“Britain uses its ‘little loyal Jewish Ulster’ to do its bidding in the region.”
For decades, some self-professed ‘anti-Zionist Jews’ have sought to diminish and divert attention away from Zionist entryism, subversion and penetration of other polities (an essential Zionist tactic since the ideology’s inception). This is explicitly aimed at guarding Jewish supremacism, and at censoring the study or understanding of Zionism, using accusations of ‘antisemitism’ in order to aggressively police any curiosity about Zionist tactics and the Jewish supremacist beliefs that underlie them.
In order to force leftists and others away from examining or discussing Jewish supremacism, some self-professed ‘anti-Zionist Jews’ paint Zionism as purely the product of British imperialism. The aim is to minimise Jewish culpability for Zionism, even sometimes going so far as to say that Zionism was invented entirely by atheists who worked hand in glove with the British Empire. These are, to put it mildly, egregious deceptions, and anyone falling for them is a naïf.
Zionism is an imperialist ideology in its own right, with global ambitions. The fact that Zionists have been involved in engineering separatist movements in Sudanese and Somali territory; or in subverting elections in Argentina and Brazil; or cultivating Hindutvadi footsoldiers who have a global footprint, has nothing to do with US or British Empire. No Brit or American forced Jewish supremacists to take any of these actions, or made them genocide the Levant.
This outdated, limited and deeply immature understanding of Zionism is a sign of two disturbing phenomena:
(1) the increasing grip that faulty leftist thinking about Zionism — itself the product of propaganda seeded by Jewish Zionist leftists — is now taking in Muslim communities, and
(2) a complete failure to recognise that we are in a new imperial reality, in which previously sub-imperial powers now act with much more latitude than they have ever had before. The State of Israel is not alone in this. Its major ally the UAE, which has traditionally been perceived as a British and then US vassal, has been acting much more independently since 2010, attempting to establish its own lines of power amounting to a proto-empire, leveraging mercenaries, shipping, trade, lobbying and subversion, propaganda and finance capital to build a power base that is not reliant either on the US or UK.
If one understands that Zionists have been shaping British policy for over a century, one should naturally ask: “What tactics were used to do that?”. And then “why were/are those tactics necessary?”.
Today, the State of Israel is by far a net liability for the British state. There is a vast political, media, military and financial infrastructure designed to obscure that reality but also to punish anyone with power who might point that out or act upon that reality.
A shocking new peer-reviewed study has just confirmed that so-called “long Covid” is actually a side effect of the mRNA “vaccines” and not the virus.
The explosive study has just detonated one of the biggest lies of the pandemic era, revealing that neurological and psychiatric symptoms blamed on “long Covid” are now showing up in people who were never even infected with the virus, but who were heavily “vaccinated.”
The team of researchers behind the study was led by Dr. Yi-Chun Chen of the Department of Neurology at the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Linkou Medical Center and College of Medicine at Taiwan’s Chang Gung University.
The results of the peer-reviewed study were published in the world-renowned Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection.
The study confirms what critics of the shots have warned all along: It is not the virus causing long-term health issues but the so-called “vaccines” themselves.
Researchers examined 467 healthcare workers at a teaching hospital in northern Taiwan.
Every single participant had received at least three doses of Covid shots, some even had four, before the Omicron wave hit.
Despite the participants receiving mixed combinations of Covid “vaccines,” they all received at least one mRNA injection.
The results show that hundreds reported classic “long Covid” symptoms: memory loss, brain fog, depression, fatigue, and anxiety.
Alarmingly, 222 of the “long Covid” patients had never been infected with COVID-19 at all.
“No statistically significant differences in neurological and psychiatric symptoms across the COVID-19 status groups,” the study authors quietly admitted.
The so-called “long Covid” symptoms appeared regardless of infection.
The only common factor was that they all received repeated “vaccinations.”
The researchers note that what was originally believed to be “long Covid” is actually “Post-Vaccine Syndrome” (PVS).
The symptoms reported included:
Memory decline
Trouble concentrating
Sleep disturbances
Anxiety
Depression
Chronic fatigue
Cognitive dysfunction
Even those with no positive Covid test, no symptoms, and no anti-nucleoprotein antibodies (clear signs they were never infected) reported fatigue in over 30% of cases, and nearly 10% had trouble concentrating.
One in nine uninfected, triple-vaxxed participants experienced worsening memory over time.
And yet, despite these glaring red flags, the authors never even considered that the shots themselves might be responsible.
The term “vaccine injury” never appears once in the 11-page paper.
That’s not science, it’s damage control.
This new study drops just as fresh reports confirm the NIH has funded researchers to create over 200 synthetic versions of the virus using gain-of-function-style engineering.
The revelation is raising obvious questions about what caused the original outbreak and what new threats lie ahead.
Meanwhile, a recent publication in the JMA Journal linked repeated Covid “vaccination” to excess mortality in Japan, as Slay Newsreported.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now admitting that young, healthy people face heightened risks of myocarditis and heart inflammation from mRNA shots.
Still, health bureaucrats and corporate media continue to push the tired, unscientific “safe and effective” narrative.
All 467 workers in the Taiwan study received mix-and-match combinations of:
Pfizer (mRNA)
Moderna (mRNA)
AstraZeneca (viral vector)
Medigen (protein subunit)
Yet no matter the brand, the outcome was the same: brain and nervous system symptoms without any confirmed infection.
This is what they continue to call “long Covid.”
Yet, what we are seeing looks more and more like a rebranding of widespread “vaccine” injury.
If you can develop “long Covid” without being infected with the virus, then it’s not “long Covid.”
If vaccinated but uninfected individuals are showing the same symptoms, then the “vaccines” demand scrutiny, not blind praise.
And if researchers continue to tiptoe around these facts to protect Big Pharma and government agencies, then the injured, gaslit, and ignored public will be left holding the bag.
As Slay News previously reported, experts have been raising the alarm about the PVS phenomenon for some time.
Scientists have been warning that Covid mRNA shots have caused a global surge in cases of AIDS-like autoimmunity disorders.
A major study by the world-renowned Yale University School of Medicine also linked Covid injections to AIDS-like Vaccine-Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (VAIDS).
The Yale researchers published the findings of their bombshell study in February.
They found that mRNA injections alter human biology to create long-term spike protein production that increases over time.
The scientists warn that the Covid mRNA vaccines trigger VAIDS.
Two of the Yale study’s co-senior authors, Harlan Krumholz and Akiko Iwasaki, have been leaders in investigating mRNA shots’ links to so-called “Long Covid.”
They believe it should be renamed “Long Vax.”
As the scientific reporting on VAIDS becomes more mainstream, the condition is increasingly being referred to as “post-vaccination syndrome” (PVS).
However, PVS is identical to the condition that experts have been warning about for some time – VAIDS.
These findings demand rigorous independent replication, as they raise urgent questions about diagnosis, treatment, and the safety profile of mRNA “vaccines.”
Most Americans are tired of conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination. Due to a recent release of official files from the FBI, we know one of them is true. We don’t know which, but we now know that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for the CIA.
Soon after Oswald’s arrest, he attempted to call John Hurt, a retired US Army counter-intelligence officer in North Carolina. Hurt never answered, but it is clear that Oswald expected the CIA would secretly provide him with an attorney. This is why in both press conferences he oddly called for “someone” to provide him legal representation.
News clips show Oswald was calm but confused about the media attention and expected legal help would soon allow freedom. He was stunned when told that he was charged with killing President Kennedy. Oswald realized that he was set up as a pasty for the assassination because his previous CIA work in the Soviet Union and New Orleans had established him as a Marxist who supported Fidel Castro.
“Acquilla Clemons – Witness to the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit”; HelmerReenburg; October 2, 2023; says a short fat man shot Tippet. Told by police to keep quiet or else; • Acquilla Clemons – Witness to the shooting…
More fun, more speed and less effort. E-bikes seem like a no-brainer. But not so fast. These innocent little electric bicycles are a lot closer to motorcycles than pedal bikes when it comes to injury rates.
GORILLA SCIENCE has been set up by rebels from the world of mainstream media. Our aim? To challenge the flagrant lies and double-speak of governments, the media, the educational establishment and others. We are lovers of the scientific method, and a thorn in the side of our corrupt publicly-funded scientific establishment. We desperately need your financial help.
GORILLA SCIENCE is unique. We are not funded by Big Oil or Big Coal. The cheque hasn’t arrived. So please help.
The rate of successful conception — a pregnancy leading to live birth nine months later — for women who received the COVID-19 vaccine was “substantially lower” than for unvaccinated women, according to a new peer-reviewed study.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), called the study’s conclusions alarming. He said:
“This preliminary analysis shows that much more information is needed to understand both short- and long-term implications of the different types of COVID shots on fertility and pregnancy parameters. This information should have been obtained prior to any public use of the COVID vaccine.”
The results showed that by June 2021, approximately six months after COVID-19vaccines became available to the public, successful conceptions per 1,000 women were considerably lower for vaccinated women than for those not vaccinated.
The researchers observed an increase in the rate of successful conceptions for unvaccinated women beginning in June 2021, which “was maintained over the subsequent 6-month period.”
In 2022, the rate of successful conceptions “stabilized” among both vaccinated and unvaccinated women but remained “about 1.5 times higher” for the latter group.
‘Troubling’ results indicate long-term impact on reproductive health
The preliminary analysis, by five researchers from the Czech Republic, Denmark and Sweden, was published last week in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine.
The study examined data obtained from the Czech Republic, one of the few countries where nationwide birth data for women who were vaccinated or unvaccinated for COVID-19 are available, the authors said.
The researchers analyzed data on 1.3 million women, ages 18-39, between January 2021 and December 2023.
The authors said their reasons for undertaking the study included existing research showing that COVID-19 vaccines have adverse effects on “menstrual characteristics,” and the lack of data on the effect of COVID-19 vaccines on birth rates.
Pediatrician Dr. Michelle Perro said the study’s findings are “deeply concerning” and “provide insight regarding adverse effects on fertility that warrants immediate and unbiased scientific investigation.”
“Releasing a new technology, especially one administered to our most vulnerable populations without comprehensive, long-term safety data, once again, has been shown to be disastrous towards the health of future generations,” Perro said.
Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at CHD, said it was “troubling” that the rates of successful conceptions among vaccinated and unvaccinated women have not converged after 2021, indicating the vaccines’ potentially long-term impact on women’s reproductive health.
“If the exposure had short-term influence, the two groups would converge over time, and they don’t,” Jablonowski said.
Among the vaccinated women examined in the study, 96% received either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines, with 11 times more women receiving Pfizer’s vaccine compared to Moderna’s.
Multiple studies link COVID vaccines and reproductive problems
The researchers noted the relationship between vaccination and fertility is not necessarily causal, and some women may have based their decision to get vaccinated on whether they planned to become pregnant — a possible example of “self-selection bias.”
However, the researchers pointed out that, during the pandemic, the overall fertility rate in the Czech Republic declined. During that time, Czech public health authorities recommended that pregnant women get vaccinated — a recommendation the researchers said many women likely followed.
These factors reduce the likelihood that self-selection bias accounts for the difference in successful conception rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated women.
Other recent studies have also found an association between COVID-19 vaccines and reproductive problems.
A peer-reviewed study published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth in April found that among pregnant women who tested positive for COVID-19, those who received a COVID-19 vaccine were significantly more likely to miscarry compared to unvaccinated women.
A peer-reviewed study published in March in the journal Vaccines found that COVID-19 vaccines decreased the number of primordial follicles — “the foundation of fertility” — in female rats by up to 60%.
Contaminated COVID vaccine batches may have lowered conception rates
According to the Czech researchers, highly contaminated early batches of COVID-19 vaccines may be related to decreased rates of successful conception — a theory which they said deserves further investigation.
The researchers cited several studies — including a peer-reviewed analysis by Jablonowski and Hooker published last year in the journal Science, Public Health Policy and the Law — that found early batches of COVID-19 vaccines led to a disproportionately higher number of adverse events.
According to the Jablonowski-Hooker analysis, batches of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine distributed in the U.S. were associated with significantly different rates of serious adverse events.
Α 2023 Danish study found a significant percentage of the batches of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine distributed in the European Union likely consisted of placebos — and the non-placebo batches demonstrated higher-than-normal severe adverse events in recipients.
In a paper published in the journal Medicine last year, the authors of the Danish study expanded their analysis to Sweden, finding the existence of the same batch-dependent issues in that country.
In another study published last year, researchers from the Czech Republic replicated the Danish study’s methodology. They found that COVID-19 vaccine batches in that country also had differing rates of adverse events, with more issues seen in early vaccine releases for all vaccines.
Perro said the study’s findings “highlight the necessity for extreme caution in public health interventions, particularly for women of childbearing age and children when they involve reproductive health.” She supports calls for the “immediate cessation and withdrawal of mRNA technology.”
Hooker said, “Any decrease in fertility and increase in miscarriages and stillbirths lies at the heart of the fact that this vaccine technology should have never been rolled out to the public in the first place.”
Former Air Force Staff Sergeant and Bioenvironmental Engineering Craftsman Kristen Meghan shares her explosive story as a geoengineering whistleblower. Over a decade ago, while tracking chemical inventories on a military base, she discovered toxic substances she now believes were tied to covert weather modification programs. Her testimony raises urgent questions about what’s really happening in our skies.
On September 11 2001, FOUR World Trade center buildings in New York were suddenly destroyed. We are told that no one could imagine that terrorists could knock down the two World Trade Center towers, even though Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu predicted this in his 1995 book. He warned the U.S. Congress this may happened unless the United States joined a war to expand Israel by destroying what he called terror states. Even before the smoke cleared on 9-11, the plotters blamed Osama bin Laden to block investigations into their weak official story.
Note: YouTube demonetized this video claiming “violence throughout”, even though there is no graphic violence, just some collapsing buildings often shown on television.
Unlike Russia’s quarrel with Kyiv or China’s claim to Taiwan, Washington’s war with Iran is not rooted in a national dispute with the US It is a project subcontracted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his lobby group, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Donald Trump—a president addicted to flattery and drama—puffed by grandiose, proved the ideal Israeli subcontractor.
Netanyahu has refined this manipulation of US politics for decades. In 2002 he assured Congress that once the United States toppled Saddam Hussein, “I guarantee you” young Iranians would overthrow their clerics. The Iraqi “regime change” came, chaos followed, and no Iranian uprising materialised. Twenty-three years later Netanyahu succeeded, again, in dragging the US in his fantasy to reshape “the face of the Middle East.” A demonic feat: as America fights Israel’s wars, the region descends into chaos—reinforcing Israel’s security doctrine of fostering failed states incapable of challenging its regional supremacy.
As the dust settles around the ceasefire between Iran and Israel, it becomes increasingly clear that Israel’s war on Tehran was not to stop the emergence of a competing nuclear power in the region. The deeper objective is to sow chaos, (regime change) and divisiveness in order to preserve its exclusive dominance in a forever fragmented Middle East. For Israel, the chaos is not a by-product of policy—it is the policy. Anarchy is not a failure of strategy; it is the strategy. It is the Israeli business model.
A destabilised Middle East is a calculated Zionist objective outlined in the Yinon Plan, published in Hebrew in 1982. It serves to deflect global scrutiny from Israeli war crimes, like today’s genocide in Gaza, the occupation of the West Bank, the expansion of Jewish-only colonies, and the systemic entrenchment of Israeli Jewish apartheid.
According to the plan, Mid-East instability reinforces the Israeli narrative of existential threat—one eagerly embraced by compliant US policymakers. A narrative used to justify the siphoning of billions in American taxpayer dollars and bankrolling a bellicose Israeli policy of preemption, militarisation and endless wars.
When neighbouring failed states are consumed by division, civil war, economic collapse, or sectarian violence, global headlines shift away from Israeli atrocities and toward regional instability. This enables Israel to act with impunity as the Palestinian suffering becomes background noise—an “unfortunate” consequence of a “tough” neighborhood rather than a direct result of a malevolent state policy.
Therefore, fueling perpetual chaos in countries like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and now Iran serves a long-term strategic objective: to prevent the rise of any unified front capable of challenging Israel’s regional hegemony. A broken Middle East is not only easier to dominate—it is easier for the world to dismiss and ignore.
In Gaza, for instance, the world shrugs off genocide as just another episode in a region long written off as irredeemably chaotic. It watches with silence as the Trump administration has normalised starvation and genocide. The distribution centers of the US funded, so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation have become killing zones; Israeli troops open fire daily on thousands of desperate people queuing before dawn, leaving hundreds of dead Palestinians. Every day, hungry people are murdered and many return home carrying over their shoulders a dead relative instead of a sack of flour. The scene, the starvation, the genocide, is lost in another Israeli war of chaos.
Now, Netanyahu may buy time to carry on with his genocide, and savor another “achievement” in having America, once again, fight Israel’s wars. But the euphoria will prove Pyrrhic.
All this unfolded against a growing American public resistance to foreign wars. Outside the Beltway, the mood is shifting. A majority of Americans oppose US involvement in yet another made-for-Israel war. The gulf between public sentiment and the AIPAC controlled elite decision-making officials continues to widen, further eroding trust in institutions already weakened by inequality and partisanship.
The latest US attack on Iran is likely to push Tehran’s leaders to further a global realignment to challenge the existing world order. An emerging alliance—anchored in Iran and backed by Russia and China—could start to take shape, with the potential of remaking the geopolitical landscape for decades to come. While the full extent of the US and Israeli raids on Iran remains unclear, one fact is certain: neither Washington nor Tel Aviv can undo Iran’s nuclear know-how.
Meanwhile, the international community remained conspicuously silent. Instead of condemning Israel’s violations of international law prohibiting attacks on nuclear facilities, it continued to recycle the mantra that “Iran must never obtain a bomb.” This rhetorical deflection ignores the critical fact that, unlike Israel, Iran’s civilian nuclear program has been under full International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision since its inception during the Shah’s era.
The failure to speak out not only undermines the IAEA’s credibility but also diminishes Iran’s incentive to remain within its framework, increasing the likelihood that Tehran will abandon its commitments to international oversight altogether. While Iran’s next move is hard to predict, it’s entirely possible that Tehran could tell the US that after the destruction of its nuclear facilities, there is nothing left to negotiate over.
In this light, Trump may be remembered not as Israel’s “saviour,” but as the catalyst who drove Iran to pursue a nuclear program—outside the reach of global inspection regimes.
When that reckoning arrives historians will trace the arc—from Netanyahu’s phone calls to stoke Trump’s gullible ego to AIPAC’s cash to elected officials—showing how the strongest nation on earth allowed its military might and foreign policy to serve a foreign country. They will tally the lives lost and goodwill squandered and wonder how different the story might have been had the United States acted to serve its own interest, instead of being a tool for the Israeli politics of perpetual chaos.
Forget the fog of war. Even in war, and sometimes especially in war, some things are exceedingly clear. Regarding the so-called ‘Hamas-Israel War’, for instance, it is obvious that in reality it is not a war at all but a genocide, namely the Gaza Genocide, carried out by Israel against the Palestinians whose unbroken resistance will be the stuff of legends, and of history too.
Likewise, in the case of Israel’s current assault on Iran – really, of course, a combined US-Israeli attack from the get-go – there is no room for doubt that it is criminal and a “blatant act of aggression,” as multiple experts in international law agree. That’s because in essence, Israel is not acting with a UN mandate – which it would not have received – or in self-defense.
The legal basis for this compelling assessment is not complex and there is no room for good-faith debate: Israel’s attack violates Article 2 (4) of the foundational UN Charter, which is recognized universally as jus cogens, that is, a binding norm: no pick and choose.
So far, so simple. If anyone tries to make this look complicated by flagrantly misapplying and abusing the notion of a ‘preemptive strike’, you are dealing with Israeli or Israel-Lobby disinformation and propaganda. That too is anything but surprising.
Yet what is more puzzling than the above is the response of the governments, and often the mainstream media of the West, to this clearly criminal Israeli attack. After years of invoking international law to go after Russia, it turns out that the same leaders and talking heads will tie themselves into 5-D pretzels to let Israel get away with whatever Israel feels like doing on any given day.
This is not really news either, of course: Western ‘elites’, with Washington always in the lead, have behaved no better when serving as accomplices in Israel’s Gaza Genocide. But there is something peculiar and noteworthy about how exactly some important Western politicians and their media and ‘think tank’ experts spin the attack on Iran.
Take, for instance, Germany. Its chancellor Friedrich Merz has gone out of his way to loudly endorse the assault on Iran. He has even exposed himself to ridicule and some – if far too little – criticism by employing revoltingly indecent language. Calling Israel’s actions “dirty work” (it sounds even worse in the original German: “Drecksarbeit”) that must be done and for which we all should be grateful, Merz has revealed his double racism: As a German and a historian, I can only say that a German leader praising Jews for doing “our” dirty work is, to put it very mildly, extremely boorish. Defining the criminal killing of Iranians as that “dirty work” adds a very nasty “colonial” flavor reminiscent of say, Kaiser Wilhelm II gloating over massacring Chinese during the so-called Boxer Rebellion.
While Merz has been clumsy enough to couch his obnoxious ideas in equally obnoxious language, he has by no means been alone. All too many prestigious German publications, such as the staid Frankfurter Zeitung or the also important Merkur newspaper, have hurried to either simply agree with Merz or at least to excuse and relativize his vile statement. In addition, rather overworked all-purpose ‘experts’, such as the reliably conformist and rarara-russophobic Christian Mölling, have used their perma-perk in Germany’s streamlined talk shows to cynically diminish international law and help dress up Israel’s newest crime as so necessary that it trumps all law anyhow.
Mölling was self-unaware enough to openly argue that some countries (read: Israel) can’t afford the “luxury” of accepting “normative limits” and that international law, anyhow, might be “protecting the wrong ones” (read: Iran). It’s breathtakingly brazen and intellectually primitive, and also historically speaking, very German in the worst sense: If we or our friends (read: Israel) feel constrained by international law, then that’s a problem not for us or our friends but for international law.
And now, let’s take a step back and think for a moment like a German who was not a conformist intellectual mediocrity: Enlightenment giant Immanuel Kant. For those with ears to hear and brains to process, Kant has taught us that reason and ethics demand that the justifications for our actions ought to be generalizable in good conscience. In short, when we act, we should be able to show that we are acting according to a fair and reasonable rule.
Let’s generalize into such a rule, then, what German leader Friedrich Merz has just said and what all too many German mainstream representatives agree with: A country (here: Israel) that feels sufficiently afraid (as judged by that country) of another country (here: Iran) has a right (that trumps international law) to attack that other country without provocation and even during ongoing negotiations.
Interesting. Consider that German elites have been fanning war hysteria relentlessly. Not a day seems to go by without some German general, spy, or politician warning their fellow Germans that Russia is at least likely, really almost certain, to attack within the next five years or so. Evidence: zero.
Indeed? So, if we are all supposed to be so afraid of Russia in Germany, does that now mean that according to Merzian logic we may as well one day launch a preemptive strike on Moscow? After all, we could then say we felt threatened and our military and the intelligence services were telling us that the Russians were coming. And moreover, we’d probably claim that we, the Germans, were proudly doing the ‘Drecksarbeit’ for all of NATO (minus, most likely, the US). And isn’t doing the ‘Drecksarbeit’ now officially a good thing in Germany, again?
Absurd, you say? Yes, absolutely. Exactly as absurd as Israel’s pretexts for attacking Iran. And yet those have been officially endorsed by a German chancellor, including self-revealing dirty language. Let’s hope that Moscow does not take seriously what Merz says. Because if Moscow did take it seriously, then by Merzian logic, it should feel very threatened indeed by Berlin – and again by Merzian logic, who knows where that might lead.
Tarik Cyril Amar is a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory.
Daniele Ganser is a historian with a focus on contemporary history since 1945 and international politics. His main research focuses on peace studies, geostrategy, covert warfare, resource conflicts, and economic policy. Dr. Ganser discusses Operation Gladio, the stay-behind mission of NATO’s secret army to fight on after a possible Soviet invasion. The secret army and hidden weaponry outside of public scrutiny enabled violent terror against Europe to ensure the correct political forces would have the power.
Deaths during the first “peak” of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted from medical and government interventions, not a circulating respiratory virus, Canadian researchers concluded in a paper posted Monday on Preprints.org.
Those interventions resulted in the deaths of primarily elderly and poor people, researchers with the Canadian nonprofit Correlation: Research in the Public Interest said.
Joseph Hickey, Ph.D., Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., and Christian Linard, Ph.D., authors of groundbreaking all-cause mortality research since early in the pandemic, analyzed all-cause mortality data in several locations in the northern hemisphere during the “first” and “summer” pandemic peaks in March-May and June-September 2020.
In their 356-page paper, they analyzed data from much of Europe and key sites in the U.S. at different geographical scales — by states and counties in the U.S., and “national units of territorial statistics” in Europe, which are roughly similar to U.S. counties.
They compared the actual all-cause mortality rates in these places to the predicted all-cause mortality for a contagious pandemic virus as measured by standard epidemiological models. They found that even accounting for flaws in those models, the results were very different than what would have been expected.
They said their findings show “strong evidence” that the patterns of excess mortality can’t be explained by a “novel and virulent virus (SARS-CoV-2) that spreads by person-to-person contact,” as most analysts of early excess mortality spikes have assumed.
They wrote:
“This means that the paradigm that a spreading viral respiratory disease caused the excess mortality during Covid is false. The said paradigm is disproved by empirical observations of high-resolution geotemporal variations of age and frailty adjusted excess mortality … on two continents in the Northern Hemisphere.
“Instead, the excess mortality appears to be entirely iatrogenic and induced by the imposed so-called pandemic response.”
Adjacent jurisdictions should have had similar excess death rates — but they didn’t
Almost immediately after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020, there were large peaks of excess mortality in some jurisdictions and not in others — even when the jurisdictions were adjacent to each other, had high population densities and significant numbers of people moving between them daily.
The researchers found “a high degree of geographic heterogeneity” in excess mortality during the first peak in early 2020, contrary to the standard epidemiological models’ prediction that similar adjacent places would have similar outcomes.
For example, they analyzed Germany’s western border with the Netherlands, France and Belgium. The regions have very similar population density, population profiles and a high degree of traffic moving between them, leading to the assumption that those regions would have similar excess mortality outcomes.
Yet, Germany had almost no excess mortality in the western border regions, while France, Belgium and the Netherlands had high excess mortality.
“The fact that there’s that big difference in mortality on either side of the border suggests that there’s something that is a matter of a policy or a measure that’s responsible for that big difference,” lead author Hickey told The Defender. “The virus would not stop at the border, because people are traveling across. And it’s very contagious, supposedly.”
The researchers also compared cities with similar population profiles, healthcare systems and large airports within countries — such as New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco in the U.S. and Milan and Rome in Italy — and found stark differences in excess mortality.
Standard large-scale spatial epidemiological models that account for people traveling to airport hubs around the world and spreading the virus would have predicted a more even spread of the virus in these different locations, Hickey said. That would be true even when accounting for the travel restrictions enacted almost immediately at the start of the pandemic.
However, the mortality data showed that some locations, like New York, had high spikes in excess mortality and others, like San Francisco, did not.
Timing of excess mortality peaks didn’t match expectations
The researchers also found that within countries, the peaks in excess mortality were very different — higher in some places and lower in others — but the peaks occurred at the same time. These findings also contradict the expectations for standard mortality models for COVID-19.
For example, their analysis of several jurisdictions in Italy found a wide variation in the rate of excess death — a 7-fold difference between northwest Italy and central Italy — even though the peaks in excess mortality occurred at the same time throughout the country. This trend was similar for all European countries that had a high excess mortality peak.
That means that instead of the virus spreading out from major urban centers with large airports to rural areas over time, as epidemiological models would predict, urban and rural centers experienced their peaks simultaneously.
Hickey said there are flaws in typical models, which don’t account for a lot of diversity in populations. However, if the models were adjusted to account for all of the regional and population differences found in the real world, the outcome would be more heterogeneity from one place to another. Instead, there was a high degree of synchronicity in the all-cause mortality peaks.
Higher mortality associated with higher poverty rates
The researchers also found major disparities between wealthy places and adjacent poor places, through their analysis of “inter-county disparity.” They examined socioeconomic vulnerability metrics, which include things like per capita income.
One of the greatest disparities was between Manhattan and the Bronx, which border each other. Places with higher poverty and greater numbers of non-white residents, like the Bronx, had much higher mortality than neighboring Manhattan. They found similar disparities in different boroughs of London.
“Exceptionally large F-peaks [first-peak period excess mortality] occurred in areas with large publicly-funded hospitals serving poor or socioeconomically frail communities, in regions where poor neighbourhoods are situated in proximity to wealthy neighbourhoods, such as the case of The Bronx in New York City, and the two of boroughs of Brent and Westminster in London, UK,” they wrote.
Traditional epidemiological models of viral spread predict that people who live in more crowded living conditions when a contagious virus is spreading have higher rates of excess death. However, the excess death data showed a high level of variability. In some places, people in crowded living conditions had high excess mortality and in others, they had low excess mortality.
The researchers also analyzed death by institutional location, comparing hospitals, nursing homes and homes. They found that in places with high excess mortality, a disproportionate number of deaths happened in hospitals. And in places with low excess mortality, a higher share of deaths than normal were happening at home.
Given that the prevailing viral spread paradigm failed to account for the distribution of excess mortality generally, they argue that the higher number of deaths in hospitals in places with higher excess mortality supports the hypothesis that medical interventions were driving the numbers higher.
For example, Hickey said, in the “frenzy of the first months of COVID,” measures like mechanical ventilation were being applied in untested ways. They were used frequently, and sometimes two people were put on the same ventilator. “Anesthesia machines,” which carry greater risks than regular mechanical ventilators, were used.
Hickey said they also argue that the biological stress of pandemic policies that locked people down, isolated them, imposed testing and other measures imposed major stress on large populations.
That stress reduced immune system efficacy and made people more susceptible to developing pneumonia, which then went untreated. This was a major driver of excess mortality in the first peak period.
1. “There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies, not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy.” Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001
2. “The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more”…. Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time – August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post, August 30, 2000
3. ” [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs.” Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts”. New Statesman, 25 June 1982.
4. “The Palestinians” would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.” Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
5. “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.
6. “How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” Golda Maier, March 8, 1969.
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.
• The Innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald 
Aletho News
