe 10 or 11 cases of measles, they’re shocked because based on the news articles, you’d think that we had thousands of cases of measles. I just saw some over-the-top, completely ridiculous titles to news articles about this. Ultimately, I guess what really ticked off people in the media was that we said that parents could make the decision about whether their healthy kids could go to school. We weren’t suggesting kids who were sick with measles go to school, it was only if they were not sick.
DEMASI: But you said unvaccinated kids could return to school if their parents wanted then to… that’s what caused the upset…
LADAPO: You know, vaccination rates at the school were very high, so there was a lot of protection against measles already. Therefore, you let the parents choose. Giving parents the choice is what people really couldn’t handle.
DEMASI: And it was because your advice contradicted CDC’s advice to quarantine unvaccinated kids for 21-days…
LADAPO: Yes, it did go against CDC guidelines, but it’s in sync with Florida guidelines, which is, that if a kid is healthy, they can go to school.
DEMASI: Why was this all so triggering?
LADAPO: Honestly, that’s what I struggle with. I do hear people say that if a kid is unvaccinated and there is a measles outbreak, then they should stay home. But keeping healthy kids home from school puts an enormous burden on the families. It’s obviously bad for the kids. It’s bad for their education, it’s bad for their mental health and wellbeing. Those lessons were apparently not learned during the pandemic. We’re in this state of mind where people reflexively want to isolate healthy people. It was rampant during the pandemic and caused tremendous harm. Those policies never really took a foothold here in Florida, but in other states, it was very common for whole classrooms to go home just because one kid had covid.
DEMASI: That’s the difficulty in public health, weighing up the pros and cons…
LADAPO: Right, you have to make a judgement call. There was a high rate of vaccination against measles already in the school and a kid who maybe hasn’t had a measles vaccine should be allowed to go to school if the parents have all the information about their options. Measles is very contagious and the chances their kid will catch it is high if they’re exposed to it. But that’s a choice the parents should make, it’s not for public health officials to make for families. That’s my opinion.
DEMASI: You said there were only 10 or 11 cases. It seems as if public health officials like frightening people… Do you think there is some disease-mongering happening?
LADAPO: Oh, definitely. Absolutely there is. Measles certainly can be serious and sometimes you can get very sick. But by and large, historically, it’s not something that was abnormal to catch. Many recover but nowadays it has been transformed into something that signals the end of days. It’s just not realistic. Again, it’s not to say that measles cannot be serious, because it can be, but for most healthy kids, they’re going to get over it. That’s just the reality. All the pandemonium about casting it as if its the plague or Ebola, well, no, it’s not. Unfortunately, some public health officials, at least the ones that make it on TV, have a warped vision of health. They equate things like vaccines with health, but vaccines are not health. Health is health – when you’re sleeping, you’re eating and you’re exercising. It’s not a medical product. Medical products can help people, but they’re not the definition of health. I think ‘disease mongering’ is equating medications and vaccines with health – it’s actually a sick way of thinking about health and wellness.
DEMASI: Do you think people’s trust in vaccines more broadly has been damaged since COVID?
LADAPO: Oh, it definitely has. And frankly, I think it will only get worse. I, myself, have learned so much about some of the clinical trials that were used to approve other vaccines. Ever since seeing how corrupt the scientific approach to the safety and efficacy of mRNA covid-19 vaccines has been, more people are looking at other vaccines now. And it’s really appropriate to do that because vaccines do not have the same type of critical scrutiny as other medications. Just for example, one of the things that has come out during the pandemic is the work by Dr Christine Stabell Benn. It’s very clear that some vaccines can be very effective against the condition that they’re targeted against, but have other effects on people’s health outside of the condition.
DEMASI: That’s right, her work found that vaccines can have ‘off-target’ effects that are unintended.
LADAPO: Right, and you never really hear any discussion about things like that. But that’s clearly part of a critical analysis of any medication you’re putting into someone’s body. And some people just want to exempt vaccines from that type of scrutiny… I think that’s hogwash.
DEMASI: You know about the discovery of DNA fragments contaminating the mRNA vaccines. What has happened since you called for the halt of their use in Florida?
LADAPO: The FDA wrote us back, I think, in December last year with a long letter where they didn’t answer directly our question of whether DNA integration studies had been performed with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines… which I interpreted to mean that those studies had not been done. And that was last correspondence from them. Since then, we’ve seen FDA and CDC officials continue to prop up the COVID-19 vaccines.
DEMASI: What’s your reaction to how the FDA handled the safety concerns about the COVID vaccines?
LADAPO: Honestly, it makes me sick to my stomach, It’s so sad. And there really should be much stiffer consequences for when people knowingly choose to prioritise the reputation of an institution above the health and wellbeing of human beings. The FDA and the CDC, they just care about their own reputations.
DEMASI: You commented that covid shots were the work of the devil. I can’t imagine that went down well….
LADAPO: They are, Maryanne. Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are evil products…
DEMASI: It’s extraordinary to hear a physician in public office say that. Vaccines are considered the “holy grail’ of medicine… is it just covid-19 vaccines that concern you?
LADAPO: The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, yes, and it’s all tied together with the inhumane lockdowns, the harms to kids, the separation of people, the inability to say goodbye to people you love, who were dying. Give me a break — saying goodbye to people over zoom when they’re dying, that’s bullshit. All that stuff where they were firing nurses and doctors or firemen who didn’t want to take the vaccine. It has just been a series of anti-human and… well, evil behaviours. And the fact that many people weren’t conscious of how inhumane their actions were was part of the hypnotic environment that was created to allow those behaviours to occur and to be sustained. The fact that so many people have been injured by the vaccines, and people have been misled into taking them – people who were very low risk and manipulated – the whole thing’s evil, it’s totally all evil.
DEMASI: What drives you to say these things out loud?
LADAPO: I personally had an early life experience, a very traumatic experience, that affected me profoundly. As a little kid, I was molested by my babysitter when I was probably four years old or something like that. And I thought I was fine and normal. A few decades later, I fell in love with my wife and the effects of that traumatic experience came out like a volcano that erupted, and really presented the most challenging personal experience I’ve ever had in terms of dealing with it. That experience created intense fear and an inability of being able to connect with other people – almost a disassociation from reality. But I fell in love – accidently – we met on a plane, she was living in California, I was in Boston at graduate school at the time and we end up continuing to talk on the phone. I had no idea I fell in love with her on the phone from our conversations. Eventually, I ended up working with a guy named Christopher Maher, who’s a former Navy SEAL, and he helped me really overcome the effects of my early traumatic experience and that changed everything for me. Now, it’s easy to recognise truth, but also to say it out loud.
DEMASI: Thank you for sharing that story Joe. It sounds like your experience also instilled a strong sense of social justice?
LADAPO: I would call it love and appreciation for who we are as humans. So, when there are forces that undermine people’s sovereignty, that undermine people’s ability for autonomy, to make decisions for themselves with full information, that will rub me the wrong way. So, I would actually say it’s that, yeah.
DEMASI: We’ve lost trust in public health. How do we get it back?
LADAPO: I think it’s going to be a long road. Unfortunately, we still have leaders who are not forthcoming about information and risks. I think you need new leadership, and whether it’s head of CDC or head of FDA, they’re just clearly incapable of being honest with Americans, they are way more interested in preserving the reputation of institutions. You’re never going to be able to really earn people’s trust back, when you have people that don’t prioritise people’s health. So, yeah, we need new leadership.
DEMASI: All right. I think I’ll leave it there, Joe. It’s been lovely speaking with you.
LADAPO: Cool, Maryanne. Great to speak with you too.
The interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
If you thought the documentary about Ivermectin suppression and Dr. Pierre Kory was eye-opening, perhaps you will find Dr. Wakefield’s newly released movie, Protocol 7, a drama starring Eric Roberts, even more astonishing. Life truly imitates art, and sometimes the two are indistinguishable, especially when it comes to Big Pharma’s protection of profitable vaccines at all costs.
Dr Wakefield’s special interest was inflammatory bowel disease and this paper reported a case series of 12 children with developmental disorders whose mothers also described a constellation of bowel symptoms appearing shortly after their child’s vaccination.”
However, the mainstream media prefers not to deal with facts that are troublesome to their argument. Instead, they use the more effective technique of name-calling.
The MSM used Wikipedia, Anderson Cooper, and Brian Deer to character assassinate Wakefield. Cooper, the son of Gloria Vanderbilt, is the broadcast journalist, embraced by mainstream media, who graduated from Yale University in 1989. He also served two internships at the CIA. Cooper’s interview with Wakefield was punctuated with this cheap phrase, “But, sir, if you’re lying, then your book is also a lie. If your study is a lie, your book is a lie.” Here is the transcript.
Wakefield’s prolonged vilification and lifelong persecution by Big Pharma make Pierre Kory’s battle look like a cakewalk.
However, like Pierre Kory, Wakefield relied on facts rather than name-calling and emerged stronger than ever. He now reaches his audience through what can only be termed America’s most effective medium, the Big Screen.
“Protocol 7 is a medico-legal thriller based on the true story of two Merck lab scientists who, in 2010, blew the whistle on the company’s fraudulent manipulation of lab data to support the company’s efficacy claim about the mumps component of its MMR vaccine. The case has been tied up in courts ever since.
Rachel Whittle plays a small-town attorney and mother of an autistic child. British star Matthew Marsden plays a doctor with a history of being a lone voice in the wilderness about MMR vaccines and autism. Another British actor, Harrison Tipping, delivers what struck me as the film’s best performance —that of a Merck lab scientist who is a willing participant in the fraud, but also one who is tormented by his recognition that he is debasing his work and talent in the service of an ugly lie. Eric Roberts elegantly plays Dr. Errani, the head of Merck’s MMR division, who demands that the lab team figure out a way to support the company’s efficacy claim by whatever means necessary.”
The current variant of Bird Flu appears to be a product of human agency, including mass vaccination of poultry with leaky vaccines and possible genetic manipulation in US and Chinese government funded laboratories. Thus, as was the case with the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, official narratives about origins, spread, testing, and risk mitigation should be subjected to rigorous examination. Independent investigation, ongoing research, and analysis are critical to understanding the reality of this pathogen and the purported threat it poses to animal and human health.
Still no plausible natural explanation for new clade’s detection in Newfoundland and in South Carolina in December 2021
By John Leake | Courageous Discourse™ | June 17, 2024
As I have noted in previous posts, the conventional explanation in virology circles is that the new variant of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Clade 2.3.4.4b was purportedly carried by migratory birds across the North Atlantic in 2021, and arrived in North America in the autumn of 2021.
The HPAI H5N1 viruses that were detected in Newfoundland in November and December 2021 originated from Northwest Europe and belonged to HPAI clade 2.3.4.4b. Most likely, these viruses emerged in Northwest Europe in winter 2020/2021, dispersed from Europe in late winter or early spring 2021, and arrived in Newfoundland in autumn 2021.
The first time I read this Conclusion, I interpreted it as suggesting that migratory birds from Northwest Europe arrived in Newfoundland in autumn 2021.
However, this morning I received an e-mail from a friendly reader who pointed out that, in fact, the authors of the “Transatlantic spread” paper proposed that birds migrated from Northwest Europe to Iceland in the spring of 2021. While on Iceland for the summer, these bird theoretically mingled with birds from North America who were also on Iceland for the summer, and then returned to Newfoundland in autumn 2021.
While I humbly confess that I should have read the body text of the paper more carefully instead of jumping ahead to the Conclusion, I would like to reiterate that there is a striking paucity of evidence to support the proposition that the new variant of bird flu—known as Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Clade 2.3.4.4b—was borne across the North Atlantic by migratory birds in 2021.
1). While it apparently took nine years for earlier variants to spread from Europe to the United States, H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b was first detected in the Netherlands October 2020 and then in the United States in late 2021—that is, in only one year. The intercontinental spread of the previous variants are thought to have been from Eurasia to North America over the Bering Straight.
2). The hypothetical spread of a new avian influenza variant by migratory birds from Europe to North America by crossing the North Atlantic has never been documented before and therefore appears to be unprecedented.
3). We are being told that the new clade is highly pathogenic to wild birds, including ducks, which is not consistent with their fitness for flying 1400 kilometers from Ireland or Norway to Iceland, or 2,600 kilometers from Iceland to Newfoundland.
However, retrospective screening of wild bird samples from Iceland showed that an HPAI case was in a juvenile white-tailed sea eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) found dead in the southern Westfjords, Iceland, during October 2021.
Just one sick white-tailed sea eagle—a species notoriously susceptible to mortality by ingesting toxic, man-made substances—found in Iceland in fall 2021 is inconsistent with the proposition that large flocks of infected migratory birds spending summer 2021 on Iceland and infecting other large flocks from North America that were also summering on Iceland.
5). Conventional reporting invariably refers to the new variant first being detected in a sick great black-backed gull in a pond in Newfoundland in December 2021. No mention is made of other sick wild birds found in the same area around the same time. Moreover, the genetic sequence purportedly found in this sick gull has not been published in Genbank.
6). While the sick gull found in Newfoundland in December 2021 is frequently reported, I can find no other field biologist reports of sick birds from this variant anywhere on the North American east coast in 2021.
7). During the same month (Dec. 2021) the virus was detected in the sick gull in Newfoundland, it was also purportedly found in ducks in Colleton County, South Carolina—200 miles east of Athens, Georgia. Note that the winter migration from Canadian summer nesting grounds to the American South begins in September, peaks in October, and concludes in November.
CONCLUSION
There remains a paucity of evidence to support the hypothesis that Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Clade 2.3.4.4b was borne across the North Atlantic by migratory birds in 2021.
The new clade was first detected in the Netherlands in October 2020, not far from the Erasmus University Rotterdam, where the prominent virologist Ron Fouchier—who happens to be a co-author of the “Transatlantic Spread” paper—is known to have conducted dangerous Gain-of-Function experiments on H5N1 bird flu in recent years.
It’s notable that the Erasmus Medical Center, headed by Ron Fouchier, previously collaborated closely with the SEPRL to develop vaccines against H9 avian influenza viruses, indicating the two laboratories likely share virus samples. This raises the suspicion that the Erasmus lab shared a sample of the new clade with the USDA poultry lab in Athens sometime in 2021, and that it somehow got out of the lab and spread to waterfowl on the Atlantic flyway.
On June 11, an important debate took place in the Brazilian Congress which could have some interesting repercussions. The event, called the “Debate on National Sovereignty in the 21st Century,” was held within the scope of the Foreign Relations and National Defense Committee of Congress, organized at the request of Representative Luiz Philippe de Orleans e Bragança.
The debate, held within one of the most important committees of the Brazilian Congress (as it deals precisely with fundamental state issues), included the participation of important specialists in military and intelligence matters, such as Commander Robinson Farinazzo, officer of the Brazilian Navy, the defense analyst Albert Caballé, and Professor Ricardo Cabral, former professor at the Naval War College, among others.
Referring to statements by former NATO officers, presidents, and prime ministers of various countries connected to the Atlantic Alliance, Farinazzo highlighted the fact that the fate of Brazilian territories, especially the Amazon region and its rainforest, is discussed in summits held outside Brazil, without the representation of Brazilian interests.
As an example, Farinazzo recalled a draft resolution in the United Nations Security Council, dated 2021, which aimed to categorize general climate issues as “security threats” that could be discussed, overseen, and operated within the framework of the Security Council. This draft was vetoed by Russia and India and did not have the support of China, which abstained.
Although the draft did not specifically mention the Amazon or Brazil, it is impossible to ignore the numerous references to the “internationalization of the Amazon,” seen as the “heritage of humanity,” in the context of the radicalization of ecoglobalist discourses created within the centers of knowledge and public policy of the Atlanticist West.
As jurist Carl Schmitt said, “whoever invokes humanity is trying to deceive.” Behind humanitarian discourse lie all the most brutal and nihilistic projects of the liberal Western elites. To prove this, we just need to look at how the narratives of “humanitarian intervention” were used in Libya, Iraq, and the Balkans over the past 30 years.
Indeed, in August 2019, American political scientist Stephen Walt published an article within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs speculating on the possibility of military actions legitimized by environmentalist discourse of defending “humanity” from “climate threats”. According to Walt, in the future, major powers might try to halt situations of environmental degradation through armed interventions in weaker countries, specifically mentioning Brazil as an example.
Less than a month later, The Guardian published an article by an author named Lawrence Douglas, in which he argued that the same logic applied to humanitarian interventions, such as the “Responsibility to Protect,” a globalist concept enshrined at the UN in 2005, should serve to legitimize the use of force against the geopolitical enemies of the Atlanticist West with a humanitarian/environmentalist veneer.
Indeed, at the event held in the Brazilian Congress, Stephen Walt’s article was specifically mentioned, along with many other pieces of evidence. It is necessary to recall, as Farinazzo did, that James Stavridis, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and former SOUTHCOM Commander, claimed that fires in the Amazon Rainforest represented a security risk for the U.S., legitimizing their intervention in Brazil. Emmanuel Macron (who was warmly welcomed by Lula in the Amazon a few months ago) and Boris Johnson, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, have also publicly stated that the Amazon region does not really belong to Brazil, but rather is a “common good” of so-called “humanity.” David Milliband, Secretary of the Environment under Tony Blair’s government, even went so far as advocate for the privatization of the Amazon Rainforest in 2006.
All this was presented to the Foreign Relations and National Defense Committee of the Brazilian Congress with abundant evidence and sources.
If the issue of Amazon fires was the most “weaponized” against Brazil during the Bolsonaro government, now the topic that generates the most furious reactions from environmental NGOs in Brazil, as well as “concerned” comments from foreign bureaucrats, is the exploration of oil in the Equatorial Margin, as pointed out by Professor Ricardo Cabral in Congress.
This is a topic that is linked, as he pointed out, with the entire history of efforts to prevent or hinder the exploitation of Brazilian mineral and energy resources, usually under allegations of “environmental damage” or “violations of indigenous peoples’ rights” – narratives that put pressure for the loss of sovereignty over parts of Brazilian territory, which should, as the narrative goes, be under “international tutelage,” in a more refined and postmodern version of the old British privatization proposals.
The problem, as analyst Albert Caballé pointed out, however, is that the Brazilian defense industry is in crisis; a crisis that has lasted for several years already.
If until approximately the 1980s, Brazilian companies in the defense sector not only supplied most of the national military needs but were also exporters, especially to the Middle East and Africa, the neoliberal avalanche of the 1990s in a post-Cold War context led to a gradual dismantling of the sector and its denationalization, with several of the main Brazilian defense companies, such as Ares and others, coming under the control of multinational companies – almost always from the same Atlanticist countries that show interest in the “internationalization” of the Amazon.
The hypothetical scenario discussed in the Brazilian Congress for an interventionist action against Brazil, as presented by Farinazzo, mentions the possibility of a blockade of the main Brazilian ports by Atlanticist naval forces, in a sort of “anaconda strategy” (a tactic that is part of the manual of Admiral Mahan, the father of American geopolitics).
The concern of Brazilian experts and representatives specializing in defense and international relations, therefore, is that Western greed in an era of transition and geopolitical crisis could turn against Brazil – and that Brazil, if it does not quickly wake up to the contemporary risks and dangers, may not be able to face this challenge.
If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .
If you scoff at the notion that the US, a republic founded on principles of freedom and democracy, has morphed into a world empire, perpetrating assassinations, coups d’état, acts of terror and illegal warfare . . .
If you want to promote peace but haven’t yet explored deceptive events that precipitate US warmongering . . .
. . . here is a volume that will clear the air and paint an honest picture of the significant, not-so-rosy impact US foreign policy and actions have had in the world around us.
USA: The Ruthless Empire, by Swiss historian and peace researcher Daniele Ganser, is the newly published English language translation of his book Imperium USA, originally written in German and published in 2020. Here is a summary of key points — including some lesser-known ones — along with remedies for a more peaceful future, that are covered in the book. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
If you regard the United States as perhaps flawed but overall a force for good in the world . . .
Aletho News 