A new study of 17 countries found a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the rapid rollouts of the COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.
Researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest found more than half of the countries analyzed had no detectable rise in all-cause mortality after the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic on March 11, 2020 — until after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines and boosters.
They also found that all 17 countries, which make up 10.3% of the global population, had an unprecedented rise in all-cause mortality that corresponded directly to vaccine and booster rollouts.
Through a statistical analysis of mortality data, the authors calculated the fatal toxicity risk-per-injection increased significantly with age, but averaged 1 death per 800 injections across all ages and countries.
By that calculation, with 13.5 billion injections given up to Sept. 2, 2023, the researchers estimated there were 17 million COVID-19 vaccination deaths (± 500,000) globally following the vaccine roll-out.
“This would correspond to a mass iatrogenic event that killed 0.213 (± 0.006) % of the world population and did not measurably prevent any deaths,” the authors wrote.
This number, they noted, is 1,000 times higher than previously reported in data from clinical trials, adverse event monitoring and cause-of-death statistics gleaned from death certificates.
In other words, “The COVID-19 vaccines did not save lives and appear to be lethal toxic agents,” they wrote.
The shots were the most toxic for the most elderly across all 17 countries analyzed.
The authors concluded governments should “immediately end the baseless public health policy of prioritizing elderly residents for injection with COVID-19 vaccines, until valid risk-benefit analyses are made.”
The 180-page paper, by Denis Rancourt, Ph.D. former physics professor and lead scientist for 23 years at the University of Ottawa, Marine Baudin, Ph.D., Joseph Hickey, Ph.D. and Jérémie Mercier, Ph.D. was published Sept. 17.
Using all-cause mortality to identify deaths caused by vaccines
All-cause mortality (ACM) — a measure of the total number of deaths from all causes in a given time frame for a given population — is the most reliable data used by epidemiologists for detecting and characterizing events causing death and for evaluating the population-level impact of deaths from any cause, the authors wrote.
Unlike other measures, ACM data are not susceptible to reporting bias or to biases that may exist in subjective assessments of the cause of death. Any event, from a natural disaster like an earthquake to a wave of seasonal or pandemic illness appears in ACM data.
Using methodologies developed in their previous research on COVID-19 and vaccination in India, Australia, Israel, the U.S. and Canada, the authors used changes in all-cause mortality rates to identify deaths associated with mass vaccination.
Rancourt told The Defender that after identifying the “stunning” correlation between vaccines, boosters and rising ACM in those five countries, the authors looked for other countries that had similar data so they could repeat the analysis to determine if the same synchronicity occurred.
They tracked and statistically analyzed the temporal relationship between spikes in national all-cause mortality rates, stratified by age where data were available, and the COVID-19 pandemic period and the vaccine and booster rollouts.
In other words, they analyzed whether “excess mortality” appeared following the announcement of the COVID-19 pandemic and following the introduction of initial vaccines or booster shots relative to previous all-cause mortality rates.
Excess mortality is a term used in epidemiology and public health that refers to the number of deaths from all causes during a crisis above and beyond what we would have expected to see under ‘normal’ conditions, according to Our World in Data.
Controlling for confounding factors such as seasonality, the authors calculated the vaccine-dose fatality rate (vDFR) — the ratio of vaccine-attributable deaths to the number of vaccines given. They found it ranged from 0.02 to 5%, depending on country, age and number of shots given and that the overall, all-ages vDFR for all 17 countries averaged 0.126 ± 0.004%.
“These findings appear to confirm arguments made by biologists including Mike Yeadon and Sucharit Bhakdi that the dangers for adverse autoimmune reactions would be predicted to increase with each subsequent exposure to the transfection,” said Childrens’ Health Defense Staff Scientist J. Jay Couey.
Factors such as seasonal illnesses can complicate analysis of all-cause mortality rates, because deaths from things like respiratory illnesses tend to peak in winter.
To eliminate seasonality as a possible confounding factor, the Correlation researchers, examined all available data for countries that rolled out the vaccines but where there was no seasonal fluctuation (equatorial countries) or the vaccines/boosters were rolled out during the summer and so the effects of the rollouts could be seen most clearly.
Those countries, all located in the equatorial region or the Southern Hemisphere where the rollouts were in the summer, included Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand and Uruguay.
The authors are working on extending this analysis to all countries across the world where data is available, Rancourt told The Defender.
Vaccination associated with high all-cause mortality regime in all countries
In nine of 17 countries analyzed, there was “no detectable excess mortality in the year or so between when a pandemic is announced on 11 March 2020 and the starting time of the first vaccine rollout in each country,” the paper reported.
In Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paragua, Philippines, Singapore, Suriname, Thailand and Uruguay, excess mortality appeared only after the vaccine rollout.
In the other eight countries — Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and South Africa — excess mortality can be seen prior to the vaccine rollout.
However, the researchers said, “In all 17 countries, vaccination is associated with a regime of high mortality, and there is no association in time between COVID-19 vaccination and proportionate reduction in ACM.”
Also, all 17 countries showed a strong correlation with higher rates of ACM in early 2021, following the initial vaccine rollout and in early 2022, when the boosters were rolled out.
The authors underscore the finding that where age-stratified data were available, there were “remarkable temporal associations” between rapid first dose and booster rollouts and immediate peaks in all-cause mortality, and the transition to what Rancourt called “a new regime in mortality, where the mortality just stayed high for a long time.”
The paper includes reporting, graphs and data analysis by a number of different methods showing the temporal relationships between the pandemic announcement, vaccines and spikes in all-cause mortality for each individual country.


Transitions between regimes of mortality — ACM by time (blue), vaccine administration by time (orange) and the average ACM by time (red). The March 11, 2020 pandemic declaration date is shown by a vertical grey line in each panel. The data sources are specified in Appendix A of the study. Credit: Rancourt, Baudin, Hickey and Mercier.
Causation, not just correlation
The authors argue the evidence collected supports a causal link between vaccines and high mortality rates.
First, they cite autopsy studies, adverse event monitoring and peer-reviewed publications, studies of vaccine-induced pathologies, analysis of adverse events in industry clinical trials and payouts from global vaccine injury compensation programs, which together they say demonstrate the COVID-19 vaccines caused many individual deaths.
Then they point to several population-level studies, including their own prior research, that demonstrated a likely causal link.
And they cite principles of immunology that explain the mechanisms from severe harm from the COVID-19 vaccines.
The authors also addressed and discounted several proposed alternative explanations for the spikes in ACM, including that those changes are due to seasonal variation, heat waves, earthquakes, conflict, COVID-19 countermeasures, underlying health conditions or the appearance of COVID-19 variants.
They argued that COVID-19 variant “waves” cannot explain the spikes, they wrote.
For that to occur, the new variants would have to cause simultaneous peaks and surges in mortality in 17 countries, “which is a statistically impossible occurrence if we accept the theories of spontaneous viral mutations and contact spreading of viral respiratory diseases; and all the resulting peaks of mortality would have the remarkable coincidence of occurring precisely when vaccine boosters were rolled out.”
The authors concluded that the strong correlation between vaccine rollouts and the new higher regimes of ACM shows causality, according to the “experiment, temporality and consistency” criteria laid out by Dr. John Ioannidis in a 2016 paper.
The same phenomenon, they write, is observed in different age and geographical settings (experiment), the rises in all-cause mortality are synchronous with the vaccine rollouts (temporality) and the phenomenon is qualitatively the same each time it occurs (consistency).
Prioritizing elderly people for vaccination was ‘reckless’
These “conclusive” findings contradict the common claims that the vaccines, despite their adverse effects, actually saved lives.
Instead, the authors write:
“We have found no evidence in our extensive research on ACM that COVID-19 vaccines had any beneficial effect. If vaccines prevented transmission, infection or serious illness, then there should be decreases in mortality following vaccine rollouts, not increases, as in every observed elderly age group subjected to rapid booster rollouts.”
To the contrary, the study confirmed the authors’ previous findings that vDFR grows exponentially with age. They found the risk of dying from the COVID-19 injection doubled with every 4-5 years of age, which is approximately half the doubling age of dying of all causes of mortality, including cancer, pneumonia and heart disease.
They found large and age-dependent values of vDFR in elderly people that included, for example, a rate of 0.55% (one death per 180 injections) for people 80 and over in Israel to 5% (one death per 20 injections) for people 90 and over in Chile and Peru.
That means, the authors said, that there is not and was never any age-stratified risk of fatality data to support the public health policies that prioritized elderly people for vaccination.
“Prioritizing elderly people for COVID-19 vaccination, in the absence of relevant data, was reckless.”
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.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
September 20, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
Millions of taxpayer dollars being spent on programs that target speech
Since the start of September, the Biden administration’s National Science Foundation (NSF) and State Department have awarded grants totaling more than $4 million to programs, studies, and other initiatives that target “misinformation” — a term that the Biden admin has used to demand censorship of content that challenges the federal government’s Covid narrative.
The NSF has awarded the following nine grants since September 1:
- A $330,000 grant to a postdoctoral fellowship that will “develop educational materials to help identify misinformation in media.” The associated program began on September 1, 2023.
- A $1.5 million grant to Arizona State University as part of a biological sciences program. The grant will help build “new risk management strategies” and its description claims that the “rapid dissemination of information on the internet is contributing to the spread of misinformation about hazards, risks, and how to manage them.” The associated program began on September 1, 2023.
- A $529,609 grant to Florida International University to conduct a study on “detection and containment of influence campaigns” that “distribute and amplify misinformation and hate speech with significant societal impact.” The associated program is due to start on October 1, 2023.
- Two grants totaling $730,017 to the Research Foundation for the State University of New York and Trustees of Boston University for a collaborative research program that will develop a platform to “help identify and mitigate information manipulation (misinformation and dis-information).” The associated programs are due to start on October 1, 2023.
- Two grants totaling $547,555 to the University of Florida and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte as part of a collaborative research program involving the Poynter Institute — an organization that certifies Facebook’s “fact-checkers” through its International Fact-Checking Network and receives funding from Big Tech. The grant descriptions claims that “combating misinformation in the digital age has been a challenging subject with significant social implications” and describe misinformation as “a serious threat.” The associated programs are due to start on October 1, 2023.
- Two grants totaling $600,000 to the University of Rochester and Trustees of Indiana University for a collaborative research program that aims to increase the efficiency of an AI technique that can be applied to various areas, including “identifying misinformation on social media.” The associated programs are due to start on October 1, 2023.
The State Department has awarded the following five grants since September 1:
- An $18,000 grant to the Albanian-based non-governmental organization (NGO) the Institute for Democracy, Media, and Culture to ensure a “whole-of-society response to cyber incidents and misinformation.” The associated program began on September 1, 2023.
- A $14,500 grant to Paraguay’s American Cultural Center that will be used to implement workshops that “seek to combat misinformation and promote responsible digital citizenship.” The associated program began on September 1, 2023.
- A $15,000 grant to the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences at Udayana University to “raise digital literacy among selected amcors communities, journalists, and social media influencers to combat misinformation, pre-2024 general election.” The associated program is due to start on October 1, 2023.
- A $50,000 grant to New York University to complete the implementation of a speaker series that supports “countering misinformation.” The associated program is due to start on October 1, 2023.
- A $50,000 grant to the non-profit Digital Rights Nepal “to create a sustainable network of youth to promote digital rights, safer internet use and a collective resilience towards misinformation and disinformation.” The associated program is due to start on October 2, 2023.
These awards were granted as the Biden admin faces a major lawsuit for pressuring Big Tech to censor content that it deems to be misinformation.
An appeals court recently stated that the Biden regime violated the First Amendment when pushing social media platforms to censor and in an Independence Day ruling on this case, a judge described the Biden admin’s actions as “Orwellian.” The Supreme Court is now considering whether to hear the case.
While some of the grants focus have been awarded to non-American organizations, whose misinformation targeting efforts don’t fall under the scope of the First Amendment, these types of programs can result in the speech of Americans being targeted.
For example, Biden’s State Department has previously funded foreign think tanks that created “disinformation” blacklists. These blacklists were used to target American conservative media outlets.
Both of the agencies that awarded these grants have been involved in prior censorship controversies.
In addition to funding groups that created disinformation blacklists, Biden’s State Department has flagged thousands of accounts to Twitter, now known as X, for censorship.
Meanwhile, the NSF has been accused of funding programs that develop tech that targets vaccine dissent and has funded research on correcting “false beliefs” online.
September 19, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
1 Comment
Nothing screams ‘cult’ more than a building being lit up in corporate colours to celebrate a product launch.
Further evidence of the big pharma brainwashing can be seen with the Empire State Building turning Pfizer blue in celebration of the CDC recommending that everyone, from 6 months of age and older, can get this season’s updated Covid shot.
They then sponsored news articles to tell everyone that Covid is here again but that Pfizer is here to save us.
Seems like COVID’s everywhere again. But here’s good news from Pfizer!
This season’s updated COVID-19 shots are now available for ages 6 months and up, and they’re designed to help protect against recent variants.
That is why today, at 8pm, the Empire State Building turned its iconic building blue to announce that the CDC recommends everyone 6 months of age and older get this season’s updated COVID-19 shot. The blue light symbolizes our gratitude and appreciation for the updated vaccines and all those who made it possible.
COVID-19 isn’t gone, and vaccination remains one of our best tools to help protect against the virus that causes the disease. Ask your doctor or pharmacist about this season’s updated COVID-19 shots. Learn more and schedule at the CDC’s website, vaccines.gov.
Sponsored by Pfizer.
In almost religious like devotion, Pfizer wants your gratitude and appreciation for the updated vaccines. Because billions of dollars just isn’t enough anymore, they also want your adoration and eventually your soul.
We have got to the point now where everyone knows Covid is mild for most and that the vaccines don’t do anything. But there is a significant percentage of the population who are still in denial and convince themselves that the jabs work, save lives and make them morally superior.
Bobs Cartoons summed it up nicely with this image.

September 18, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | CDC, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
1 Comment
After shunning COVID vaccines during the early pandemic response, Tanzania became a natural experiment for all-cause mortality rates. Compared to large U.S. states like Texas and California, Tanzania, with one of the lowest COVID vaccination rates in the world, succeeded in having one of the lowest all-cause mortality rates on earth, through the worst of the pandemic.
The Highwire with Del Bigtree | September 14, 2023
Citing a public health emergency, New Mexico governor Michelle Grisham revoked the 2nd amendment rights of residents of her state this week. After citing that constitutional rights and oaths taken by public officials were not “absolute”, she was quickly condemned by some of the highest officials in the state.
September 18, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video, War Crimes | Africa, Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
Leave a comment
“I’m afraid we cannot hide from the reality that this is a global coup and deliberate mass murder.”
A message written to a trusted campaigning friend, who is struggling to accept that what is happening is intentional.
It is indeed a big step to go from legitimate criticism of allegedly incompetent politicians and industrialists to putting the pieces together in such a way that they can only point to intentionality. See what you think.
***
Dear X,
I find it impossible to try to put all the information together in such a way that the whole thing could even be benign or at least not entirely malignant.
That’s because, as I’m sure you’ve heard me say, I believe it’s evil!
I also had difficulty with it early on, with the argument “they must have known this!?”, etc. Once I allowed the possibility that all the bad things were intentional, I found everything else fell into place. Of course, that alone doesn’t prove it was intentional.
Some early indications of deliberateness are the coordinated responses of dozens of governments to the alleged pandemic: lockdowns, masking, mass testing of the source, the misapplication of PCR-based techniques to bulk testing of clinical samples, selective closures of businesses and schools, border restrictions, etc.
No country had any of this as a core part of its own pandemic preparedness plan.
Even the WHO’s scientific review of NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions) concluded that none worked and that the only changes worth anything were asking people with symptoms to stay home until they recovered and increasing the frequency of washing hands (because the route of transmission would initially be uncertain).
I argued at the time that the only way all countries could have adopted all these useless but harmful and expensive NPIs was if there was supranational coordination. I don’t know whether that was from the WHO, WEF, etc. Don’t know. But it is certainly illegal.
We now know that they knew that imposing these restrictions would not save anyone, but that the negative consequences would be devastating, even fatal, for some, who would no longer have access to the medical care they needed. Moreover, the use of furlough would of course be enormously damaging for governments that were already deeply in debt.
This is why millions still believe the absurd COVID lies.
I note that an American term, furlough, is widespread in public debate. In Britain we have never used that term before. No one commented on its arrival, which betrayed the leading role of the Americans.
Then there is the imposition of radically changed medical protocols.
Because of my long exposure to respiratory matters, I knew right away when they started panicking about needing 30,000 mechanical ventilators that something truly diabolical was going on. It is never appropriate to anesthetize, intubate, and ventilate a patient with an unobstructed airway and an intact chest wall.
Mechanical ventilation is certainly a wonderful, life-saving tool, but it carries serious risks for the vulnerable patient, in the form of ventilator-induced pneumonia, lung injury from the use of pressure to inflate the lungs, and much more.
The correct treatment would consist of an oxygen mask, a single, low dose of benzo, a cup of tea and a biscuit, and a caring hand on an arm.
Also in the US, many in this vulnerable condition received remdesivir and not full intravenous nutrition. In most cases it was only a matter of time before they died.
High doses of midazolam (a benzodiazepine) and morphine were used indiscriminately in nursing homes. Not only high doses, but also administered repeatedly to their elderly patients. The highest medical authorities in the country had told them to do this and so few questioned it.
My Ph.D. happened to be in this area, the effect of opiates on respiratory function. The discovery of multiple opiate receptors raised the possibility of inventing receptor-selective ligands that would relieve pain with reduced respiratory depression. Unfortunately, both are primarily mediated by mu opiate receptors, both centrally and in the periphery.
The combination of opiate agonists and benzodiazepines is contraindicated in patients unless closely monitored (for signs of respiratory depression).
That is not the case and is not possible in a nursing home. They too were murdered en masse.
Finally, community GPs were warned not to prescribe antibiotics in cases of Covid “because antibiotics cannot treat viral diseases”.
It is well known that what is commonly called a secondary bacterial infection results in death in this situation. However, the data shows that antibiotic prescribing for suspected bacterial infections of the lungs fell by 50% and large numbers of people died avoidable deaths (and a rather gruesome ones at that).
It is not possible to look at all this evidence without concluding that this was intentional. What they have done is literally diabolical.
I’m still confused as to how it was done with so little opposition. I do know that from the late 1990s to the end of 2019, a series of simulations of global pandemics and bioterrorism scenarios were carried out, allowing the perpetrators to hone their skills in the responses and control measures imposed.
I believe some of these simulations were conducted in the field so that the emergency response teams could form and practice what most of them felt was appropriate given the fictional setup, although this is speculative.
Then we come to the “vaccines”.
Given my career in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, I knew that it was impossible to produce a vaccine in less than 5-6 years if one wanted to demonstrate clinical safety and improve production to the usual high quality required to to create a precisely defined end product.
If the latter is not done, there is no point in doing the former, because what would otherwise be injected would not be what was used in the clinical tests.
In other words, if there was a need for a new vaccine, you would never even consider implementing such a program, because no pandemic in history has lasted even a fraction of the minimum time it takes for a safe and to create an effective new vaccine.
Yet they continued with it. This is also malicious, let alone the extraordinary lying, censoring and slandering of those who think differently.
Since my entire career has been based on the principles of “rational drug design” to design and test molecules, I could put myself in the shoes of the vaccine designers.
There are several obvious safety issues built into these products. One of these is the axiomatic induction of “autoimmune” responses, regardless of which antigen is chosen.
Next was the choice of antigen, where no one would choose the spike protein as it would most likely be directly toxic, it is subject to the fastest mutation (so a vaccine could lose its efficacy) and it is also the least different from human proteins (and thus could provoke bystander attacks on even somewhat similar self-proteins).
Yet the four protagonists all chose this antigen. What a coincidence! I would have called on my colleagues in the other companies to make sure we didn’t do that. This is because it would be highly undesirable to have common risks for all programs.
When formulated, the mRNA-based products both chose LNPs (highly toxic lipid nanoparticles) to encapsulate their message. Yet the industry knew that not only do these travel throughout the body, including the brain, but they also accumulate in the ovaries.
Yet, knowing this, companies and regulators went ahead and others exacerbated the toxicity risk by recommending these injections in pregnant women and children.
I was still slow to piece together all this evidence of carefully crafted damage. But I got there eventually and have been speaking in what many consider extreme terms ever since.
I fear we cannot hide from the reality that this is a global coup and deliberate mass murder.
Worse still, we see the advance of surveillance technology and legal powers to introduce digital ID & CBDC and eradicate cash. It is not difficult to imagine scenarios where showing a digital ID becomes mandatory.
All it takes is for the WHO to make up fake pandemics, for the pharmaceutical industry to produce billions of doses of fake mRNA-based vaccines, and for governments to insist that digital IDs only remain valid if you take these harmful injections, and there will be a near-perfect unacceptable means of depopulation.
They can do other things, too, but I think they’ll try this. We must continue to raise our voices and try to wake people up.
It only takes a large minority to say NO & these diabolical plans fail.
With best wishes,
Mike
September 17, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights |
6 Comments
On September 20th our representatives meeting at the United Nations (UN) will sign off on a ‘Declaration’ titled: “Political Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly High-level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response.”
This was announced as a ‘silence procedure,’ meaning that States not responding will be deemed supporters of the text. The document expresses a new policy pathway for managing populations when the World Health Organization (WHO), the health arm of the UN, declares a future viral variant to be a ‘public health emergency of international concern.’
The WHO noted in 2019 that pandemics are rare, and insignificant in terms of overall mortality over the last century. Since then, it decided that the 2019 old-normal population were simply oblivious to impending annihilation. The WHO and the entire UN system now consider pandemics an existential and imminent threat. This matters, because:
- They are asking for far more money than is spent on any other international health program (your money),
- This will deliver great wealth to some people who now work closely with the WHO and the UN,
- The powers being sought from your government will reimpose the very responses that have just caused the largest growth in poverty and disease in our lifetimes, and
- Logically, pandemics will only become more frequent if someone intends to make them so (so we should wonder what is going on).
Staff who drafted this Declaration did so because it is their job. They were paid to write a text that is clearly contradictory, sometimes fallacious, and often quite meaningless. They are part of a rapidly growing industry, and the Declaration is intended to justify this growth and the centralization of power that goes with it. The document will almost certainly be agreed by your governments because, frankly, this is where the momentum and money are.
Whilst the Declaration’s thirteen pages are all over the place in terms of reality and farce, they are not atypical of recent UN output. People are trained to use trigger words, slogans, and propaganda themes (e.g., “equity,” “empowerment of all women and girls,” “access to education,” “technology transfer hubs”) that no one could oppose without risking being labeled a denier, far-right, or colonialist.
The Declaration should be read in the context of what these institutions, and their staff, have just done. It is difficult to summarize such a compendium of right-speak intended to veil reality, but it is hoped this short summary will prompt some thought. Wickedness is not a mistake but an intended deception, so we need to distinguish these clearly.
Doing Darkness Behind a Veil of Light
Put together, the following two extracts summarize the internal contradiction of the Declaration’s agenda and its staggering shamelessness and lack of empathy:
“In this regard, we:
PP3: Recognize also the need to tackle health inequities and inequalities, within and among countries, …
PP5: “Recognize that the illness, death, socio-economic disruption and devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, …”
‘Recognition’ of devastation is important. SARS-COV-2 was associated with mortality predominantly within wealthy countries, where the median age of Covid-associated death was between 75 and 85 years. Nearly all of these people had significant comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, meaning their life expectancy was already restricted. People contributing significantly to economic health were at very low risk, a profile known in early 2020.
These three years of socio-economic devastation must, therefore, be overwhelmingly due to the response. The virus did not starve people, as the Declaration’s writers would like us to believe. Deteriorating disease control was predicted by the WHO and others in early 2020, increasing malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and malnutrition. Economic disruption in low-income countries specifically results in more infant and child deaths.
In Western countries, adult mortality has risen as expected when screening for cancer and heart disease are reduced and poverty and stress increase. Knowing this, the WHO advised in late 2019 to ”not under any circumstances” impose the lockdown-like measures for pandemic influenza. In early 2020, under the influence of their sponsors, they advocated for them for Covid-19. The Declaration, however, carries no note of contrition or repentance.
Undeterred by incongruity, the Declaration goes on to describe Covid-19 as “one of the greatest challenges” in UN history (PP6), noting that somehow this outbreak resulted in “exacerbation of poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty…”. In fact, it acknowledges that this caused:
“… (a) negative impact on equity, human and economic development across all spheres of society, as well as on global humanitarian needs, gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls, the enjoyment of human rights, livelihoods, food security and nutrition, education, its disruption to economies, supply chains, trade, societies and the environment, within and among countries, which is reversing hard-won development gains and hampering progress…” (PP6)
To restate the obvious, this does not happen due to a virus targeting sick elderly people. It occurs when children and productive adults are barred from school, work, healthcare, and participation in markets for goods and services. Economic, social, and health catastrophe inevitably results, disproportionately harming poorer people and low-income countries, conveniently far indeed from the halls of Geneva and New York.
No, we were not all in this together.
Not all were negatively impacted by this catastrophe. People and corporations who sponsor much of the WHO’s health emergency work, and that of its sister organizations such as CEPI, Gavi, and Unitaid, did very well from the policies they advocated so strongly for. Software and Pharma companies made unprecedently high profits, while this mass impoverishment played out. The international agencies have also gained; construction and recruitment are strong in Geneva. Philanthro-capitalism is good for some.
The main aim of the Declaration is to back the proposed WHO international health regulation (IHR) amendments and treaty (PP26), key to ensuring that viral outbreaks that have such a small impact can remain highly profitable. An additional $10 billion per year in new financing is requested to support this (PP29). There is a reason why most countries have laws against scams. The UN and its agencies, fortunately for its staff, are outside of any national jurisdiction.
Based on their sponsors’ assessments, the staff of these agencies are doing their job well. For the rest of humanity, their work is an unmitigated disaster. In 2019 they said never lock down, then spent 2020 defending top-down lockdowns and mandates. For three years, they theatrically pretended that decades of knowledge on immunity, disease burden, and the association of poverty with mortality did not exist.
Now they write this UN Declaration to fund their industry further through taxpayers they so recently impoverished. Once tasked to serve the world’s vast populations, particularly the poor and vulnerable, the UN vision has been consumed by public-private partnerships, the allure of Davos, and a fascination with high-net-worth individuals.
When Words are Used to Obscure Actions
While the Declaration underlines the importance of educating children during pandemics (PP23), these same organizations backed school closures for hundreds of millions of children at minimal risk from Covid-19. Among them, several million more girls are now being farmed off to nightly rape as child brides, others in child labor. Women and girls were disproportionately removed from education and from employment. They weren’t asked if they supported these policies!
The girls are being raped because the people paid to implement these policies did so. They know the contradiction, and the harm. But this is a job like many others. The only unusual aspects, from a business standpoint, are the sheer amorality and lack of empathy that must be engaged to excel in it.
To justify wrecking African children’s lives, the UN claims that the continent has “over 100 major public health emergencies annually” (OP4). Africa has a rising burden of endemic diseases that dwarfs mortality from such outbreaks – over half a million children die every year from malaria (increased through the Covid-19 lockdowns) and similar burdens from tuberculosis and HIV. By contrast, total Covid-19 deaths recorded in Africa over the past 3 years are just 256,000. The 2015 West African Ebola outbreak, the largest such recent emergency pre-Covid, killed 11,300 people. MERS and SARS1 killed less than 1,000 each globally. However, induced poverty does cause famine, raises child mortality, and wrecks health systems – is this the health emergency that the UN is referring to? Or are they simply making things up?
Through the IHR amendments, these agencies will coordinate the locking down, border closures, mandated medical examinations, and vaccination of you and your family. Their Pharma sponsors reasonably expect to make several hundred billion more dollars from these actions, so we can be confident that emergencies will be declared. By claiming 100 such events annually in Africa alone, they are signaling how these new powers will be used. We are to believe the world is such that only the abandonment of our rights and sovereignty, for the enrichment of others, can save us.
The UN and the WHO do recognize that some will question this illogic. In PP35, they characterize such skepticism as:
“health-related misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and stigmatization.”
The WHO recently publicly characterized people who discuss adverse effects of Covid vaccines and question WHO policies as “far-right,” “anti-science aggressors,” and “a killing force.” This is unhinged. It is the denigration and hate speech that fascist regimes use. The reader must decide whether such an organization should control their freedom of expression and decide what constitutes truth.
It is not helpful here to give details of all 13 pages of right-speak, contradiction, and fallacy. You will find similar rhetoric in other UN and WHO documents, particularly on pandemic preparedness. Straight talk is contrary to business requirements. However, the first paragraph in the Declaration’s ‘Call to Action’ sets the tone:
“We therefore commit to scale up our efforts to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response and further implement the following actions and express our strong resolve to:
OP1. Strengthen regional and international cooperation, multilateralism, global solidarity, coordination and governance at the highest political levels and across all relevant sectors, with the determination to overcome inequities and ensure the sustainable, affordable, fair, equitable, effective, efficient and timely access to medical countermeasures including vaccines, diagnostics, therapeutics and other health products to ensure high-level attention through a multisectoral approach to prevent, prepare for and respond to pandemics and other health emergencies, particularly in developing countries;”
There are 48 more. You paid taxes so that someone could write that!
Those millions of girls suffering at night, the hundreds of millions of children who had their futures stolen, the mothers of those malaria-killed children, and all suffering under the increasing burden of poverty and inequality unleashed by this farce are watching. The Declaration, like the WHO IHR and treaty it supports, awaits the signatures of the governments that purport to represent us.
David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.
September 16, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Economics, Full Spectrum Dominance | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United Nations, WHO |
Leave a comment
“Not A Good Decision For Young People”

Uttering words that would have seen you excommunicated from ‘good’ society, ostracized to an island of racists, bigots, and vaccine-deniers; Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo said in a statement that the vaccines “are not backed by clinical evidence, but blind faith alone with ZERO regard for widespread immunity.”
In guidance (pdf) to patients and doctors, the Florida Department of Health added:
“Based on the high rate of global immunity and currently available data, the state surgeon general recommends against the COVID-19 booster for individuals under 65. Individuals 65 and older should discuss this information with their health care provider, including potential concerns outlined in this guidance.”
This directly contradicts guidance from The White House (everyone get up to date) and the CDC and FDA (endorsing the new jabs for anyone over 6 months old):
“We continue to live in a world where the CDC and the [Food and Drug Administration], when it comes to COVID at least, are just beating their own path in a direction that’s inexplicable in terms of thinking about data and in thinking about common sense,” Ladapo said.
And three years into this flu season, Ladalpo highlights ‘herd immunity’ among most of America:
“With the amount of immunity that’s in the community – with virtually every walking human being having some degree of immunity, and with the questions we have about safety and about effectiveness, especially about safety, my judgment is that it’s not a good decision for young people and for people who are not at high risk at this point in the pandemic,” he said.
Florida Governor DeSantis agreed:
“I will not stand by and let the FDA and CDC use healthy Floridians as guinea pigs for new booster shots that have not been proven to be safe or effective,”
In March, the CDC and FDA sent a letter to Ladapo, warning that he was fueling vaccine hesitancy and harming Florida’s seniors.
Ladalpo is not alone in his scepticism.
“Pushing a new COVID vaccine without human-outcomes data makes a mockery of the scientific method and our regulatory process,” Drs. Marty Makary and Tracy Beth Hoeg said in an op-ed.
“If public-health officials don’t want a repeat disappointing turnout of Americans who get the COVID booster shot, they should require a proper clinical trial to show the American people the benefit,” they added.
Just 17 percent of Americans received one of the bivalent doses, which were made available in the fall of 2022. The new vaccines replaced the bivalents.
“The CDC is advising the children get these boosters when there’s no evidence that children receive any benefit and clear evidence that they receive harm,” Dr. Robert Malone, who helped invent the messenger RNA (mRNA) technology the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use, said on EpochTV’s “Crossroads.”
Risks include myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation that can lead to sudden death.
And cue the mainstream media ‘blood on their hands… science-denying’ headlines.
September 15, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | CDC, COVID-19 Vaccine, FDA, United States |
1 Comment
The District of Columbia (DC) Court of Appeals has rejected Meta’s appeal to quash a sweeping subpoena that demanded it hand over “documents sufficient to identify all Facebook groups, pages, and accounts that have violated Facebook’s COVID-19 misinformation policy with respect to content concerning vaccines” to the DC government.
Millions of users, many of whom made truthful statements that challenged the government’s Covid narrative, are likely to be swept up in this government data grab due to the scope of Facebook’s “Covid-19 misinformation” rules and the number of users that were impacted by them.
Facebook’s Covid-19 misinformation rules prohibited many truthful statements during the pandemic. For example, at one point claiming that “vaccines are not effective at preventing the disease they are meant to protect against” was banned — an assertion that health officials have now reluctantly admitted is true.
Even Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has acknowledged that Facebook censored truthful information.
And millions of people were impacted by these far-reaching censorship rules. In some quarters, Facebook censored over 100 million posts for violating these rules. Some of the groups Facebook took down under these rules also had hundreds of thousands of users.
Meta had challenged the subpoena on free speech and privacy grounds, arguing that it violated the First Amendment and that a warrant was required to compel disclosure of the requested data.
Specifically, Meta argued that the subpoena violated Meta’s own First Amendment rights by “prob[ing] and penaliz[ing]” its ability to exercise editorial control over content on its platform and also violated Meta users’ First Amendment rights because it would deter them from engaging in future online discussions of controversial topics.
Additionally, Meta cited the warrant requirements in the Stored Communications Act (SCA) — a law that sought to provide Fourth Amendment-like privacy protections by statute to communications held by third party service providers.
However, the DC appeals court rejected Meta’s arguments.
The court stated that Meta had not shown the subpoena will result in its free speech or associational rights being chilled. Additionally, it said Meta users’ First Amendment rights wouldn’t be chilled because “the users who made those posts have already openly associated themselves with their espoused views by publicly posting them to Facebook.”
The court also insisted that the warrant requirement in the SCA does not apply to public posts and that the subpoena “does not require Meta to ‘unmask’ any anonymous Users.”
Furthermore, the court characterized this mass request for user data as “reasonably relevant” to the DC’s investigation and said the subpoena is “narrowly tailored to the government’s asserted interest.”
We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.
Not only does the subpoena require Facebook to hand over the data of users that were banned for sharing dissenting opinions on Covid but the Covid-19 misinformation policy the subpoena centered around is starting to be rolled back by Meta.
September 15, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, United States |
1 Comment
Meta is once again up to its old tricks. The new social networking app Threads, which was marketed as an alternative to the platform formerly known as Twitter, is now limiting access to information and prohibiting searches related to key terms such as “coronavirus” and “vaccines,” as revealed by the Washington Post.
Despite only being a couple of months old, the platform has already been observed to deliberately muzzle certain search terms in its novel search functionality.
Meta has previously implemented search blackouts around Covid-related terms due to combating what it says is “misinformation.”
Offering an explanation for the obstruction, Meta conceded to the Washington Post, “The search functionality temporarily doesn’t provide results for keywords that may show potentially sensitive content.”
They assured that they would reinstate search results for these terms when they believed the content quality was up to their standards. However, they declined to disclose a complete list of obstructed search terms, leaving users guessing.
Apparently, Meta has opted for strict keyword censorship, instead of engaging in complex debates about what content concerning the Coronavirus should be permissible.
This move is suggestive of their unwillingness to disclose more internal correspondences, many of which came to light during the ongoing inquiries on censorship stemming from COVID-related discussions.
September 13, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine |
Leave a comment
While Europe has now largely confined Covid vaccination to older and vulnerable groups, the American Centers for Disease Control have chosen a different path. Yesterday, they accepted the advice of an advisory panel and recommended the XBB.1.5 jabs to everyone six months and older. They insist that “the benefits of vaccination exceed the risks for everyone,” and hope vaguely that their “universal recommendation” will “ease the rollout of the vaccine and improve access and equity.”
“Let’s keep America strong, healthy,” said Dr. Camille Kotton, a panel member who voted in favor of the recommendation and who is an infectious disease specialist at Harvard Medical School. “Let’s do away with COVID-19 as best we can by prevention of disease through vaccines. Let’s make things clear.”
The argument is not easy to parse. First, the vaccines are alleged to be universally beneficial, although no studies beyond a “CDC analysis” exist to support this broad claim. Second, the universal recommendation is necessary to ensure “equity” and “make things clear.” In other words, more targeted recommendations would sow confusion and limit their uptake among those groups who would benefit from them. Finally, our Dr. Kotton still hopes that the vaccines can “do away with COVID-19.” Either she knows better or she is stupid, but once again, in the striving after an upside beyond benefits to the individual, we see an implicit acknowledgment that the vaccines aren’t universally beneficial after all.
An important consequence of the pandemic in the United States has been the alienation of a great part of the population from the project of public health in general on the one hand, and the overt politicisation of the CDC on the other. Before 2020, American medical mandarins at least claimed to work on behalf of society as a whole; now and again, they even found occasion to worry about how their recommendations would effect their credibility among the entire population. They have since abandoned this mission, adopting a narrow, much more politicised hygiene extremism. Now they have dropped all pretence, appealing only to the highly radicalised Covidians and the pharmaceuticals. Thus their rhetoric and their advice grows steadily more divorced from reality and reason, even as the actual threat of Covid recedes.
Ironically, the radicalism of the CDC arises from the success of the pandemicist opposition in the United States. America was one of the few Western countries that saw genuine resistance to the lockdowners and the vaccinators, extending even to elements of the political establishment. This opposition did serious damage to the entire enterprise of public health, and now millions of Americans will never care what the CDC says about anything ever again. In Europe, the mainstream parties formed a united front in support of the hygiene dictatorship, permitting our public health institutions to retain some claim to social consensus, however tenuous. On this side of the Atlantic, they still have something to lose, which is an incentive towards moderation.
September 13, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science | CDC, COVID-19 Vaccine, United States |
1 Comment
The recent and concerning collapse of the once revered scientific process in large parts of the climate change and medical community is detailed in a highly critical ‘open review’ paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). Someday, charge the authors, there will need to be an inquiry into how so many scientific bodies abandoned core principles of scientific integrity, took strong positions on unsettled science, took people’s word for things uncritically, and silenced those who tried to continue the scientific endeavour.
Universities have abandoned their historical role of open and disinterested enquiry on behalf of humanity, and “should be sanctioned for this by revoking their charitable status”. Group-think that maintains prevailing fads and supresses dissent on behalf of alleged ‘consensus’ is the opposite of the central purpose of universities. Mainstream media have long been uncritical receptacles for alarmist ‘clickbait’ political scare stories, and this, it might be added, encourages self-promotion among aggressive publicity-hungry scientists. There are many errors and deceptions and much censorship, state the authors, blighting the complete story being told in an unbiased manner. Singling out the behaviour of state broadcaster the BBC, they note: “Any reasonable observer will wonder whether Ofcom [the state regulator] is asleep at the wheel, not requiring the BBC to correct the errors it has been made aware of by experts, nor return to some form of neutrality.”
The report is mainly written by Professor Michael Kelly, the former Prince Philip Professor of Engineering, Trinity Hall, Cambridge University, and Clive Hambler, Science Lecturer at Hertford College, Oxford. There is also economic input from Professor Roger Koppl from Syracuse University. The full GWPF report is due to be published in December and the paper is currently open for review, comments and contributions from other academics. The GWPF notes habitual attacks on its work from activists, and its ‘open review’ policy is explained here.
The realisation that genuine free speech and scientific enquiry is being replaced by strict politicised requirements to adhere to orthodoxy and pre-set narratives grows with every appalling ‘climategate’-style scandal. Regular readers will need little reminding of the recent retraction of the Alimonti et al. paper by Springer Nature following a year-long campaign by a small group of activist scientists and journalists. The paper, whose lead author was Professor of Physics Gianluca Alimonti, reviewed past weather trends and found no data to support the politically-termed ‘climate emergency’. World headlines have also been devoted to the astonishing story of Dr. Patrick Brown of Johns Hopkins University, who blew the whistle on his recent paper published in Nature on California wildfires. He said he wrote it according to the approved script boosting the role of ‘climate change’ and downplaying any natural causes and the horrendous role played by arsonists.
The full publication of the GWPF paper will add to the growing concern and alarm about the science advice given to governments and the media for onward distribution to the public. The corruptions involved in this process are seemingly built into the current system. Trillions of dollars now back the Net Zero collectivisation project across the world, and most scientists, largely paid for by politicians and wealthy green elites, are fully onboard the gravy train.
The GWPF authors aim to push back by maximising the diversity of advice, challenging advice through opposing ‘red’ teams, ensuring a reasonable level of accountability for scientists to discourage hype, and protecting scientists from career damage if they rationally disagree with mainstream views. Institutions should not take official positions on scientific issues, “since this stifles diversity of thought, freedom of speech and the reliability of advice”. Scepticism must be recovered as a respectful term for scientific behaviour from its present position as an insult, “and reinstated as a core duty of universities and learned societies”, demand the authors.
The authors are particularly dismissive of the role of computer models in the recent Covid pandemic and the promotion of climate change alarm. In the U.K., the “gross misuse” of Covid computer models in the absence of robust data to measure them against is noted. Along with a “paucity of challenge” to scientific advice, this may have contributed to “death tolls, economic decline and societal ills”.
On the climate side, the models have produced temperature forecasts two to three times higher than the actual data eventually showed. What is worse is that the results are getting more inaccurate. If the models were actually modelling the evolving climate, the gap would be narrowing. The inaccuracy is a “major embarrassment” and would not be tolerated in any other field of science, and certainly not in engineering. Separation of human-induced warming from natural temperature variation is far more difficult than that portrayed by the UN-funded Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC), since experimentation and replication is “simply not possible”. The inability to model significant parts of the atmosphere are “fatal flaws” in any system that is supposed to be predicting future climate change.
Yet, as regular readers will again recall, computer models play a vital part in promoting the unhinged Thermogeddon fantasies of people like the UN Secretary-General Antonio ‘global boiling’ Guterres. The UN-backed IPCC seems addicted to using computer models incorporating a ‘pathway’ of 5°C global warming within less than 80 years. Over 40% of its impact predictions are based on this forecast, despite an admission it is of “low likelihood”. According to a recent Clintel report, over 50% of clickbait climate science papers incorporate this pathway in a seemingly desperate attempt to attract the attention of activists writing in the mainstream media.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic‘s Environment Editor.
September 13, 2023
Posted by aletho |
Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, UK, United States |
Leave a comment