Sitting in front of a computer screen in August 2021, Dr. Paul Oosterhuis was prepared.
The regulators, the people who hold the registrar of health practitioners in Australia, had recently come out with a document informing practitioners they could only speak about the positives of the COVID-19 vaccine.
Saying anything negative or cautionary was not allowed.
Dr. Oosterhuis addressed the document in a tweet. Since the COVID crisis began on the other side of the world the year prior, he had become rather outspoken on social media about many pandemic protocols.
Now that the virus was finally at Australia’s doorstep, he had a lot to say. “The document is ridiculous,” he tweeted.
“In science,” he argued, “you can’t give informed consent without saying the pluses and minuses, the hazards and the benefits.”
A combination of tweets, Facebook posts and Facebook comments like this had already ruffled some feathers. During an event he refers to as “Facebook fear porn” in March of 2021, the registrar insisted the only way to save lives was with the jab.
“Please tell everyone to take vitamin D, zinc, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin as an evidence-based approach for treatment,” he countered.
And rather quickly he was told, “This is misinformation. I’m going to report to you.”
“Here’s the childhood infection fatality rate by age. Kids are more likely to die from sharp objects.”
He went even further. At that time, the infection fatality rate for kids was .00016%, effectively zero.
“If there is even one death among these 24,000 kids, you have a signal of harm. And if you’re not watching for it, you will be held culpable.”
Two hours later, he received a call. The Medical Council of New South Wales was hastily putting together an immediate suspension hearing under the “Immediate Action Powers for Public Protection” section 150 of Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.
The hearing would be based on 10 social media posts where Dr. Oosterhuis had stated there was no evidence for anything the government was doing, whether it be masks, mandates or jabs, specifically regarding antibody-dependent enhancement. These were the posts selected as high heresy and grounds for suspension.
So here he was, sitting in his living room on a computer screen, participating in what he considered to be an online kangaroo court, but eager to participate anyway. He wanted to put them on notice. Whether they were calling it a vaccine or gene therapy, it hadn’t undergone the safety testing it should have.
There were no long-term data on the vaccine’s safety or efficacy, and they had an obligation to say so.
But it turned out, they weren’t interested in anything he had to say about that. Likewise, they had no interest in debating the science he provided or the merit of what he had claimed in any of his posts.
In fact, they only had one question: “Are you vaccinated?”
The answer was, no. And for the first time, there was a press release with his name on it. Dr. Paul Oosterhuis was officially labeled a threat.
‘Flabbergasted’: a doctor could lose his license for tweeting about informed consent?
I first met Paul in my parents’ kitchen 11 years ago.
He had flown to America with my cousin to attend a family event. Traveling the world after college, my cousin had never made her way home. Instead, she settled in Australia, married Paul, and had children. It was my first time meeting them too.
Eleven years ago I was very involved in the vaccine-safety-medical-freedom-quest-for-justice movement, which was substantially smaller then. I had helped form The Canary Party, now called Health Choice, the first political organization whose mission was to fight for medical freedom, justice for the vaccine injured, and systemic change to the vaccine program in the United States.
I had raised money for various autism organizations, marched on Washington, repeatedly met with my legislators, appeared on television, spoken at conferences and written more articles than I can count as a contributing editor to the Age of Autism blog and for other publications.
In short, I was pretty outspoken myself. And given this was long before anyone could have ever imagined the COVID pandemic, or that a highly respected mainstream doctor from Australia would lose his license for tweeting about informed consent, we didn’t really discuss my views on autism causation.
In fact, I’m fairly certain I totally avoided it.
So when my mom texted me last year that Paul had caused quite a stir and lost his license to practice medicine because of his opinions about COVID policies and protocols, I was admittedly pretty flabbergasted.
I had learned over time that the majority of physicians didn’t look at their practices as being responsible for creating negative health outcomes. Clearly, it seemed, he wasn’t afraid to do so. I decided right then and there I needed to reach out.
‘Something’s not right’
Dr. Oosterhuis completed medical school at Sydney University, also training at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center and in Papua New Guinea. After completing his residency with rotations in internal medicine, cardiology, general surgery, neurosurgery and intensive care, he decided he liked critical care best. Anesthesiology was his preferred practice.
“I’ve seen more cardiac arrests than most people have had hot breakfasts,” he commented about his time in emergency medicine over the last three decades.
This explains why he was hyper-aware of what was happening in the world regarding COVID in hospitals long before he became labeled a public health threat. He comes at it from a critical care space.
At the start of his career 30 years ago, Paul believed the Australian system of medical care was the best. Clinicians could still observe, speculate and doubt about a patient’s condition and care, he told me. Hospitals were full of doctors, nurses and other health practitioners.
Over time, however, he began to see a shift. Hospitals became less occupied by medical experts and more occupied by administrators and bureaucrats.
“It drove me mad from the get-go, the never-ending increase in red tape and bureaucracy,” he said. “It all became more and more leftist, more and more ‘woke-ian’ over the last eight years or so.”
The first red flag came in 2016 when a sign on an operating door said that any physician without a flu shot had to wear a mask for the following 12 months. To him, it made no sense. He had looked at the literature and found no evidence that masks prevented influenza in emergency room departments.
On top of that, in 2015, he received the flu shot, not only ending up feeling terrible for one week afterward but also getting the worst flu of his life a few weeks after that. He wasn’t the least bit interested in trying it again.
“I couldn’t leave the bed. And then a few weeks later, I got the flu. And it was the worst flu I’ve ever had. So when I saw that notice on the operating door, I went, no. I’m going to look into this. There’s something not right here. It doesn’t add up.”
No matter, it seemed. Suddenly, all the hospital administration cared about was his vaccine status for his re-employment contract.
From there, the changes ramped up. Senior staff were being moved out of the decision-making tree. He started recognizing pollution in the journal space, conflicts of interest and questionable findings in published science. His faith in the scientific literature was being damaged. His faith in the medical system even more so. All of it was causing him great concern.
So when COVID came, he was early to the question, “Why are the doctors and nurses falling sick in northern Italy?” Surely, he thought, they had to have good quality PPE (personal protection equipment) like they did in Australia. Didn’t they?
To avoid the same crisis in Australia, he began speaking out. In his mind, a lack of quality PPE was a bureaucratic failure. He pointed out that Italy may have failed to prepare, but Australia had time to do so.
He started by asking for quantitative fit testing of their masks. He suggested alternatives when they refused. Alas, it fell on deaf ears.
“I could see there was no openness to anything I was suggesting.”
In January 2020, he tweeted the prime minister that doctors were going to hardware stores to get effective PPE. He was adamant they work on this problem, that medical staff have a safe work environment.
And that’s when the online attacks against him began.
Amid those attacks, and after pointing out that strangely, no masks had been given to busy clinics where people from hot spots like Iran and China were coming to, his medical director suggested that perhaps he shouldn’t turn up for his next list (of patients) if he were going to keep this up.
Before he even had the chance to reply, however, he had to go into isolation. A nurse he worked with was diagnosed with COVID.
While in quarantine, Dr. Oosterhuis remained in contact with his fellow doctors and nurses, none of whom could get testing. When an email came from the medical director claiming everyone had been tested and all had been negative, he knew for a fact it was a bald-faced lie.
“I had lost trust in the system by then,” he said. “They were lying. They were not acting logically. They were not working on the problem. They were not listening to solutions that would work. Something was very wrong.”
And then, the coup d’état. He saw the NFR (not for resuscitation) and intubation orders and got a clear sense they were heading toward something very dystopian. The paranoia of viral contamination was so strong, that they were just going to let people die. No one would be getting CPR.
‘Like water on a raincoat’
To counter the insanity, Dr. Oosterhuis began aggressively researching treatment protocols. If they weren’t going to help prevent people from getting sick, at least they could treat them, he reasoned.
That’s when he discovered things like taking zinc, hydroxychloroquine, quercetin and vitamin D could have a powerful effect.
“The things they censored were very instructive,” he said. “The truth could be found in whatever that was.”
For most of 2021, he continued to follow the research and speak out, telling anyone who would listen about options for treatment. Eerily, however, it was like they couldn’t hear it. Long before Robert Malone talked openly about mass formation psychosis, he claims he could see and feel it for himself.
“It was truly bizarre. [Suggestions for treatment] would hit them like water on someone covered in a raincoat,” Dr. Oosterhuis said. “It rolled right off them.”
Alas, it soon began to make sense. The gene therapy injection was coming. The document from the regulators released in March of 2021 confirmed it. Only the vaccine, they insisted, would be able to save everyone.
By August, challenging that narrative would cost him his license.
‘Beyond the scope of authority’
During his suspension, Dr. Oosterhuis attended several protests alongside hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens. He went to one in Melbourne with a half million people. He went to another and marched on Parliament House in Sydney with a half million more. He even attended Australia’s trucker protest. They had one, too.
Although the press refused to cover the demonstrations fairly, he describes the cooperation and camaraderie of the people as nothing he had ever experienced. Everyone was so happy to know they weren’t alone, he told me.
“We had the sense we were living through history and felt sorry for the people captured by the narrative and living in fear. Human rights, bodily autonomy, informed consent — none of that seemed to matter to them.”
At the protests, several people suggested a legal brief he could take to the Australian Supreme Court to challenge the Medical Council’s decision and restore his medical license. He wasn’t going to be able to debate the merit of his social media posts, that much had been made clear.
But he was possibly going to be able to prove they didn’t follow the law in making their decision. The council had acted ultra vires, it seemed — or, beyond their powers.
He summoned the Supreme Court and Medical Council for judicial review, representing himself. Once again he found himself in his living room on a computer screen, this time in his pajama bottoms, with people trying to ruin his livelihood and reputation.
The first time around, he admits, he was nervous. By the 12th hearing, however, he was a warrior ready for battle. And on May 10, 2022, he emerged victorious. All anonymous complaints, and the suspension of his medical license, had been lifted. He had won his case.
Dr. Oosterhuis wasn’t entirely satisfied, however, as his true goal had been getting medical freedom back for all Australians. There was still work to do, he claimed. He had really hoped to get a ruling stating they had acted unlawfully, not just out of their jurisdiction. It would have overturned all suspensions — and potentially the regime of terror against doctors with it.
‘Give me my orders’
Paul now considers himself a soldier in the war for medical freedom. He sees himself as a part of the machine trying to get sanity back in science and to protect the public. In the environment of censorship and propaganda, he believes, you no longer have a democracy. Informed consent becomes impossible.
We talked for well over an hour about the parallels of our journeys for the same things, and how even though he’s later to the party than me, he’s in it for life. He insists he won’t stop fighting until they stop injecting our kids.
He also admits he just wasn’t awake. He took all vaccines without question until his horrible experience with the flu shot in 2015. He has also had to reevaluate past practices and assumptions.
Having resuscitated many SIDS babies over the years he realized, “Never once had it crossed my mind to ask, ‘When was their most recent vaccination?’”
Likewise, he has dug deeply into the literature on vaccine safety, or rather, the lack thereof. He understands now how they manipulate and censor science if they don’t like the outcomes, specifically citing Paul Thomas and James Lyons-Weiler’s study of the vaccinated versus unvaccinated and how the publisher pulled it, not a doctor or scientist.
“They don’t like having control groups,” he said. “One of the most sinister agendas in this whole thing is they never study any of these agents versus a placebo control.”
He went further adding, “And we know why. Because it would show it’s an unmitigated disaster.”
Paul went on to describe just how deeply this experience has affected him personally. Besides the trauma of losing his medical license after a stellar record of 30 years in practice, and for social media posts nonetheless, it has helped him formulate a new personal philosophy.
“I personally will not have another vaccine in this body in this lifetime,” he told me.
“I had made an oath a year and a half ago that that was my decision,” he said. “And so then the question was, how am I going to live in this world where they seem determined to inject every man, woman, child and animal on the planet with this thing? Like I say, I’m opposed to it. I’m a soldier. And I am opposed to it to my death.”
‘Real threat to the whole of humanity’
Dr. Oosterhuis hasn’t returned to the hospitals where he once worked. For one, they still have their vaccine mandates. And two, far too many of his colleagues have chosen to stay asleep, he feels. He can’t go back to it pretending none of this is real.
Instead, he spends his time now speaking out. In addition to being interviewed globally by people such as Steve Kirsch, Pierre Kory, and Peter McCullough, he has created a Substack with a substantial following. Topics have included the increase in the all-cause mortality signal; fraudulent PCR tests; and the shocking damage to fertility we see happening all over the world.
“In country after country, you see nine months after the roll out (of the vaccine), a collapse in birth rates, a massive increase in infertility, and problems with women’s cycles,” he said. “This is a real threat to the whole of humanity.”
He’s equally concerned about the power grab of the World Health Organization and other health agencies. When I commented that without liability, pharmaceutical companies have no incentive for restraint, he took it a step further. They don’t just lack an incentive for restraint, he countered. They are now incentivized to create disasters.
“It’s criminality that’s become an existential threat to humanity. We don’t have any choice but to push back.”
‘I hoped I was wrong’
From the very beginning, Paul insists that he wanted to be wrong. He wanted to be wrong about it all. He was simply putting questions out into the digital universe.
What if they tried a different mask? Where was the proper PPE? Why was there such resistance to treatment protocols? Why were they giving 24,000 students an experimental injection for a disease they’d never die from? None of it made any sense.
“I hoped I was wrong. I really did,” he said. “But within days I heard a report of a high school student who had died, and I heard there was going to be a service. Then there were other reports of deaths in the 24,000. At the time of my tweet, I prayed I was wrong. I would have been happy to be wrong. But my role was to put them on notice. I didn’t want them to be able to say, ‘we didn’t know.’ It’s on public record, they did.”
When top officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration resigned last year over the pressure to push for boosters, Paul says their parting letter didn’t pull any punches. The danger was not just to the credibility of the COVID-19 vaccine, these officials claimed, but to the credibility of all vaccines. Paul believes they are right, and that accountability is coming, even if it’s slow.
Meanwhile, his trust in the government, medicine, science, journalism and the media has been destroyed. He carries a sense of disgust that many of us have already carried for some time, and he is adamant that we have to rebuild our institutions from the ground up. We need true science, true integrity and an end to conflicts of interest.
“Public-private partnerships sound great until you put a jackboot on it,” he says.
Most of all, he insists, we need bodily autonomy.
“If we don’t have bodily autonomy, we are already enslaved.”
‘A coincidence theorist’
Paul tells me that he is not a conspiracy theorist but rather a coincidence theorist. I laugh, only because the name of my book, which he hadn’t known, is “An Unfortunate Coincidence: A Mother’s Life inside the Autism Controversy” (Skyhorse 2016).
Both of us notice the coincidences. When they become less and less probable, “you start to think, maybe this is the way reality actually works.”
We commiserate for a little while over the figurative costs of being in this fight, and how neither one of us could have ever imagined being a part of it, or really ever having needed to be. Science was once sacred, I remind him. He agrees, but pushes back.
“The fight is here. It’s now,” he said. “The ultimate battle is here. And as big as the cost is of speaking out, the cost of not speaking out is exponentially larger. And the cost gets greater every day that passes.”
I am inspired again to pick up my proverbial sword. It has been almost six years since I have actively spoken out or regularly written anything. Fifteen years in the fight prior affected me in profoundly personal ways that required a reprieve.
And yet, I know he is right. The fight is here. It is time to get back in the ring. I thank him for reminding me of that and all he is doing.
“For decades, I have fought for everyone’s lives, and I’m still doing it. I’m not doing it in the operation theater, but I’m doing it on a different scale now. The only way you can protect those closest to you is to end this for everyone.”
Paul and I finish the conversation. It is late for me in Chicago while he is in Sydney. Once again, he is in his living room over a computer screen, in the same space where he lost his medical license and then took on the Australian Supreme Court to regain it.
In the same place he intends to save many more lives.
Even in his pajamas.
Julie Obradovic is a contributing editor to the Age of Autism blog, a founding member of The Canary Party and the author of “An Unfortunate Coincidence: A Mother’s Life inside the Autism Controversy.”
An “elite” and influential group of obesity specialists over the last decade pocketed at least $25.8 million in payments from Novo Nordisk, maker of weight loss drugs Wegovy and Saxenda, in exchange for promoting the drugs in their lectures, treatment guidelines, clinics and medical societies, according to an investigation by Reuters.
“Those payments are part of a campaign to convince U.S. doctors to make Wegovy one of the most widely prescribed drugs in history — and to persuade skeptical insurers to pay for it,” according to the report.
Wegovy and Saxenda have rapidly transformed the treatment of obesity in the U.S., with a boom in prescriptions so big in 2023 that JP Morgan doubled its 10-year sales projection, predicting sales of $71 million for the drugs by 2032.
‘They have pushed for urgent prescribing of Wegovy’
Reuters examined data from the federal Open Payments database, which reports payments made by pharmaceutical companies to doctors, other medical professionals and teaching hospitals for consulting, speaking, research, travel or meals. It analyzed payments for speaking, consulting, food and travel for two of Novo’s obesity drugs, Wegovy and Saxenda.
The analysis also excluded payment for research.
Overall, Reuters found at least 57 U.S. physicians each accepted a minimum of $100,000 from Novo in payments related to the two drugs over 10 years. It also found Novo made other large payments to some of those same doctors, but the payments were not classified as related to a particular drug and were not counted in the $25.8 million total.
Of that group, 41 of the physicians run weight-management clinics, work at academic hospitals, write obesity-treatment guidelines or hold top positions at medical societies.
Collectively, the report said:
“[They] have pushed for urgent prescribing of Wegovy and similar medicines to a large proportion of patients with obesity and for comprehensive coverage by government and private insurers. The company and some of its paid experts have called denying coverage tantamount to discrimination against people with obesity, rooted in the faulty notion that they are to blame for their condition.”
Reuters also analyzed Novo’s spending among experts involved in writing five prominent sets of obesity-treatment guidelines for doctors. Among the 109 guideline writers and editors, 53 had accepted payments from companies selling or developing obesity drugs — $8 million of the total $12.4 million of those payments were from Novo.
In a statement provided to Reuters, Novo said, “Responsible engagement between pharmaceutical companies and the medical community is good for patients and advances care and science.”
Since the Affordable Care Act created the Open Payments system over a decade ago, it has been easier to expose the kinds of financial conflicts of interest identified in the report.
However, the increased transparency hasn’t stemmed the flow of industry money, Reuters found. “Companies’ annual payments have surged from $6.5 billion in 2014, the first full year data were collected, to $12.6 billion last year,” the report stated.
Dr. Arthur Kellermann, a health administrator and former dean of the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, the U.S. military’s medical school, told Reuters the investigation sheds light on a long-standing problem in the drug industry.
He called the payments “morally and ethically way over the line,” adding:
“The pharmaceutical industry still sees value in paying medical thought leaders to promote their products, and too many of them are happy to sign up for a six- or seven-figure check …
”As sales grow, Medicare and the insurance industry come under intense pressure to pay for these hugely expensive drugs … The end result is that everybody’s healthcare costs go up.”
Another recent report by investigative journalist Lee Fang similarly found a wide network of celebrities, physicians, patient advocacy groups, public health experts, academics, and community leaders have appeared in dozens of media outlets to tout the drugs without disclosing their financial ties to Novo Nordisk.
Which doctors take money from Novo Nordisk?
The report profiled several key physicians taking money from Novo.
For example, Novo paid Lee Kaplan, M.D., Ph.D., chief of obesity medicine at Dartmouth’s medical school, former head of Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, and associate professor of medicine at Harvard, $1.4 million for consulting work and travel related to the two drugs between 2013 and 2022.
It also paid him another $976,019 million during that same period for unspecified reasons.
Kaplan, who teaches a popular obesity course taken by physicians seeking certification in obesity medicine or continuing education credits — for which Novo contributed $10,000 this year — dismissed the idea that he is a mouthpiece for the drugmaker. He told Reuters he accepts money from numerous companies and “that he’s not beholden to any one drugmaker.”
Ryan was instrumental in persuading the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to cover Wegovy and similar drugs for millions of federal workers, an agency official told Reuters.
In the process, she connected government officials with two key groups: the Obesity Action Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group, and the STOP Obesity Alliance at George Washington University. Both have ties to drugmakers.
Novo is the Obesity Action Coalition’s top corporate donor, paying it more than $500,000 annually.
STOP medical director Dr. Scott Kahan, who will assist in writing The Obesity Society’s new “standards-of-care” guidelines that primary-care doctors commonly use as a quick-reference guide, has accepted more than $300,000 from Novo.
Dr. Jamy Ard, of Wake Forest University, the incoming president of The Obesity Society who will oversee the guideline writing, has taken over $200,000 from Novo.
Ryan told Reuters she had no qualms about taking such payments, “Being a purist isn’t helping anyone,” she told Reuters.
The report also quoted Ryan speaking to a group of doctors at a conference, where she argued that these blockbuster drugs have been positive for both patients and investors. “There is nothing wrong with money,” Ryan said.
She and obesity specialist Dr. Ken Fujioka, director of the Scripps Clinic Nutrition and Metabolic Research Center in San Diego, have taken 130 Novo-paid trips over the past decade, traveling to make speeches and do consulting.
They said the travel allows them to provide medical advice that is valuable to patients, physicians and the manufacturer.
But other doctors disagreed. Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, a professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University Medical Center who studies pharmaceutical marketing practices, told Reuters :
“These highly paid doctors end up drowning out the voices of people who aren’t being flown around to every medical meeting. As a result, there’s not a lot of resistance to the prevailing industry-funded view.”
‘Serious and under-discussed risks for pregnant women’
This was followed, in June 2021, by the licensing of Wegovy, and less than a year later of Ozempic, which is indicated for Type 2 diabetes, but contains the same active ingredient, semaglutide, as Wegovy, and is prescribed off-label for weight loss.
Semaglutide drugs are taken as a once-weekly injection, which is considered a benefit compared to a once-daily jab. Liraglutide is a daily shot. Semaglutide is also available as a once-daily pill under the brand name Rybelsus, another Novo drug.
These drugs mimic the GLP-1 hormone, which assists patients in losing weight by regulating their appetite.
In November 2023, the FDA approved Eli Lilly’s Zepbound, another injectable diabetes drug, for weight loss. The active ingredient in Zepbound, tirzepatide, sets this drug apart from Wegovy and Ozempic but it works similarly through a weekly injection.
Tirzepatide is sold by Eli Lilly as a diabetes drug under the trade name Mounjaro.
These approvals were accompanied by what Fang called a Novo Nordisk-driven “aggressive campaign to persuade Americans of the merits of semaglutide.”
According to a KFF Health poll, 45% of adults would take a “safe and effective prescription weight loss drug,” including 59% of those trying to lose weight.
Enthusiasm fell to just 23%, however, when they learned that treatment involved a routine injection, to 16% if either insurance did not cover the high monthly cost or if the drug was not specifically approved for weight loss.
The surging popularity of the medication led to shortages and made Novo Nordisk one of the most valuable global pharmaceutical companies, behind Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly.
The shortages raised concerns because the drugs are not made for short-term use. Studies show that when people stop taking them, they regain much of the weight they lost, or potentially gain even more weight. Most people who start taking the drugs and want the effects to last will have to stay on them long-term.
But recent pharmacy claims data shows that most people who start taking Wegovy stop taking it within a year, some because of side effects and some because of the high cost of the drugs.
In addition to suicidal ideation and thoughts of self-harm, pancreatic cancer and gastrointestinal disorders, other adverse effects linked to semaglutide are also becoming apparent. A study using data from EudraVigilance, also found metabolic, nutritional, eye, renal, urinary and cardiac disorders were also reported.
Despite the high drug cost and the associated risks, there is an ongoing debate about whether insurance companies and Medicare should cover the cost of weight loss drugs, which would increase profits exponentially.
Reuters reported that Wegovy’s U.S. prescribing label recommends the drug for anyone with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher, the threshold for obesity and for people with a 27 BMI who also have a weight-related medical condition.
That would cover about 46% of American adults — about 120 million people, according to the report.
A study published in March in the NEJM estimated that if Medicare were compelled to cover Wegovy, with an estimated 23% discount, it would cost $27 billion to treat just 10% of patients with obesity enrolled in Medicare. That would equal nearly a fifth of the yearly spending for Medicare’s program covering prescription drugs.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
A report released by Statistics Canada (“StatsCan”) on 27 November showed that the number of covid deaths in highly vaccinated Canada rose by 36% last year.
The largest increase was in Atlantic Canada, where the number of covid deaths per 100,000 population in 2022 was more than seven times higher than in 2021. Atlantic Canada also had the highest uptake of covid “vaccines.”
As well as soaring covid deaths, Canadian government data reveals a staggering 135% death spike classified as “other ill-defined and unspecified causes of mortality.”
The report also reveals that Canadian life expectancy dropped for the third year in a row. The falling life expectancy trend coincidentally started in 2020.
According to StatsCan, the nation recorded a record number of covid deaths, despite high vaccination uptake and the pandemic having ended.
As of 10 September 2023, 83% of Canadians have had at least one dose of the covid injection.
Except for Nova Scotia where 83% of the population had at least one dose, Atlantic Canada – which makes up less than 7% of Canada’s population and comprises the provinces of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island – had higher vaccination uptake than the national average of 83%: New Brunswick (87%), Newfoundland and Labrador (96%) and Prince Edward Island (90%).
According to StatsCan, Atlantic Canada also had a seven-fold increase in covid deaths last year; 59.5 deaths per 100,000 population in 2022 versus 8.3 deaths per 100,000 in 2021.
Despite the clear safety signal of increased deaths, the Government has an autumn booster campaign recommending that Canadians get “an updated covid vaccine dose.”
Maxime Bernier, the leader of the conservative People’s Party of Canada (“PPC”), broke the story on Twitter about “more shocking data on the number and causes of deaths” in Canada released by StatsCan. He tweeted:
Here are more shocking data on the number and causes of deaths in Canada released earlier this week by StatsCan.
Not only were there more official covid deaths in 2022 than in 2021 and 2020 despite the fact that 85% of Canadians had by then received a supposedly “safe and… pic.twitter.com/ePFQkUoEnt
In a PPC newsletter dated 5 December, Bernier delved into the implications of the report, saying, “These deaths have almost TRIPLED since 2020 from 6,841 to 16,043 in 2022.”
“What happened in 2021 that could have caused this explosion of unexplained deaths over the last 2 years? An experimental pharmaceutical product was rushed to market and forced on Canadian society, is what happened. They told us it was ‘safe and effective’ but over the last few years we have learned more and more about how that covid shot was neither,” Bernier said.
The PPC leader then accused the establishment of ignoring such a significant development, saying this breaking news was “ignored by all of our crooked establishment politicians and the dishonest corporate media.”
A multinational public relations firm last week launched a provocative advertising campaign — under the slogan “HPV Fucks Everybody” — designed to persuade Gen Zers to get the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.
When asked if Merck was funding the campaign, a spokesperson for Fuck Cancer told The Defender, “This campaign has no connection with Merck and is a collaboration between Publicis Health Media and Fuck Cancer (a non profit). Please note that we are promoting a vaccine that is safe and saves lives.”
There are currently 80 cases pending in federal court against Merck alleging Gardasil caused injuries and the federal Vaccine Court has paid out more than $70 million to people making claims regarding Gardasil.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), also a Publicis client, developed the HPV vaccine technology, which it licenses, in the U.S., exclusively to Merck.
In addition to Merck and the NIH, other Publicis Groupe clients include the World Economic Forum (WEF), pharmaceutical giants including Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Purdue Pharma and several pharmacy chains that administer the HPV vaccines, including Walmart, Rite Aid and CVS Health (owners of Target pharmacies and clinics).
Campaign ‘uses sex to sell its case’
The new campaign targets young adults directly through a series of ads featuring “diverse, sexy images” and edgy music, accompanying the message that it doesn’t matter who you are, you are at risk because “HPV Fucks Everybody.”
Photos of a black couple, a white couple and a furry couple kissing, and a multiracial group of young people partying are featured on the website and will be featured in the ads.
The images are accompanied by lines like, “Stop the spread. Get the shot. Keep doing you,” according to “Pharma & Health Insider” — a PR site that publishes promotional stories with a news-like appearance.
HPV transmission is likely to occur via sex, the PR story said, so the campaign “uses sex to sell its case.”
“Targeting all 18–26-year-olds who are sexually active (or who want to be), the campaign behaves just like its audience: honest, bold and unbounded by tradition,” said Alison McConnell, chief marketing officer at Publicis Health Media — one of Publicis’ “solution hubs.”
Michelle Stiles, author of “One Idea To Rule Them All: Reverse Engineering American Propaganda,” told The Defender that campaigns run by elite global PR firms may appear absurd to a skeptical observer, but they have tremendous power to shape global public health agendas.
She said:
“The trendy and provocative messaging targeting sexually active youth for yet another vaccination campaign should hopefully be met with ample amounts of skepticism or outright laughter for those who paid attention during the previous rollout of the COVID-19 shots.
“Unfortunately, these million-dollar campaigns are extremely dangerous because they are so effective.”
Ben Mallory, executive vice president/creative director for Digitas Health, another Publicis subsidiary collaborating on the campaign, said the campaign is designed to inform young people that they will be infected with HPV, that such infection will be risky and that vaccination is the answer.
“For a generation that doesn’t discriminate, it’s important they realize that HPV doesn’t either,” he said. “That’s what the campaign communications [sic]: It doesn’t matter who you are or what you’re into, if you’re not vaccinated, you’re at risk.”
Trying to reach ‘largest and most influential generation’
The campaign will air 30-second and one-minute ads on 150 college campuses and in 150 malls in major markets, and also post on lifestyle websites like Thrillist, PopSugar, the dating site Grindr.
An audio campaign will follow, along with advertising in “points-of-care,” which can include clinics or pharmacies.
On the campaign’s website, people can also sign up to “get the shot” at major retail pharmacies including Walgreens, CVS, Rite Aid, Walmart, Target and Kroger — companies Publicis Groupe also represents.
McConnell, Publicis’ marketing director for the campaign, said they are trying to reach Gen Z because it is “the largest and most influential generation.”
This shift in focus reflects recent shifts in direct advertising by Gardasil maker Merck.
Merck’s early ads targeted parents of adolescents, but in 2022 they shifted gears and started targeting parents of young children with ads like this one, which appeals to parents of the older elementary school children.
These ads focused on marketing the vaccine as “cancer prevention” rather than as acting on a sexually transmitted disease, a strategy the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) promoted to encourage more young people to get vaccinated.
Last year, Merck expanded its advertising campaign to target adults through age 45, in commercials like this one, marketing the vaccine as protecting against a long list of cancers.
According to the CDC, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S. and the majority of sexually active people will get it at some point in their lives, even if they have only one or very few sexual partners.
But the vast majority of HPV infections are cleared by the immune system and less than 10% of infections are linked to any clinical symptoms. Clinical symptoms can include a variety of warts and cervical dysplasia, which may be benign or precancerous.
Yet the campaign website claims, “HPV turns into cancer about 10% of the time,” a claim public health agencies don’t make.
There are over 200 strains of the HPV virus, a subset of which are deemed “high-risk.” HPV can cause genital warts and some strains have been associated with some types of cancer. However, HPV is not the sole risk factor for any cancer, and cancers associated with HPV can also sometimes develop without the presence of the virus.
Methods like regular pap screening are highly effective and have been found to reduce the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer among women by at least 80%.
But the sample ad on the site presents HPV as something always scary and dangerous.
It says:
“HPV Fucks Everybody. In fact, there are more than 14 million new HPV infections in the US each year, because HPV doesn’t discriminate. It doesn’t care who you are, what you look like who you love or what you’re into. HPV will infect more than 85% of sexually active people of all races, ethnicities and genders. It can lead to genital warts, or worse, over ten types of cancer. So it doesn’t matter if your status is single, committed, or complicated. It doesn’t even matter if you’re not currently sexually active.”
The website also claims the HPV vaccine can prevent a whopping 33,700 types of HPV-related cancers. Even Gardasil 9’s package insert and the CDC website only indicate the HPV vaccine for some cancers of the cervix, vagina, vulva, penis, anus and back of the throat with the HPV virus.
The campaign also repeats Merck’s claims that the vaccine is “safe and effective” and that the side effects are “mild.”
But a series of ongoing lawsuits against Merck allege the drugmaker fast-tracked Gardasil through the FDA’s approval process and deceptively conducted clinical trials to mask serious side effects and exaggerate the vaccine’s effectiveness.
Finally, the campaign promises that getting vaccinated can “put an end to HPV. For you, for us, for them. For everyone.”
However, the Gardasil 9 vaccine is designed only to suppress nine of the over 200 strains of HPV, and recent research has shown that when the HPV vaccine suppresses certain types of “high-risk” HPV strains, those strains are replaced with other strains associated with some cancers.
While the World Health Organization has launched a global campaign to eradicate cervical cancer as a public health threat, it has not indicated a similar project for HPV.
Publicis is part of ‘the propaganda arm of the global elite’
The campaign is spearheaded by Publicis Health Media and Digitas Health, which are both part of Publicis, along with Fuck Cancer.
According to the campaign publicity, Publicis Health Media is particularly concerned with HPV because the company CEO Arthur Sadoun was diagnosed and treated for HPV-associated cancer.
Last year, the company published a holiday video where board chair Maurice Lévy and Sadoun were joined by actor Michael Douglas, who was diagnosed and treated with throat cancer a decade ago, to promote the HPV vaccine and the Publicis Groupe.
As part of its cancer marketing focus, Publicis Groupe launched its Working with Cancer initiative, at the WEF. In partnership with 30 of the largest global companies, including Pfizer, Sanofi, PepsiCola, Meta and others, the campaign seeks to “abolish the stigma and insecurity that exist for people with cancer in the workplace,” according to the campaign website.
During Super Bowl LVII in February, it ran a commercial about the campaign that won a Gold Lion from the Health & Wellness jury at the 2023 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity in June.
Publicis Groupe is an ad holding company, which recently rebranded “for the connected age” itself as a “platform,” according to its website.
As Stiles details in her book, just a few such companies — including Publicis, Omnicom, WPP and Interpublic Group — dominate the global media landscape.
Each ad-holding company has billions of dollars in revenue and serves thousands of corporate clients along with universities, nonprofits and governmental and nongovernmental organizations.
As public relations firms, they design ad campaigns and they develop and strategically place print and broadcast media content in mainstream news and PR publications for their clients. They also create public relations campaigns like those described here to develop, promote and defend the reputations of their clients.
Other tactics include flooding the media landscape with spin, developing talking points for “experts” to use in public appearances and generally “using underhanded tactics to promote and defend their clients,” Ecowatch reported.
According to Stiles, an estimated two-thirds to 80% of the content broadcast and published by corporate media comes from public relations firms.
She said:
“There is no doubt that the top three PR holding firms WPP, Omnicom, and Publicis, whose collective revenue is over 44 billion, function and should be thought of as the propaganda arm of the global elite.
“The finely-tuned, targeted messages not only create revenue for the transnational capitalist class but just as importantly define the global problems to be solved and the way in which they should be solved, leaving very little room for other creative options.”
Each agency has smaller subsidiaries and PR affiliates under the same corporate ownership, creating the appearance that there are more players in the media field than there actually are. More recently, they have also begun to “gobble up” data companies.
For example, in this campaign, two of three collaborators are part of the Publicis Groupe.
The public relations site Pharma & Health, where one of the “stories” about the “HPV Fucks Everybody” campaign was posted by MediaPost Inc., a marketing company that posts up to 50 different industry blogs.
“Adding together the global revenue of the top 250 independent PR firms ($17 billion) with the PR holding companies ($44 billion) and we are literally swimming in marketing messages intended to consolidate capital for the mega-corporations,” Stiles said.
“The medical messaging repeatedly advises us to outsource health and wellness to drugs or vaccines, poor choices indeed,” she added.
Publicis Groupe was implicated in the “Monsanto File” scandal, where the company was found to be using Publicis Consultants and FleishmanHillard, an Omnicom subsidiary, to launch a PR offensive to rehabilitate the image of genetically modified organisms and pesticides.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
‘Twitter Files’ co-author Michael Shellenberger says Democrat Congressman Dan Goldman has “no evidence” to back up his “wild conspiracy theory” about the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
Mr Goldman tried to regurgitate claims to Mr Shellenberger that the laptop’s contents could have been manipulated by Rudy Guiliani or the Russians.
Mr Shellenberger testified to the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponisation of the Federal Government last week about the existence of a “Censorship Industrial Complex” which, he says, includes the Department of Homeland Security, big tech companies and government contractors.
“The Democrats the whole time were saying that’s just a conspiracy theory, and here we were presenting them with files – and it’s Twitter files, Facebook files … like actual documents,” Mr Shellenberger told Sky News Australia host Rita Panahi.
“Then he goes and presents this wild conspiracy theory for which there has never been any evidence and there has only been evidence going the other way.
“When the New York Post published that article … they provided not only the computer store signature of Hunter Biden on the receipt left at the computer store repair shop he left the laptop at and the New York Post published the FBI subpoena for the laptop from him.
“Twitter’s own internal staff evaluated the New York Post article and they said there’s no evidence that this was the result of a Russian hack and leak operation.
“To have a sitting member of Congress, over three years later, continue to perpetuate a conspiracy theory without any evidence … that is literally the definition of conspiracy theorising.”
As with the previous competent analyses of energy storage requirements needed to back up intermittent renewable generation that have been featured on this blog and in my energy storage Report, there is nothing complicated about the Fekete, et al., analysis. The authors call it “a modified surplus/deficit calculation [as] taught to water engineers to size reservoirs for meeting water demand when the water resources vary.” When there is surplus production you add it to storage, and when there is a deficit you subtract; and then you sum over a year (or two, or ten) to calculate how much storage you need. It’s all basic arithmetic. What could be simpler?
You will not be surprised that the conclusion is “CO2 obsession driven dead-end.”
This subject would seem almost too obvious and trivial to cover on this blog. There is nothing complicated here. Everybody who is involved in any way in the energy transition game, and who has even the lowest level of professional competence, simply must be aware of this subject and of these calculations. And yet I just attended the big New York “Climate Summit,” (aka the Krazy Klimate Konference), featuring all of the powerful politicians and bureaucrats and industry leaders who are in charge of our state’s energy transition, and to a person they have no idea about any of this. And by no idea, I mean none, zero, zilch. One guy even came up to me and accused me of being “rude” for laughing out loud at his astounding ignorance. (The only other possibility was that it was intentional comedy.)
Unsurprisingly, the authors of Fekete, et al., make no claim to being “climate scientists.” Climate scientists as a class are way too smart to stoop to doing basic arithmetic. In the intro to the paper, Fekete identifies himself as a professor at the City University of New York — of Civil Engineering. Second author Mihály Bacskó is a former executive of the Hungarian Power Company. The other two co-authors are meteorologists working at the University of Oklahoma. In other words, the focus here is not on scaring the public with frightening scenarios from the occult voodoo of climate “science,” but rather only on whether the proposed solutions will or will not work.
The particular calculations in Fekete, et al., look at data from twelve states of the northeastern U.S. — New England, plus New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and West Virginia. Rather than using production data from existing wind and solar facilities, the authors obtained daily wind speed and solar irradiation data for the region. For consumption data, the blog post states that the authors applied an assumption of “constant energy consumption,” after determining that “seasonal variations of energy consumption are relatively small (deviate by only 10-15% of the annual average).” (Perhaps this decision could be criticized, but I doubt that it makes any material difference to the conclusion.)
And the bottom line is:
The storage capacity needed to align power generation from solar or wind is around 25% of the annual energy consumption.
In other words, you need three months worth of storage to try to make this work. Previous studies that I highlighted in my energy storage Report — for example, those of Roger Andrews and Ken Gregory — had calculated storage needs in the range of one to two months. However, those studies only used one year’s worth of data for each calculation, and allowed running the storage balance right down to zero. If you think that it’s too risky to run the storage right down to zero before the balance starts to refill, then three months of storage is a much more reasonable figure. Indeed, it’s still rather conservative.
Fekete, et al., don’t get into the specifics of cost of any possible storage solution. But then, they don’t need to. The potential costs are so enormous as to completely rule out any attempt even to start down this road. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, total U.S. electricity consumption in 2022 was just over 4 trillion kWh. So one-quarter of that would be just over 1 trillion kWh. Just to get an idea of the cost of that much energy storage, this site (Tesla fans) gives a (highly optimistic) cost for Tesla batteries of just over $100 per kWh. So a trillion of those will run you about $100 trillion. That’s four times the entire U.S. economy. Meanwhile, a Tesla-style battery is not remotely up to the job of the energy storage needed to back up wind/solar electricity generation, which would necessarily include the ability to save up power over a year or more and discharge over a year. But then, the economics are so wildly out of line that it’s hardly worth worrying about such technicalities.
Fekete, et al., in a very understated manner, put it this way:
In the absence of energy storage technology that can store several months worth of energy, one has to conclude that all studies suggesting that solar or wind are price competitive with other forms of energy should be retracted.
The Fekete blog post at Climate, Etc. contains two other subjects of interest. One relates to the peer review process. It appears that one of the peer reviewers made a run at getting the paper blocked, without stating the nature of any substantive criticisms:
One of the reviewers stated that “The manuscript contains fundamental errors that cannot be rectified through author revisions” without venturing into any details.
Fekete calls this effort “unscientific, unjust, and unethical,” which is again quite an understatement. Sadly, such conduct is the norm in what goes by the name “climate science” today. Fortunately, in this case, another reviewer was supportive, as was the staff of the journal.
The second subject of further interest in the blog post is that another reviewer criticized the draft paper for alleged “lack of references to the “plethora of work” related to integrating renewables to the current energy systems and transitioning to a sustainable energy future.” The criticism caused the authors to “roll up their sleeves” and go out and review some 360 papers recommended by the critic. Here is a list of what they found:
The inter-annual and seasonal variations were rarely studied.
The vast majority of the studies were limited to diurnal and minute-by-minute variations.
The publications only investigated the use of few hourly storage capacities.
The primary sustainability metric was reducing CO2 emissions.
Most of the publications were limited to low renewable penetration.
No publication attempted to address complete decarbonization.
Even the most ambitious “deep decarbonization” scenarios stopped at 25-50% renewable contributions that was considered “high renewable penetration”.
And in summary:
Most of the reviewed papers assumed that solar and wind will be always supplemented by some form of “firm generation capacity”, which is the obfuscated name of using fossil fuels complemented with “carbon capture and sequestration”.
In other words, the orthodox “peer reviewed” scientific literature is almost completely lacking in consideration of the most important, fundamental problem of transitioning to an energy system based on electricity generated by the wind and sun. Well, now there is one competent paper in the mix. They will do their best to ignore it, at least until the whole wind/solar thing has conclusively shown that it can’t work.
In a new study, six scientists (Dentelski et al., 2023) effectively eviscerate a methodologically flawed 2021 study (Lynas et al.) that claims 99.53% of 3,000 scientific papers examined (by subjectively classifying papers based only on what is written in the abstracts) support the anthropogenic global warming, or AGW, position.
The Lynas et al. authors begin with the assumption that a consensus on the human attribution for global warming not only exists, it is ensconced as the unquestioned, prevailing viewpoint in the scientific literature. So their intent was to effectively quantify the strength of this assumed widespread agreement by devising a rating system that only assesses the explicit rejection of AGW in the paper’s abstract as not supporting the presumed “consensus.”
Of the 3,000 papers analyzed in Lynas et al., 282 were deemed not sufficiently “climate-related.” Another 2,104 papers were placed in Category 4, which meant either the paper’s authors took “no position” or the position on AGW was deemed “uncertain”… in the abstract. So, exploiting the “if you are not against, you are for” classification bias, Lynas and colleagues decided that the authors of these 2,104 scientific papers in Category 4 do indeed agree with AGW, as what is written in the abstract does not explicitly state they do not agree.
Interestingly, if this classification bias had not been utilized and the thousands of Category 4 (“no position” or “uncertain”) papers were not counted as supporting AGW, only 892 of the 2,718 (climate-related) papers, or 32%, could be said to have affirmatively stated they support AGW. So, simply by assuming one cannot divine the AGW opinions of authors of scientific papers by reading abstracts, it could just as facilely be said that 67% (1,826 of 2,718) of climate-related papers reject AGW.
Dentelski and colleagues also point out that by their own analysis, 54% of the papers they examined that were classified by Lynas et al. as only “implying” support (Category 3) for AGW or Category 4 (“no position” or “uncertain”) actually described a lack of support for AGW in the body of the paper itself. But since this expressed non-endorsement of AGW was not presented in the abstract, these papers were wrongly classified as supporting AGW anyway.
To fully grasp the subjective nature of the methodology employed by Lynas and colleagues, Dentelski et al. uncover the internals of the study indicating 58% of the time two independent examiners did not agree on numerical classification scale (from 1 to 7) for a paper. If two people agree just 42% of the time when classifying papers, it cannot be said that the rating system is sufficiently objective.
The Lynas et al. paper appears to be little more than an exercise in propaganda.
The climate alarmists state that there was no Little Ice Age, No Medieval Warm Period or even Roman Warm Period. Not just these 1000 year cycles do not exists but we are now in the hottest time in the last 120,000 years and its all our fault! That is their incredible stance because ,if any of those periods are true and warmed, then warming like we have experienced since the industrial revolution is normal… that cannot be allowed to happen. This video explores the just how history has to be changed to fit their narrative. These videos below are worth watching as they all link together to give the big picture.
I’ve found myself feeling unusually cranky over the past several months. Goodnesss knows, there are plenty of reasons: the never-ending covidian pall that has hung over our heads for nearly four years, the absurdly frivolous persecution of my medical colleagues here in New Zealand by a thoroughly corrupt Medical Council in the back pocket of the FSMB, the recent change in government with promises to begin a covid inquiry that itself promises to be about as successful as the Warren Commission report on the assassination of JFK, and the many stories of jab-injured people who feel they have nowhere to turn. In fact, I received a message from one just last week imploring me to hear her out over the holidays, which I gladly will.
But more particularly for me and my level of grumpiness this week was having come across a video by a YouTube influencer, a bona fide physicist whose channel promises “Science without the gobbledygook.” I’ve chanced upon her before as I meandered my way through discussions of dark energy, dark matter, black holes and the like, no doubt a masochistic exercise for someone whose mathematical abilities reach their peak in addition, subtraction, multiplication and division — although in fairness I did manage to pass calculus and statistics courses in my youth, the memory of which is something best repressed.
I sat through the excruciating twenty minutes in stunned disbelief. Here, after all, is a very real and accomplished scientist, who describes herself on her channel thus:
“Sabine Hossenfelder has a PhD in physics. She is author of the books “Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray” (Basic Books, 2018) and “Existential Physics: A Scientist’s Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions” (Viking, 2022).”
I know without a doubt that her mental capacity for engaging in the higher complexities of mathematics, cosmology, particle physics and the like, is considerable, and in comparison to me she is many light years ahead or above my capabilities to comprehend even the rudiments of these august fields.
Mysteriously however, Dr. Hossenfelder’s scientific acumen took a leave of absence when she ventured into the field of medicine. I realize that she does not possess an MD, but surely any scientist worth his or her salt could never have failed to address the one highly significant variable in all this talk of long, longer and endless covid: the Jab.
Well, to be fair, she does mention covid “vaccination” in the context of preventing long covid, citing a meta-analysis that suggests multiple “vaccinations” are preventive. And with respect to the treatment of covid, she utterly fails to mention anything like zinc, zinc ionophores such as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and Quercetin, Vitamin C, or Vitamin D — offering instead the suggestion that those infected with covid should “rest well” and not “try to push through it.”
I am reminded of a neighbor who developed a deep venous thrombosis in her calf and, two days after diagnosis, a pulmonary embolism requiring emergency hospitalization. She fortunately survived. When I asked her what her doctors told her about the developments she initially said that they were befuddled and could offer no explanation. A week later, however, their tune changed and, voila’, they discovered the culprit — yes, you guessed it, long covid! Not one of her doctors thought to consider the fact that she had received the thromobogenic Pfizer inoculation and boosters. This poor woman continues to require treatment and I suspect that she will line up for the yet another covid booster, despite my attempts to warn her of the possibility that this would be unwise and unhealthy. Let’s see.
Meanwhile I muse upon the titanium-clad propaganda machine that has generated a fool-proof shield of rebuttals to any real scientific curiosity. I predicted at the outset that adverse effects of the covid Jab would be attributed to covid itself instead of to the real culprit, and so they have, at least in mainstream circles. This is a kind of beautiful perfection in propaganda, isn’t it? With all the insurmountable and overwhelming evidence of Jab-induced harm, or people dying in greater numbers, the propagandist’s fall-back position is covid itself.
Yet another aspect of the bludgeoning under which we have suffered these past several years is that peculiar form of gaslighting that has turned the tables on everything we once held as rock-solid. Fundamental principles of medicine were, as if by a magician’s wave of the hand, dismissed — things like natural immunity, early treatment and prevention, individualized therapy, informed consent. Where once pandemic guidelines eschewed quarantining the healthy, lockdowns became the norm. Distancing became something “social” and masking, long known to be rather useless for respiratory viruses, became mandatory. We were told, daily, incessantly, to fear for our lives thanks to an infectious agent that was never more deadly than a seasonal flu. And, most ominously, we were advised that the very sanctity of our bodies — let’s leave the soul out of this for now — could be transgressed and violated by a State that justified its rapine coercion by the outright lie that healthy people could be lethal to others.
Yes, I suppose I have a lot of reasons to be out of sorts, but perhaps mostly because I am naive enough to think that very real and very accomplished scientists like Sabine Hossenfelder should practice scientific principles when they venture into domains beyond their particular expertise. In short, I thought that a scientific mind would be, well, scientific, and that the exclusion of a very real and ubiquitous variable such as mass inoculation would at the very least have been given some weight.
Then I ask myself the question, are these so-called scientists — like Dr. Hossenfelder with her million subscribers — truly ignorant, or are they part of the program?
Our National main TV station just aired an INSANE piece of WEF/UN-style propaganda – it’s a parody of itself! Nonetheless I have a great time taking it down hardcore ;-) Please share widely – you can download vid here too, to share elsewhere: https://we.tl/t-ul4uOAkqMg
NOTE: My extensive research and interviewing / video/sound editing, business travel and much more does require support – please consider helping if you can with monthly donation to support me directly, or one-off payment: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=69ZSTYXBMCN3W
– alternatively join up with my Patreon – exclusive Vlogs/content and monthly zoom meetings with the second tier upwards: https://www.patreon.com/IvorCummins
By Dr. Elias Akleh* | Sabbah Report | May 24, 2010
A build up of heightened tension in the Middle East is escalating in the last few weeks. American and Israeli postures towards Lebanon, Syria, and Iran have become more threatening. Listening to speeches of political leaders one hears talks only about war not peace. Iranians and Israelis are continuously training hard for a possible showdown. Both sides are conducting extensive war games every month. This led Syrians to claim that Israel is preparing for a soon-to-come another war. The Jordanians also are warning that current stalemate of the peace process is an indication of a war breaking out this summer. The Russian President and his army chief hinted, a few months ago, that the US and Israel were planning for an attack on Iran.
Indeed Iran is, as it has been for last few years, the target of most of the threats and accusations of supporting terrorism. Escalating incitement against Iran the American Defense Department sent last month (April) to Congress a report on Iran’s military claiming Iran could develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US by 2015.
Ignoring the fact that N. Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel are proven to have nuclear weapons while Iran does not, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose in her speech, to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference at the UN, to focus on Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions putting the whole world at risk as she put it. According to Clinton Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, rather than Israel’s more than 200 nuclear bombs, is destabilizing the Middle East. She called on the world’s nations to rally around US efforts to hold Iran, not other nuclear countries, to account.
The accusation that Usama Bin Laden is living comfortably in Iran had received a boost after the broadcast of a documentary called “Feathered Cocaine”. This echoed the June 2003 claims of the Italian newspaper Corre de la Sierra that Bin Laden was in Iran according to some intelligence report, and according to Richard Miniter’s book “Shadow War”. … 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.
Aletho News
Aletho News 