When I got pregnant again, I was told by three different doctors that I had no choice but to schedule another c-section. My case was too high risk with the pregnancies being so close together. There was a significant chance for uterine rupture and death if I attempted a natural birth and exposed by uterus to natural contractions.

But on November 18, 2024, I gave birth to my second baby. It was a natural, unmedicated birth...in a hospital. The opposite of what home-birth advocates had fear-mongered to me about which had pushed me to attempt a home-birth in my first pregnancy.

In fact, everything about my hospital experience during pregnancy and childbirth was the opposite of what the home-birth advocates had told me. My contractions began and ended within an hour and the most “pain relief” I had was a Tylenol a few hours later.

So how did it happen?

There are a few reasons. I don’t presume to have all the answers but I feel it necessary to share my story for the women who might be in a similar position.

Read more

They have no mental models for how the world functions and no epistemic principles through which they can evaluate “new data”. Therefore, they never actually “learn new things” they are just easily manipulable talking heads that will repeat the conclusions of those with the deepest pockets to fund the newest study on why eating bugs is good and going back and forth as nauseum to ask “is coffee good for you?”

Read more

There are few who are not familiar with the famous opening lines of this soliloquy from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The play depicts a Prince who is grieving the death of his father when his father’s ghost appears to him from beyond the grave and tells him about how he was murdered out of avarice and greed for the throne by his own brother. Everyone, even the audience, begins to question the Prince’s sanity in the play, and yet no one considers that Hamlet has a “chemical imbalance” that drives him insane. No one suggests that he get a brain scan done and be put on some mind numbing medications so that he can “sleep—perchance—dream”. Hamlet’s Madness, it is understood by all who read and watch the play, is a result of grief and philosophic confusion. When was it that we stopped looking at all the dimensions of a person’s madness? When did we start treating this distinctly emotional problem as a physical lack of a pharmaceutical drug?

What is Madness Anyway?

The medical categorisation of “Mental Illness” reveals the profound ineptitude of the modern understanding of Madness. A Mad person is someone who behaves in a way that is different from everyone else. He has ideas about the world that do not match what everyone else around him believes. His “reality” seems to be seriously different from that of others. Most importantly perhaps, he does not himself seem to understand why he behaves so differently, and is seemingly unable to “correct” it. At other times and in other places in history, madness was considered a possession by external demonic forces. There was a time when psychologists like Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Thomas Szasz, Theodore Lidz and many others attempted to truly understand what afflicts the intangible thing called the psyche so as to drive it to strange behaviours. 

Unfortunately, modern medicine took over this endeavour and collapsed all human progress into an impotent one dimensional cartoon: materialism. Anything that could be materially measured was real, and anything that could not be was not. So the psyche disappeared from discussions of madness. The emotions were discarded because they could not be seen. Qualia has no place in modern medicine. Even though qualia is the centre of the human affliction of what is today, erroneously named, “mental illness”.

The most important argument that there is no medical basis for mental illness is that it is diagnosed using a list of behaviours rather than an observation of physical aberrations in the body. Despite the noise that medical psychiatric research makes about the “biological underpinnings” of mental illness, a brain scan or a count of dopamine receptors is not part of any level of the diagnosis of mental illness. Doctors do not use these physical values to determine whether or not someone is schizophrenic because there are no biological traces of schizophrenia or indeed of any mental illness. This is not because these biological traces have “not yet been discovered” but because they aren’t “mental” illnesses at all, they are emotional illness.

Mental illness continues to be a description of people who do not behave as others behave. The modern medical model simply attempts time and time again to go back and justify these aberrations through some physical, material signature, and, as I shall reveal in this essay, fails to find even one material causal factor for these aberrant behaviours. 

The Quintessence of Dust

The problem of “mental health” is not the most important problem of our generation, rather, it is the most important symptom of much greater problems. 48,000 people died by suicide in 2021, men were 4x as likely as women to commit suicide, and 70% of suicides were white males1. These suicides are blamed on “mental illness” in the person. The cause of death is explained as if there is some aberration in their brain chemistry that deranges their “wiring” so profoundly that they commit the most unnatural behaviour of any animal: suicide. This is an extraordinary act in itself when you consider that every creature in nature, from the crawling ant to the blue whale does everything in its power to stay alive. It is only Man who wonders, “what is this quintessence of dust” and finds his mortal coil too unbearable to inhabit. 

Often called “hara-kiri” in the West, “seppuku” is a form of ritual suicide that originated with Japan’s ancient samurai warrior class and was a way for 12th century Samurai who had been dishonoured in some way, to attain an honourable death.

In the Modern West, most people are diagnosed with some kind of emotional disenchantment labelled as depression and anxiety. Ordinary, clear-thinking people usually see through this as something transient and exaggerated, likely resulting from a poor lifestyle. In fact, when these people’s lifestyles are examined, it is always revealed that they are living in a way that is fundamentally divorced from their natural desires. Childless young women overworking themselves in masculine fields, listless young men with no agency or ownership over their work, elderly people separated from the bonds of community, children who are neglected by their caregivers, are all good examples of unnatural social environments that often cause “mental illnesses”. 

This will be a Deep Dive, so get a cup of coffee or tea and settle in.

Contents of this essay:

• What causes Schizophrenia?

• There is no “Brain Defect” in a Schizophrenic

• Evaluating the Dopamine Hypothesis 

• The Amphetamine “Proof” Debunked 

• Can Madness be Inherited?

• How to Solve the Mental Health Crisis: Realize that it’s not a Mental Health Crisis

Read more

Dr. Gordon T Stewart explains in his 1981 report on infectious disease:

“Historically, the dominant and obvious fact is that most, if not all, major communicable diseases have become less serious in all developed countries for 50 years or more. Whooping cough is no exception. It has behaved in this respect like measles and similarly to scarlet fever and diphtheria, in each of which at least 80% of the total decline in mortality, since records began to be kept in the United Kingdom in 1860, occurred before any vaccine or antimicrobial drugs were available and 90% or more before there was any national vaccine programme.”2

This is the primary argument that tells me that the vaccine was not responsible for eradicating Whooping Cough.

What is Whooping Cough?

In a report by Dr. WC Rucker, Assistant Surgeon General in the United States Public Health Service, explains whooping cough in 1911. 

“The disease is not infrequently complicated by inflammation of the lungs, and the violent coughing which occurs is apt to produce a harmful dilation of the lung tissue itself. It is by no means uncommon in underfed children for the disease to be followed by a tuberculosis of the lungs. Cases of paralysis complicating whooping cough have been reported, and the changes in the eye due to haemorrhages into that organ produced by coughing have also been noted. It is thus seen that whooping cough, which is estimated killed over 10,000 American children in the year 1911, is a disease seriously affecting the public health and demanding earnest attention.”

Whooping cough is also known as pertussis. The vaccine used to “prevent” whooping cough is called the DTP (Diptheria,-Tetanus Toxoid Pertussis) vaccine.

Does the Vaccine Work to Prevent Whooping Cough?

If we believe the vaccine provides protection to children from the disease, we would expect that vaccinated children would develop the disease less frequently than unvaccinated children. Unvaccinated children should be getting the disease more often. Let us see what the data indicate:

Read more

This essay is a summary and synthesis of my notes and thoughts from the book “How to Become a Schizophrenic” by John Modrow (1992). He argues that it is not the person who is abnormal or unhealthy, but rather it is an insalubrious environment that ellicits abnormal behaviours and thought patterns. In fact, the author makes the radical statement that we all have and are vulnerable to some degree of these dysfunctional behaviours. What distinguishes the “normal” person from the schizophrenic is that the normal person has psychological defence mechanisms to protect the ego from a complete annihilation of self-esteem that characterises the core of the disease.

The “Schizophrenogenic” Family 

In this first part of the book, the author describes different features of a “schizophrenogenic” environment that have to do primarily with the family. In fact, Dr. Lyman C Wynne of the National Institute of Mental Health found that assessing the parents’ behaviour could reliably predict schizophrenia in their child to a significance level of 0.000002 (meaning this is the probability that that correlation was due to chance. Since it is an extremely low number we can assume that the parents’ behaviour can reliably predict psychosis in the children). 

While it is not magnificent revelation that the way one is raised can contribute to mental illness, Modrow more importantly describes how this occurs has primarily to do with self-esteem and the factors that influence it. Everything the schizophrenic does it to avoid or mitigate the “panic state” in which the individual is tortured by the conviction that he is worthless human being with no redeeming value.

In a schizophrenogenic family, that is, one that encourages psychosis in an individual, the individual is stripped of his autonomy by a parent who refuses to properly emotionally connect with him and thus nurture his self-esteem. Autonomy and self-esteem are intrinsically linked. If a person is led to believe he is incapable of doing important things independently, and effectively, they will be psychologically stunted. This serves the parent who can make him even more dependent on him emotionally, financially and physically. In a relationship described as a “skewed family,” a parent, usually the mother, is unable to distinguish between the emotions and needs of the child, and her own. This contributes to the child’s lack of autonomy. As the child attempts to deal with the conflicting emotions of pleasing the parent, while struggling to recover some autonomy, the guilt and resentment brew aberrant behaviours that can present as psychosis.

It is known that not all siblings of schizophrenic children experience schizophrenia or psychosis. Is this evidence that the idea of family environment as a powerful cause for the disease is incorrect? No. Because it is incorrect to assume that a parent has the same kind of relationship with each of their children. Each relationship is slightly different and the circumstances and of course some personalities might be more vulnerable than others. In all cases, however, it was found that the children who are closest to their parents in schizophrenogenic families, are most in danger of schizophrenia, whereas the “invulnerable children” who do not develop schizophrenia despite coming from schizophrenogenic parents, are always the most distanced emotionally and physically from their parents.

The Behaviour Cascade of Psychosis

Read more

For the most part, people are beginning to forget about Covid-19 as more interesting news stories take centre stage and capture the average man’s capricious attention. However, it is dangerous to forget that your government has exercised the power to force the average man to poison himself in exchange for his basic, God-given freedoms. If we forget that this happened, and do not consider how we left ourselves so vulnerable, the monster will surely return in a more sinister and powerful form in the future.

I. Effects on Fertility 

Fertility is the ability to conceive and carry viable offspring to term. Viable means that the offspring will also, one day, be able to reproduce. Although all mainstream media outlets and scientific institutions claim that the science is settled and that the vaccines were “perfectly safe” for pregnant women, and for men and women who would one day like to have children, the data tell a different story. 

The Covid-19 mRNA vaccines increase menstrual irregularities 1000 fold, fetal abnormalities 100x, miscarriages 50x, and fetal cardiac arrest 200x. In fact, menstrual irregularities have increased by 892% since the vaccines have been introduced. This data are from Dr. James Thorp’s analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Event data which are independently verified by Dr. Jessica Rose. Dr. Thorp is a doctor of maternal fetal medicine and Dr. Rose is a Canadian data scientist from the Israel Institute of Technology. 

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency reports in 2021, “Changes to periods and unexpected vaginal bleeding are not listed but primary care physicians and those working in reproductive health are increasingly approached by people who have experienced these events shortly after vaccination. More than 30 000 reports of these events had been made to MHRA’s yellow card surveillance schemes for adverse drug reactions by September 2021, across all Covid-19 vaccines currently offered.”

The vaccine consists of mRNA wrapped in a lipid nanoparticle for delivery. There is evidence now that an endogenous reverse transcriptase enzyme called LINE-1 can reverse transcribe the mRNA, not only creating spike protein, but altering the levels of LINE-1 protein in the body. LINE-1 perturbation in a pregnant woman causes severe disturbances to the development of an embryo. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting system recorded miscarriage and still birth rates that have doubled compared to the average rate from the past five years. These rates may be due to the perturbation of LINE-1 enzyme that is crucial to development. Other factors such as toxicity from the spike protein encoded by the vaccine mRNA and from the Lipid Nanoparticle Carrier itself could be other reasons for the increased rates of miscarriage and spontaneous abortions.

Birth rates have been declining all over the world. In Hungary, the birth rate dropped by -15.20% in the most vaccinated regions, whereas the least vaccinated regions had a drop of only -4.66%. Taiwan had one of the highest Covid-19 vaccine uptakes. The birth rate dropped by 23.24% from May 2021 to May 2022, a significantly greater drop compared to other years. 

Risk of Miscarriages for Pregnant Women

Read more

What follows is a brief philosophical exegesis about the fundamental limitation of science that undercuts not only lab grown meat, but any technological attempt at supplanting natural processes. 

Data without frameworks is useless

When a sound epistemic framework is used to understand a concept, it is only then that data can make any kind of sense. Modern academics tend to lack this epistemic framework and instead become obsessed with “data”. This is why fashionable instagram scientists like Rhonda Patrick etc are constantly confused. They find lots of data but have no idea how it fits in with any kind of model of reality so they can never properly use it. 

Without a hierarchy of information in an epistemic framework, every new piece of data is on an equal level with everything that came before. As such they can never contextualize data in a framework for it to be properly used to understand the world. No knowledge can be built without the scaffolding of an epistemic framework. Let us not be confused along with these over educated troglodytes. 

Foremost, let us understand that science and technology are not synonymous. Science is a method of asking and answering questions about the material world. Technology is a machine, that makes a task easier for man to complete. The production of technology can use science, but it does not need it. In fact, the great majority of human technology was created before the the scientific method was codified. No one did a scientific experiment to develop the wheel or the bicycle, for example.

Technology works best when it is physical

Technology always works best when it is not trying to imitate anything natural. It is merely building upon human nature to expedite some process. My favourite technology is the fountain pen. It is elegant, beautiful, and is an extension of the hand and the mind. Analog technology extends human nature, digital technology limits it. Analog technology exists in the physical world, whereas digital technology disappears, and exists in another illusory realm. 

A word typed into a screen can disappear in a moment. A word written in ink on paper, or impressed into paper, has physical qualities. We are physical beings and therefore we connect to physical things. Physical things can hold on to information for us whereas things in the illusory digital realm require us to do the work to always remember where they are. It is made of capricious false light. As such, analog technology is more satisfying to us and less taxxing on our imagination so that we can use it for other things. 

Science is fundamentally limited by our ability to observe the material world

Science can only ask and answer questions about the material world. Technology can help us to enhance our senses so that we can glean even more information about the material world than otherwise possible. A microscope can help us see smaller and smaller things. A stethoscope can help us hear what we otherwise could not about blood flowing in the heart and air filling the lungs. There are thousands of technological tools but they all fundamentally work to enhance and extend the senses. 

Previously, we could not detect many components of breast milk for example because we simply didn’t have the tools to even observe them. This means that we didn’t even know what we didn’t know. As a result, when baby formula attempted to replicate breast milk, it failed miserably and resulted in the malnourishment of millions of children. Baby formula makers did not have the technology to understand that breast milk is not merely sugars and fats, but also contains factors that build the child’s immunity and alters its components with the stages of development. They also did not understand that the very motion of breastfeeding supports proper face and jaw development. They replicated only those aspects of breast milk that they understood and as their understanding was incomplete, so their replicas were inferior and dangerous.

In order to perfectly replicate nature, we must be able to perfectly observe it. We are incapable of perfect observation, as evidenced by the continued advances in our ability to sense our material world alone. There is more that we find that we did not even know to look for. As such, whenever we create “technology” that replicates nature, it is always necessarily an inferior reproduction of it. It can never be perfect because our observation of nature is never perfect. The car works well because it is not a replica of a horse. The pen works well because it is not a replica of the mind. So long as we do not expect from a car what we do from a horse, or from a pen what we want from a mind, we can use this technology well. 

Lab Grown Meat is necessarily inferior

Lab grown meat, therefore, is necessarily worse than real meat because it will contain the fundamental limitation that we cannot ever know perfectly what makes real meat so nutritious and perfect for us in the first place. There are proteins we cannot yet detect, ways that proteins work together that we don’t yet fully understand. There are a million elements of nature that we don’t even know that we can measure yet. Before the invention of the microscope, the idea of the cell was not even present in human knowledge.

There is a man who lost his keys, so he searches under the lamp-post and his friend asks him, “did you lose your keys here?” The man responds, “I don’t know but this is where the light is so I’m searching here”. This parable explains the fundamental limitation of science. Without this ability to observe perfectly, we cannot hope to replicate the nutrition and value of real meat.

It is often assumed that red meat cures anemia because it contains iron. This is untrue. People who think they are anemic because of a blood test that shows low iron, usually have a lot, even excess, iron trapped in their tissues that they just cannot use. This shows as low iron in their blood test and their doctors end up giving them yet more iron in supplements that their body cannot use. This often creates worse iron toxicity problems. The supplement was made based on an incomplete understanding of nature. The red meat, however, helps. Why is that?

The real reason people have symptoms of anemia is that they have low copper and copper is required to mobilize and use iron in the body. When people eat red meat, it contains not merely iron, but also copper in the correct ratio and shape. As a result, it helps alleviate symptoms of the “anemia” whereas the supplement did not. This is because the supplement was made as an attempt to mimic the red meat without understanding it fully. We can never completely understand nature. There will always be something missing in our observations. This is why believing we can mimic or replace or even improve upon it is a dangerous game.

Factory Food, Factory People

Anything grown in a lab will necessitate a factory. It is obvious to all but the cult member environmentalists that factories produce the most pollution in the world, and not cow flatulence. Creating more factories means that more pollution will occur, negating the environmental argument for lab grown meat. Perhaps it can feed more people, it is true, who cannot afford meat or access it. However, doing so prevents us from solving the greater problem of why it is, that in the twenty first century, fewer people have access to real food than feudal peasants in the thirteenth century living in mud huts. 

The production of food needs to be put into the hands of more people and decentralized rather than centralized. Whenever something is centralized, it is more corrupted because there are fewer people who can monitor the process. When fewer people monitor a process, they can more easily get away with cutting corners. This temptation to the lowest aspects of human nature is an aspect of a bad system. 

Conclusion

Technology that attempts to mimic nature will necessarily be inferior to it because it will always be able to replicate nature only as well as it can observe it. As such, we must reject any claims that things like lab-grown meat, food replacements, or any other replacements of nature, are superior or even equal alternatives to the natural version. 

How did I end up in the position I was in rather than one of the denizens of the state peddling the vaccine, or one of those unemployed people languishing in the sidelines about how I’d lost my job? I had somehow managed to find the perfect job with the people who believed in the same mission as I did.

So I told my story. It turned out to be a huge success at the conference and I got a lot of hugs from a lot of people who told me that it was inspiring to hear my story. A lot has changed in my life over the last two years and I am so thankful for these changes. In this article, I have transcribed the speech that I gave there for my readers and for posterity (yes, it is secretly an art lesson lol).

Grad Students on the Volga

Today we will begin with some art. This is a painting by Ilya Repin called Barge Haulers on the Volga, painted in 1872. A barge is a type of flat bottomed cargo ship that must be dragged to shore by horses, oxen...or unfortunate peasants. 

The physicality of this painting is its most provocative message, which only Ilya Repin, master of contradictions, could execute so magnificently. The sand is painted to look so wet and loose, it would be impossible to walk on it. And the barge haulers look so sun burnt and exhausted, it is clear that theirs is an unmeasurable burden. Yet, if the straps tying them to their Sisyphean labour were to be cut, they would fall flat on their faces. Their inhumane servitude is also the counter balance that supports them.

The barge, you see, is Academia. And the barge haulers, its unfortunate graduate students. 

I was once one of these graduate student barge haulers, who believed that if I was not tied to Academia, I would waste my potential. What is the meaning of this word “potential”? And what does it mean to waste it? To waste your potential is to not work toward excellence in your vocation. To not produce anything meaningful with one’s skill. 

Many young people today enter the University and later Academia because they believe the organised institution is the only guarantee they will not “waste their potential”. They believe Academia allows them to pursue excellence and productivity without taking any risks. Of course, safety always demands a price. The safety of Academia today exacts a price from its young, intelligent and driven students by condemning them to expend their youth on often unproductive work, that will disappear like cotton candy in water. As the barge haulers expend their lives pulling a barge, but not moving forward in wet sand, so the grad students expend their youths on experiments and projects that are ultimately useless for enhancing man’s understanding of the world. 

There is no such thing as excellence and the pursuit of truth without risk. And those who turn to Academia today, will ironically waste their potential, writing their legacies in water.

Last year, my University did me a huge favour. It cut me loose from the barge, and I fell flat on my face in the sand, as the barge-haulers in this painting would. With the onset of the Covid-19 mass hysteria, I recognised my duty as a member of the scientific community, doing a PhD in neuroscience, to stay informed about the topic. I created a substack and began publishing my findings. I revealed that lockdowns do not work, emergency rooms are no more overwhelmed than in other non-covid years, and the mortality rate from flus in 2020 are indistinguishable from non-covid years.

When I discovered that my PhD supervisor had found out about these blogs, for a split second, I wondered if he would be proud of me fo taking the initiative to do this research. Instead, I was deemed mentally unstable and it was recommended that I receive psychiatric help. Needless to say, I left my PhD program instead.

This was clearly not a place of learning, as I had once naively believed it to be.

Unvaccinated and deprived of reference letters from my program or anyone else who would attest to my eight years of research and study, it was uncertain how I would find employment. With working class parents and no connections, I thought that I would have to give up my intellectual pursuits forever. It was my twitter account of all things that connected me to a lawyer from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. The same viewpoints that had led me to destitution, were the ones that found me work that not only adds to society, but enhances our understanding of human rights and the law. I was helping to translate science to law in order to find justice for those doctors and scientists who, like me, had been rejected by their institutions for daring to think critically.

I felt relieved to no longer be contributing to the onanistic machinations of academics who only care about getting their citations or their next grant. I was now working with REAL scientists and truth seekers.

My love for science, that academia had soured, now came alive again because I was seeking the truth of the matter...rather than attempting to justify meaningless experiments like a used car salesman.

Young people have an incredible important energy, drive and motivation that, when channeled properly, can and does change the world. Recall that Alexander the Great was only 23 when he conquered half the world and Napoleon only 24 when he captured Marseille, a victory that was decisive in the success of the French Revolution. Indeed, young people are usually at the forefront of revolutionary movements in history, and yet, look around you, there are very few of them here. The young people are indeed a few miles away in London at a conference justifying why studying the minutiae of fruit-fly copulation is so crucial to curing cancer.

The only way to channel the energy of young people once again toward activism is to free them from the shackles of academia and to show them that although they will fall on their faces, they will survive and they will excel anyway. Young people have the greatest vested interest in activism because they will spend the most time in the societies we are building. We only need to dispel the fear that grips their hearts, and make them believe they are incapable of making a difference.

You can see at the exact centre of Repin’s masterpiece is a younger barge hauler who is not hunched over in exhaustion but rather standing upright and proud. His gaze is fixed not on the ground but ahead, into the distance. His hands are already pulling the straps from the barge off of his body. Over his heart is a cross, a symbol of his faith that supports him. This is why he does not need to rely on the perverted support of the barge to stand up.

There are ways that both organisations and young people can help to engage the youth in meaningful activism. 

1. They must provide external symbols of the legitimacy and importance of their work. Please try to remember how important it was when you were younger, to signal to your parents that you’re not a bum. 

2. Mentorship from someone they can look up to. 

3. Financial grants that can support them for the time and energy required to do their work. 

Graduate programs employ all of these strategies to attract young people. Many of them use it to nefarious ends, to vampirize the energy of the youth rather than support and mentor them toward achieving excellence or doing meaningful work. 

Young people, ultimately, have the most difficult and crucial task of all: to take the Kirkegaardian leap of faith and believe in themselves. There are a few things they can do get a softer landing from letting go of the poisonous establishment, or at least not be at the mercy of its caprice.

1. Make a social media with their real name and face. Learn to stand behind their honest thoughts and observations. 

2. Write everyday in order to both learn how to think better and to find like-minded individuals. 

3. Learn entrepreneurial skills and financial literacy so they are not beholden to any corrupt institution for food and shelter. 

There is a revolution happening and the youth must be a part of it. I was inculcated serendipitously, but let us optimise and replicate this process. Let’s get more young people cancelled and freed to do the important work that must be done.  

There are a few reasons, we are told, that it is necessary to get the Covid-19 vaccine:

1. It can prevent you from getting Covid-19.

2. Even if you yourself don’t care about getting sick, it can prevent you from spreading Covid-19 to others who may not be able to survive the symptoms.

3. A majority of the population must become vaccinated in order for the vaccine to work.

In this Substack, I will explore the science behind all of these claims and evaluate whether these reasons are true, or whether they are anti-science by people who know how to lick boots but never actually learned any science on their way to PhDs, MDs and blue checkmarks.

Reason number 4, by the way, that most people are getting vaccinated, is so that they can get back their basic freedoms. This is the saddest reason of all. It means you are being medically raped and letting it happen because you convinced yourself that you have no power.

Section 1: Vaccines are not effective in preventing infection, or in protecting people from the symptoms of covid-19.

The theoretical function of vaccination is as follows: a diminished and therefore non-functional version of an offending virus is injected into an individual with a functioning immune system. The immune system then recognises this non-functional version of the virus as "non-self" invader and raises an attack against it. B-cells are created that will "remember" the virus through biological mechanisms which will permit the body to more quickly recognise the real virus if they are ever infected in the future and therefore be able to manage the infection more efficiently. Therefore, a vaccine cannot prevent infection, even theoretically; it can only ever diminish the symptoms. Nevertheless, an unscientific narrative about vaccines has been permitted to be promulgated by public health authorities that misinforms the public that vaccines can prevent infection. Entire health policies are made based on this misinformation.

Fortunately, we can test the unscientific claim that a vaccine prevents the transmission of disease from one person to another in a community where most people are vaccinated. The most vaccinated countries in the world are: Gibraltar, Malta, Iceland, UK, Israel, and Seychelles. Gibraltar has a 100% vaccination rate (Fig 1). Regardless, the country is experiencing an alarming rise in Covid-19 cases of which 74% of these cases are in fully vaccinated individuals (the unvaccinated are not citizens, but rather visitors to the country) (Fig 2). Malta is the second most vaccinated country in the world with 90% of the population vaccinated by July 28, 2021 (Fig 3). On July 7th however, Malta began experiencing massive spikes in Covid-19 cases (Fig 4). In Iceland, 75% of the population is fully vaccinated and 70% had at least one dose (Fig 5). in June 2021, cases were rising among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated population (Fig 6).

Fig 1. Share of the population (of citizens) in Gibraltar that is fully vaccinated is at 100%. The only unvaccinated people are tourists that make up a very small percentage of the total population.

Fig 2. Despite this mass vaccination success in Gibraltar, it is currently facing a massive Covid-19 surge in incidence.

Fig 3. Malta also had a very successful Covid-19 vaccination campaign and got 80% of its population vaccinated.

Fig 4. Nevertheless, Malta is currently facing a massive surge in Covid-19 cases.

Fig 5. The fully vaccinated make up a large proportion of the number of covid cases in Iceland. Suggesting that being fully vaccinated does not protect a person from becoming infected.

Fig 6. The UK has 60-70% of its population vaccinated.

Fig 7. Yet the number of new cases among the vaccinated and the unvaccinated is identical and in fact seems to be increasing among the vaccinated.

Fig 8. Public Health England reports that the fully vaccinated actually have the same viral loads as the unvaccinated.

Fig 9. Vaccination rates were the same inside and outside the GTA (greater Toronto Area) in Ontario, Canada. Yet, the death rates due to Covid-19 were greater in the GTA compared to outside. This means that vaccination rates do not affect mortality from Covid-19.

Fig 10. Pfizer’s six month safety data trial reveals that the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are equally as likely to die from Covid-19. This means that getting the vaccine to mitigate symptoms or mortality from the disease is not supported by evidence and is therefore untrue.

What can we learn from this data?

• Based on the fact that countries with 100% or near 100% vaccination status experience huge spikes in covid cases, especially among the fully vaccinated, we can conclude that the idea “if everyone gets vaccinated, we can stop the spread of this disease” is incorrect. (Fig 1-4)

• Based on the fact that the fully vaccinated are getting Covid-19 at the same or higher rates than people who are unvaccinated, we can conclude that being fully vaccinated does not protect a person from getting Covid-19. (Fig 5-7)

• Based on the fact that vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have the same viral load, it means that vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals hypothetically have the same capability to spread the disease. This means that excluding people for being unvaccinated because they might infect people is ludicrous as they have the same ability to infect others as fully vaccinated people. (Fig 8)

• Based on the fact that mortality rates from Covid-19 are the same among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, it is not scientifically supported that vaccination mitigates symptom severity or mortality from Covid-19 (Fig 9).

Section 2. Vaccines can cause serious adverse events to people. These side effects are not made known to the common person, violating their right to informed consent to medical interventions.

The purpose of getting the vaccine was to mitigate symptoms, spread and deaths from the disease Covid-19. However, as the data have demonstrated in Section 1, the vaccine does not achieve any of these end points. The side effects of the vaccine therefore, although previously could have been balanced against its benefits, now are shown to be even more egregious. There is no good reason for any person to tolerate these side effects. There is considerable evidence that Covid-19 vaccines are not merely useless, but also harmful to people.

Vaccine effects on Fertility

The vaccine consists of a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) which contains this mRNA strand encoding spike protein. The LNP permits this mRNA to enter into cells of the patient's body where it will be used to manufacture the spike protein. The idea of this form of "vaccination" is that the body will produce its own spike proteins and then launch an immune attack against anything that expresses these proteins. This is thought to train the immune system to combat a future infection of coronavirus which will also express spike protein. The spike protein, wherever it is produced, launches a violent inflammatory reaction. The LNP enters cells in the body using ACE2 receptors which are over expressed in some key areas of the body such as the reproductive organs (ovaries, testicles), liver, and lungs.

Damage to fertility is a primary reason for vaccine hesitancy among those in their reproductive age. Mainstream media and science present the narrative that these concerns are unfounded and unscientific. However, there is evidence for the dangers of lipid nanoparticles for fertility. In a Confidential Pfizer Research document, it is revealed through radio-label testing that the vaccine tends to accumulate most in the liver, spleen, adrenal glands and ovaries most of all. The lipid nanoparticle coat permits the vector to enter more cells.

• https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/06/03/confidential-pfizer-research-document/

The spike protein is known to be pro-inflammatory and will therefore cause inflammatory reactions to occur in the ovaries that can damage or destroy inchoate follicles.

• Shahanshah Khan, Mahnoush S Shafei, Christopher Longoria, "Spike protein induces inflammation via TLR2 dependent activation of NFkB pathway".

The spike protein shares a domain sequence with the protein syncitin-1 which is involved in early fetal development. Researchers have tested and concluded that in vaccinated pregnant and non-pregnant women, the women did not develop anti-syncitin 1 antibodies. However, this study does not complete any functional assay and therefore its conclusion about the safety of the vaccine are premature if not unfounded. A functional assay would determine whether or not the syncitin protein function is still being carried out properly in unvaccinated women. Just because her body is not producing antibodies against syncitin 1 doesn't mean that the vaccine is not deleterious to trophoblast/placenta.

A functional assay must be done that incubates trophoblast/placenta tissue with the vaccine and observes the interaction between the two to determine for certain that there is no impact that the vaccine has on the placenta health. Without this assay it is not only irresponsible, but also scientifically negligent to make such a bold statement as saying that the vaccine has "no effect on fertility" and that the hesitancy among reproductive aged and pregnant women is unfounded.

• CNZ Mattar, Winston Koh et al. "Addressing anti-syncitin antibody levels and fertility and breastfeeding concerns following BNT162B2 Covid-19 vaccination" medRxiv https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.23.21257686v1.full-text

Scientific evidence supports the fact that vaccination poses a significantly elevated risk of miscarriage in pregnant women. Data on pregnancy loss are based on 827 participants in the v-safe pregnancy registry who received an mRNA Covid-19 vaccine (BNT162b2 [ Pfizer--BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) from Dec 14 2020 to Feb 28 2020 and who reported a completed pregnancy. A total of 700 participants (84.6%) received their first eligible dose in the third trimester. Data on neonatal outcomes are based on 724 live born infants including 12 sets of multiples.

A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions occurred before week 13 of gestation. The denominator includes only participants vaccinated before 37 weeks. They report 12% miscarriage rate by comparing the number of miscarriages in the first trimester to the total number of pregnant women who were vaccinated: 104/827. However, all the miscarriages occurred in the first trimester and only 127 women were vaccinated in that time period. Therefore, including women who weren't even vaccinated in the first trimester is disingenuous because they technically are not in the group of "vaccinated pregnant women" at that point. The correct comparison would be 104/127=81.9% of women who got vaccinated in the first/second trimester experienced a spontaneous abortion.

This is an alarmingly high rate of miscarriages. To pretend that this is not linked to the vaccine is ridiculously disingenuous considering how much higher this statistic is compared to the normal rate of miscarriages. In fact, it would require formidable evidence to refute that these miscarriages were caused by the vaccine. If something is bad for a baby in utero, it is usually safe to assume that it is also bad for us as human beings. It is simply that we, as developed adults, tend to be more resilient against toxins than babies are.

• https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983

It is impossible to tell the long term effects of this medical intervention because it has not been tested over a long enough period of time. As such, it is impossible to tell what the effects of the vaccine will be on the reproductive organs over time. It is possible that the inflammatory response in the ovaries and testicles of vaccinated individuals may not be symptomatic until later on. It is prudent to be cautious about such effects because fertility is something that, once lost, is difficult to regain and can change the course of someone’s life forever.

There are many medications that impact our fertility. One example is chemotherapy medicine. This medicine is given to extremely sick patients who require the benefits of the medication in order to recover from cancer. I will not debate the efficacy of this treatment here but use it merely as an example. This treatment does show some degree of success in shrinking and eliminating tumours from suffering patients, even if it damages their reproductive organs in the process. So why do the patients go through with it? Because they are sick.

Perfectly healthy people are being coerced to take the covid-19 vaccination, at the risk for their fertility and health, in order to give others the illusion of feeling protected. The scientific data demonstrates clearly that this trade off is not even worth it, because the vaccination protects no one.

Functional Neurological Disorders

There are also many other side effects to the vaccine that have been reported. One of these are Functional Neurological Disorders. A functional neurological disorder is a disruption in normal brain mechanisms for controlling the body. It includes symptoms such as sensory abnormalities, gait or balance disruptions, or weakness. Patients with functional disorders following their second dose of the Covid-19 vaccine have been reported in a correspondence published in Movement Disorders.

• "The first patient presented with a short episode of generalized tonic-clonic psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) 20 min after receiving the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. The event was followed by different episodes with different phenomenology such as the inability to move the whole body with a preserved level of consciousness."

• "The second patient showed persistent dizziness and a subjective loss of tactile sensitivity in the right arm and leg two weeks after receiving the Astrazenica vaccine."

• "In our view FND following Covid-19 vaccination will not be a rare phenomenon and will be widely covered by the media, being interpreted as a direct consequence of the vaccine, as already seen in the past."

The authors clearly describe numerous incidences of FND at various time points following vaccination but baselessly assert that these FND symptoms have nothing to do with the vaccination. In order to say that an effect was NOT cause by the vaccine, the researchers would have to prove that there is no causal link for example by revealing a different cause for the FND such that it occurs independent of the vaccine at the same frequencies. The authors suggested that stress could be a cause but offer no scientific evidence for this such as an experiment or study that showed that FND occurs at the same frequencies in unvaccinated individuals who are experiencing stress.

• Alfonso Fasano, Antonio Daniele "Functional disorders after Covid-19 vaccine fuel vaccine hesitancy". Correspondence to Professor Alfonso Fasano, Movement Disorders Centre, Toronto Western hospital 399 Bathurst St. 7MCL410 Toronto ON, CA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2021-327000

• Butler M et al. "Functional neurological disorder after SARS CoV 2 Vaccines: two case reports and discussion of potential health implications" J. Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2021

A running theme one notices in the discussion of vaccine related side effects is their so-called rarity. Even if a side effect is rare, it is important to determine a way by which we can determine if there are any factors that predispose someone to experiencing these "rare" side effects.

If a side effect is functional neural degeneration for example, then it should be revealed to patients that the true rates at which this occurs. Asserting that it is not caused by the vaccine with no evidence is not only unscientific, it is dangerous and malicious. All medical interventions have some side effects. The patient decides to take on these side effects in order to get the benefits of the medication. However, if it is known that the vaccine offers no benefit either to the individual getting the vaccine or to the community as a whole, then it is ludicrous to ask them to take on the risk for the side effects, however rare or inconsequential they may be.

Section 3. Cost Benefit Analysis: Was the pandemic killing people or were lockdown restrictions?

Not everyone who receives the vaccine experiences the same side effects. Why is that? Because people have different bodies that respond in different ways. If you were to be put into a gymnasium with 900 people, and be told that one person would die from the injection that everyone receives, would you stay in that place and get the shot? Perhaps. Only if not getting it actually meant that you had a higher than 1/900 chance of dying. As it stands, the statistic for deaths from covid are much much lower than 1/900. In fact, they are almost non-existent if you are a healthy person living a health lifestyle. It is therefore unethical, illogical and unscientific to coerce you to get the shot.

Fig 10. The Covid-19 Pandemic itself may be called into question considering the number of  deaths in 2020 compared to other years is largely unremarkable. If there were truly a pandemic, we would be able to see a clear rise in deaths in the year 2020 compared to others. Source: Stats Canada

Fig 11. The number of deaths during the months when the pandemic was supposedly rampantly killing people are also unremarkable compared to other months of the year, in all of the provinces of Canada.

Fig 12. Weekly all cause deaths due to Covid-19 are insignificant compared to normal. The pandemic is not as deadly as the media makes it out to be. Source: https://t.co/sDGQltJapg?amp=1 , https://t.co/Qh0WO84rkl?amp=1

If there were truly a pandemic that was killing many people, one would expect that there would be a large number of excess deaths due to Covid-19. This, however, was not the case according to the data.

Excess deaths is an increase in the number of deaths that occur in a given time frame, when compared to the average number of deaths that occurred in the same time frame in the past. Between March 15 and April 25 2020, British Columbia recorded 372 more deaths than in any of the previous five years for these same weeks, but just 99 of those were Covid deaths. This means that the lockdown measures were undoubtedly responsible for these deaths through mechanisms such as delayed treatments for non covid related medical interventions, isolation related drug overdoses and neglect for those who depend on the community, loneliness related suicides and many more. In Alberta, during 7 weeks of isolation, there were 402 additional deaths but only 40 were related to Covid-19. (Source: Our World in Data, Woolf SH et al 2020).

In a report from the Journal of American Medical Association, it is reported that between March 1,  2020 and April 25 2020, a total of 505059 deaths were reported in the US. In 14 states, more than 50% of excess deaths were attributed to underlying causes other than Covid-19. The 5 states with the most Covid-19 deaths experienced large proportional increases in deaths from non-respiratory underlying causes including diabetes (96%), heart disease (89%) and Alzheimer’s disease (64%). The authors suggest that restrictions imposed by governments in response to the pandemic such as stay at home orders could claim lives indirectly through delayed care for acute emergencies, exacerbations of chronic diseases and psychological distress.

Indeed, lockdown and quarantining of asymptomatic Covid-19 patients is unscientific and therefore immoral. Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit said at a new briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva Headquarters, “From the data we have, it seems to be rare than an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual”.

• Source: Woolf SH, Chapman DA, Journal of American Medical Association. July 1 2020. “Excess deaths from Covid-19 and other causes, March-April 2020”.

Fig 13. https://t.co/V9Ao9gIUGo?amp=1

Many of the deaths that the world has been facing in 2020 and 2021 have been due to lockdowns rather than due to Covid-19 itself.

“Hospital Burdens”

Many of the restrictions that were placed on people’s lives during the last two years have been done supposedly to limit the number of people who become sick and have to be admitted to the ICU. However, the ICUs have been at the same capacity as they always were every other year regardless of the degree of lockdown restrictions placed on people. In fact, most of the people admitted into ICUs are not even Covid-19 patients. They are merely tested for Covid-19 after being admitted and it comes back positive.

According to uhn.ca, in three hospitals in Toronto’s University health system, there were 10 patients admitted to the hospital for Covid-19 and under 10 in ICUs while the population of Toronto is over 2 million. If the ICUs are overwhelmed by 10 patients, perhaps the problem is that hospitals must be built to accommodate more patients that would better serve a population of more than 2 million.

Fig 14. The ICU admissions and hospitalisations during Covid-19 have not exceeded nor even reached peak levels that are normally experienced by Ontario during normal flu and pneumonia outbreaks. Yet Covid-19 seems to merit a complete upheaval of people’s lives.

Quarantining healthy people, social distancing and lockdown are policies that are unscientific and unsupported by data. In a meta-analysis of 98 studies, 79 of which were about SARS CoV-2, they investigated evidence of pre-symptomatic spread. People who are perfectly healthy and have no symptoms are mandated to quarantine at the caprice of the government’s decisions. The study reports however that “although modelling studies estimated potential viral load peak before symptom onset, we did not identify any study that confirms pre-symptomatic viral load peak”.

• Source: Muge Cevik, Matthew Tate, Ollie Lloyd, et al. The Lancet. Nov 19 2020. “SARS CoV2, SARS CoV, MERS CoV viral load dynamic duration of viral shedding and infectiousness: a systematic review and meta-analysis”.

Section 4. Anecdotes of Harm

Every medical intervention, including vaccines, have some adverse events for a proportion of the population. When a new medical intervention is introduced to the public, it is therefore important to evaluate:

1. what are the risks associated with the intervention

2. what percentage of the population is likely to experience these adverse events

3. how can we identify those people who are most likely to experience these adverse events?

Such an investigation is necessary because it comprises the ability to give informed consent to a patient. It is not only the patient’s prerogative, but his responsibility to determine whether an intervention will harm him, in what way, and whether or not this is worth the benefits of the intervention to him. Without these rights, it is quite easy for unscrupulous mercenaries to take advantage of vulnerable, sick people, by selling them ineffective medications without regard for risk to the patient. Without these standards and the defence of the patient’s rights, modern medicine cannot be trusted as a scientific institution.

VAERS

There is evidence that the Vaccine Related Adverse Event System (VAERS) under-reports the true proportion of the population that suffers from adverse reactions to the covid-19 vaccine. A study to evaluate data collection tools to improve the safety of national vaccination programs reports that “Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious adverse events are reported.”

There was a conflict in the proportion of a certain type of adverse events reported in VAERS, namely anaphylaxis. This discrepancy can be used to determine the true number of people who have died from the Covid-19 vaccines and experienced adverse events. The first JAMA article (The Journal of American Medicine Association) was published in January 2021 and cites 2-5 adverse events/million according to VAERS. The second JAMA study was published in March 2021 and it demonstrated that anaphylaxis occurs in 2.47/10 000, a rate much bigger than the 2-5 adverse events/million. The contradiction implies that VAERS is underreporting by 50-120x. 

As of March 2021, VAERS reported 50716 adverse events from covid-19 vaccines which included 1785 deaths. This means that the true number of people who were injured is 5, 071,600 and the true number of deaths due to vaccines is “178500”.

• Kimberly G Blumenthal, Lucy R Robinson et al. JAMA (March 2021) 323(15):1562-1565. “Acute allergic reactions to mRNA vaccines.”

• Tom T Shimbuko, Matthew Cole. JAMA (November 2021) 325(11): 1101-1102. “Reports of Anaphylaxis after receipt of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines in the US—Dec 14, 2020 - Jan 18, 2021.”

Anecdotes

There is a massive collection of anecdotes shared throughout social media on the internet regarding people’s personal stories about their negative reactions from the vaccine. These stories have largely been silenced or removed from the internet because they “encourage vaccine hesitancy” and authorities suggest “there is no way to link the reaction to the vaccine causally”.

Let us do the logic through these statements to think about whether they are reasonable.

What is data? Data is information. Data from an experiment can give you information about the behaviour of variables in a specific, controlled context. External validity is the ability of the data from the controlled context, to tell us about how the variable will behave in reality, where there are many other variables to interact with. This means that the behaviour of the variable in the real world may or may not be the same as it was in the experiment.

Anecdotes are not “scientific” because the phenomena occur in uncontrolled conditions with arguably an infinite number of variables interacting with each other. For example, a person who takes an aspirin and his headache goes away may not for sure say that his headache went away because of the pill. It could have gone away on its own anyway, it might have been the food he ate differently that day, a difference in mood, drinking the glass of water with the pill, taking a nap after eating the pill. There are a number of factors involved that are not controlled. However, we do not reasonably entertain these alternative hypotheses.

If millions of healthy people take some medical intervention and a short time afterwards, a significant proportion of them begin to develop similar symptoms, we should look into the phenomenon. It is true that sequence alone does not imply causation. However, it is a possibility. Of all the variables in the person’s life that could have caused the symptom they experienced and blamed on the vaccine, the vaccine is one of them. As such, it is a suspect that should be fairly assessed. Compared to the other variables in the person’s life that could have caused the incident, the vaccine is the only variable that is new.

The burden of proof, in fact, is on the vaccine manufacturers to prove that it is SAFE and not on the patient to prove that it is unsafe. Especially when it is being mandated to the public.

BigData Cancels Noise

When a large enough set of data is collected, the noise, because it is random, cancels itself out. If there is any signal (in this case, any relationship between the vaccine and the adverse events reported by anecdote) then it will be amplified. It is quite suspect, then, that people are not invited to share their perceived adverse events more and instead are silenced. The only reason someone would want to silence this kind of information from being documented is if they didn’t want to risk results that might say that the vaccine is, in fact, deleterious to health.

Conclusions

We must make public health decisions based on sound, scientific data.

According to the data, there are a few things that are absolutely clear:

1. The Covid-19 pandemic was not more lethal than normal flu seasons. Most of the excess deaths during the pandemic were due to lockdowns and their consequences. Hospitals are as full as they have ever been every other non-pandemic year. Most of the patients filling up the ICU are there for non Covid related reasons, but test positive anyway and then are labelled Covid patients, artificially inflating hospitalisation stats.

2. The Vaccine does not prevent infection or decrease chances of hospitalisation from Covid-19. An unvaccinated person has the same viral load as a vaccinated person and therefore, the same ability to “spread disease”.

3. The vaccines pose dangers to some significant proportion of the people who take them and as of now, it is impossible to tell who will respond in what way. The lack of knowledge on the safety of this intervention is even more egregious considering it is neither efficacious nor necessary.

4. Death, long term negative health effects, and health system burden from Covid-19 is almost 0% in people who are healthy and young. The common denominator among people who are hospitalised for Covid-19 symptoms is obesity and vitamin D deficiency.

As such, the known and unknown risks from a vaccine are unwarranted for everyone. People who are at risk for severe covid-19 symptoms have no guarantee of protection from Covid-19 and taking the vaccine only adds for them the risks of the vaccine itself.

The Vaccine Sets a Precedent

The people who take the vaccine, in order to keep a job, travel, continue living their normal life and to just “not have to think about Covid-19 anymore” do not realise that this does not stop with the vaccine.

Once an governing institution has the capability to take away your ability to work, use public transportation, travel, and access your basic rights and freedoms as a human being, for a vaccine, they can do it for any law or mandate they deem necessary.

Anyone with enough money and power to influence the government can mandate their product at pain of death for the entire population. What an excellent business model. If you, whether you are for or against the vaccine in particular, do not stand up to this mandate, then you are signing away your rights in the future as well.

All virtues are tested the they are difficult to wield. Now is the time when courage is challenging, but it is a matter of life and death. Do you wish to die honourably, with a sword in your hand, or like a coward who in inches and doses, sold his spirit for a bit of false security?