Will Variants and Ill-Health Continue to Plague Economic Outlooks?

Recommended Posts

On 3/11/2022 at 11:48 AM, Tom Nolan said:



Edward Dowd, an investment researcher looks at “tells”…odd signals which can affect the marketplace.


Edward Dowd (ex-Blackrock portfolio manager of over 1 billion dollars) is interviewed with graphs in video…
March 11th, 2022
“Death By Government” – Edward Dowd Exposes a Vietnam War’s Worth of Excess Deaths in Millennials [VIDEO]


Michael Barrow cited information which collaborates with Edward Dowd's information.   

Barrow used data organized by this website



  • Downvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



Dowd is posting the tables for the other age groups. The excess mortality rate for the GenX cohort, aged 45 to 64 also shows a clear early-fall mortality spike, consistent with that of the Millennials, with 101,000 excess deaths since August 2021.

The over-65 Baby Boomers saw 306,000 excess deaths, which he describes as a “World War II” event, saying, “291,000 people died in World War II from the US.”

“We’ve had 1.1 million excess deaths since the pandemic began, many of which occurred in the second half of [2021], which is, again all you need to know.

“1.1 million excess deaths equates to 4,000 World Trade Center events.

“The media wants to talk about Ukraine and we just literally had a war, here on our own soil. We’re at war with someone and it’s occurring.”



  • Downvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed Dowd: "Millennial age group, 25 to 44 experienced an 84% increase in excess mortality"

"It’s the worst-ever excess mortality, I think, in history." Can you guess what caused it? I think I know...

Steve Kirsch


Someone sent me this article: Edward Dowd on Future Recession, Shocking Findings in the CDC Covid Data and Democide which describes his appearance on War Room.


That article says:

“And the money chart is really Chart 4, which shows that the Millennial age group, 25 to 44 experienced an 84% increase in excess mortality into the fall. It’s the worst-ever excess mortality, I think, in history.

I called Ed to clarify where he got the chart and then looked for verification of this.

I found the verification.

Then I verified that the deaths couldn’t be explained by the COVID delta variant.

OK, so what caused all the deaths? The only explanation is the vaccine because the deaths are so massive.

Background plausibility

First, the most important thing is plausibility.

I’ve written extensively about the safety concerns with the COVID vaccines.

Here are five recent data points that are consistent with the vaccines being unsafe:

  1. Dr. John Campbell gets red-pilled as he walks his audience through the Pfizer “safety” data.

  2. San Jose police officer, DeJon Packer, 24, passes away (presumably) in his sleep. Healthy 24-year-olds virtually never die in their sleep. This is the new normal since the vaccines rolled out. The coroner will find nothing because they never suspect the vaccine caused it. So they never look for telltale signs. Your doctor will say that this is bad luck, but way too many people are having bad luck lately, haven’t you noticed?

  3. Strokes are hitting young people like never before.

  4. In this video, I interview Ryan Cole on his analysis of clots extracted by embalmers from people who have died. His conclusion: the clots played a major role in killing these people and were caused by the vaccine. These clots are seen in up to 93% of people who die (from all causes).

  5. Here’s a conversation I had on WhatsApp with Marc Girardot. He believes that the vaccine can, in some people, age your arteries by around 50 years in a few months. This of course would accelerate death. Here’s an excerpt of our conversation:


Consider this tweet. If the vaccines are so safe, how do you explain this?

And here’s a typical day:

The data justifying Ed’s remarks on the excess deaths

Now let’s go over some of the details of what Ed Dowd found and explain why there is no other explanation.

  1. Ed’s friend (who I know but doesn’t want to be disclosed publicly) spent about a week analyzing the CDC data. The graph in the article is from the CDC data, but is plotted by Ed’s friend. He didn’t make anything up.

  2. The work was replicated independently (see also the graphs).

  3. US mortality graphs show a spike in the same time period (Aug to Oct).

  4. These graphs of excess mortality in Europe show things got worse, not better after the vaccine rollout:

  5. The following image (a stacked bar of COVID and other excess deaths) that was created by MiloMac is hard for anyone to explain because the deaths went up when the booster/vax mandates were put in place:


Although the greatest contributor to deaths 25-44 is “COVID,” that makes no sense because the delta wave started in June, 2021 and nothing happened to COVID deaths during that time. If any virus is going to kill massive numbers of people, it would be the highly contagious and hard to treat Delta variant. Yet no significant change in excess deaths from COVID. All the excess deaths peaked in August right after the mandates.


If the huge spike in excess deaths starting in August wasn’t due to the vaccine, what caused it? It couldn’t have been COVID. And why isn’t the CDC saying anything?

Surely, these are great questions that I’d encourage everyone to ask of their blue-pilled friends. Please, let me know what they say in the comments. We’d all love to know what caused this.

I’m sure the mainstream medical community knows the cause. I wonder why they don’t tell us?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


3 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:



I’m sure the mainstream medical community knows the cause. I wonder why they don’t tell us?

Funny, the guys last comment is "the mainstream medical community is smarter and I don't understand what I'm talking about."


Edited by TailingsPond

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hailey Bieber says she has ‘recovered completely’ after doctors discovered a blood clot in her brain

The model, 25, who is married to Justin Bieber, 28, took to her Instagram Story on Saturday, March 12 to detail the health scare, writing, “On Thursday morning, I was sitting at breakfast with my husband when I started having stroke-like symptoms and was taken to the hospital. They found I had suffered a very small blood clot in my brain, which caused a small lack of oxygen, but my body had passed it on its own and I recovered completely within a few hours.”

Monday March 14, 2022 – People Magazine via Yahoo News
Blood Clots Like Hailey Bieber’s Are Happening in ‘Younger and Younger People’

[Read the comments which are at the Yahoo News links.]

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Military Doctor Testifies in Court That a Superior Ordered Her Not to Discuss Data Showing Massive Spikes in Illness After Vaccine Mandate

March 15, 2022

A military medical officer testified in court last week that she was ordered by a superior not to discuss her findings regarding the DoD’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) during the hearing. DMED provides web-based access to active military personnel and medical event data.

On March 10, Liberty Counsel, the law firm representing thirty members of the military who are fighting the military vaccine mandate, returned to federal court to defend the preliminary injunction Judge Steven Merryday granted two military plaintiffs that allowed them to skirt the military vaccine mandate. The Department of Defense (DoD) asked the judge to set aside the injunction while the case was on appeal.

Judge Merryday is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.


During the all-day hearing, Liberty Counsel presented compelling testimony from the Navy Commander of a surface warship and three military flight surgeons, Lt. Col. Peter Chambers, Lt. Col. Teresa Long and Col. (Ret.) Stewart Tankersley, M.D. In contrast, the DOD declined to present witnesses.

Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver said in an interview with the Blaze’s Daniel Horowitz on Monday that there have been three hearings now in this case, and the DoD has not yet offered a single witness. Instead of witnesses, the government “sends these declarations,” Staver explained. He said the judge has urged them to bring live witnesses to court so they can be cross examined, but they just refuse to do it. “So they send these declarations that some JAG attorney writes, and somebody in the military signs off on them.”

Staver said that the information the DoD has been presenting in court is “outdated, wrong, and would really be subject to dismantling under cross examination.” He added that cross examinations of his witnesses have only made their case stronger. “So they really don’t have anything to cross examine our witnesses with,” he said.

Staver told Horowitz that Judge Merryday has chastised the DoD lawyers during the hearings, telling them they have “a frail case,” and are “acting as though they are above the law.”

Dr. Theresa Long, a flight surgeon who holds a master’s degree in Public Health and is specially trained in the DMED, gave emotional testimony on March 10.

She and two other flight surgeons reviewed DMED last year and made some stunning discoveries about the high incidence of apparent vaccine injuries among members of the military.

According to the whistleblowers, certain disorders spiked after the vaccine mandate went into effect, including miscarriages and cancers, and neurological problems which increased by 1000 percent.

Dr. Long testified that she was contacted by high level officer the night before the hearing, and told not to discuss her findings regarding the explosive military medical data in court.  The whistleblower reportedly said she felt threatened after she tried to get her superiors to address the findings, “fearing for her life and for the safety of her children.”

Since the whistleblowers came forward with the DMED data, the DoD has thrown cold water on their conclusions, saying the increase in vaccine injuries was caused by a “glitch in the database.”

Politifact contacted Peter Graves, spokesperson for the Defense Health Agency’s Armed Forces Surveillance Division, who said the data for 2021 is correct, but for some reason, the data for the five years prior was inaccurate. Graves told PolitiFact by email that the division reviewed data in the DMED “and found that the data was incorrect for the years 2016-2020.”

In other words, for five straight years, the data was seriously corrupted and none of the DoD’s data analysts figured this out, and then it fixed itself on its own in 2021. The DoD has since put out new numbers showing more illnesses among the troops for the years prior to 2021.

Staver asked Long a question about the DMED data during the hearing, and she answered: “I have been ordered not to answer that question.”

Judge Merryday reportedly asked Long: “Ordered by who?,” and the doctor explained what happened the night before the hearing.

Staver then asked Long if the information the military ordered her to withhold was relevant and helpful for the court and the public to know. She said, “yes,” and Staver asked her why.

Long reportedly paused and choked back tears as she told the judge: “I have so many soldiers being destroyed by this vaccine. Not a single member of my senior command has discussed my concerns with me … I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by talking about it. I’m OK with that because I am watching people get absolutely destroyed.”

Dr. Long also testified that the data shows that deaths of military members from the vaccines exceed deaths from COVID itself.

Staver later told Horowitz that the DoD’s order for her not to discuss DMED amounted to witness tampering, especially since Long has whistleblower protections.

“They not only violated the Whistleblower Act, they potentially intimidated a witness and tried to change that witness’ testimony,” he said during the Conservative Review podcast on Monday.

The doctor said she is constantly contacted by people who have been injured by the genetic vaccines, and that many of those injured are pilots, who are expected to meet high fitness standards. Long told Staver that in just one afternoon she heard from four pilots who had just gotten MRIs back showing that they had myocarditis.

Morale is tanking in the military, she testified, with soldiers are in despair over the pressure to get the vaccine, and some are even having suicidal thoughts.

Long said she was aware of at least two people who have committed suicide over the pressure, and the threat of punishment for refusal.

She said the current regime’s policies are undermining “good order and discipline.”

In addition to Dr. Long, an unnamed Navy commander testified about his commander’s attempts to punish him for refusing the experimental injections.

On February 2, Judge Merryday issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Navy from punishing the Commander because of his vaccination status. Judge Merryday ruled the Navy violated the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

When the court ordered the Commodore to comply with the law, he filed an affidavit saying he had “lost confidence” in the Commander because the Commander had not taken the COVID shots.

The judge then entered a preliminary injunction, and the DOD and the Navy filed a motion asking the court to set aside his injunction, arguing that due to their “lost confidence” in the commander, his ship could not deploy.

However, at the time the ship was allegedly unable to be deployed, the commander was actually far out to sea testing the ship and training the crew.

While many Commanders fail to complete these operations timely, the Commander completed the mission early and the ship deemed “safe and ready.”

In a dramatic moment, the Commander said he should not have to be there in court defending religious freedom. “Generals and admirals should be here saying what I am saying today to uphold religious freedom. Our religious freedoms are being attacked.”

Also testifying last week was Dr. Pete Chambers, a Purple Heart recipient who is in the Texas National Guard defending the southern border where 10,000-20,000 illegal immigrants are flooding through every week. “My job is to keep our soldiers safe,” Chambers said.

Chambers was hoping to retire from the military in 2023 after nearly 40 years of service, but his adverse reaction to the Moderna shot derailed his plans.

Trusting the military that the shots are “safe and effective,” and not knowing at the time that aborted fetal cells were used in the testing and/or development, he took the shot. He now suffers from demyelination, a condition affecting the central nervous system caused by the injection.

After his Moderna injury, Dr. Chambers met Lt. Col. Long. They reviewed the DOD’s Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), the military equivalent to the federal government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), where he discovered other military members also developed a demyelination disease after the COVID shots.

Chambers, a military flight surgeon and one of only six Green Beret surgeons, was told that his job was to get soldiers to vaccinated. His superiors told him that religious exemptions would be automatically denied.  “Soldiers will try. Soldiers will fail,” this commanders said.

He pointed out that shots are not effective in preventing infection, and estimated that about 75-80% of soldiers getting infected are “double vaxxed” compared to only about 15% of soldiers who are not vaccinated.

Like Long, Chambers also testified that many soldiers are being injured by the COVID shots, and that “this is not normal.”

Dr. Stewart Tankersley, a flight surgeon who retired in September 2021 at the rank of Colonel, testified that the injections are neither safe nor effective.

Tankersley said he has personally treated over 200 COVID patients with no fatalities, and the group of doctors with whom he is associated has treated over 18,000 COVID patients with deaths only in the single digits.

“I’ve never seen anything like this in the military or civilian world, the lack of dialogue, the suppression of scientific dialogue.” Tankersley said on the stand.

Dr. Tankersley explained one of several reasons there are so many injuries from the COVID shots. The mRNA vaccines require a Lipid Nanoparticle (LNP) as a delivery mechanism because the RNA quickly degrades without being encased in the LNP. The combination bypasses the natural immune system and creates inflammation that can inhibit the body’s innate immunity.

Dr. Tankersley testified that the shots are neither safe nor effective. He also testified that there are safe and effective treatments for COVID, including nasal rinsing and ivermectin.

Liberty Counsel argued that the DOD’s position that the only one way to combat COVID and ensure military readiness is to force the injections and kick out the unvaccinated is “untenable,” and that the mandate is undermining military readiness and harming morale.


Staver said: “I am honored to serve the brave men and women of the military. I am dismayed by the abuse and propaganda forced upon them from the White House and the Department of Defense. The truth will prevail, and freedom will win.”

  • Downvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can they explain any of this data?

Here's the first example right now. I will be adding more and more examples over time.

4 hr ago

I have over 50 pieces of data that is simply impossible to explain if the vaccines are safe and effective. I’ll be adding them to this article over time, so check back for the latest. I’ll post the most recent additions at the top to make this easy.

I’m starting with just one item right now which is the only item you need to know to stop the vaccine mandates. It is so important, I wanted to push it out now.

UK government data shows the vaccines make things worse. We were misled.

This is data from an unimpeachable source: the UK government in its week 32 to 35 report for 2021. Look at the rates per 100,000 for doubly vaxxed vs. unvaccinated people for age ranges 40 to 80. Yup, you are more likely to be infected if you are vaccinated in each sub-range within 40 to 80. So there is no age confounding on this data. It’s simply impossible to explain. It shows why vaccine mandates are making you more susceptible to infection for people 40 to 80, not better.


Show this chart to your blue pill friends and ask them to explain why the vaccine should be mandated. Here’s what one reader wrote:

I actually shared a similar report with my cardiologist yesterday. When he just looked at me, saying nothing, I said, “Well, at least the NHS in the UK is being honest about the vaccines.” People will do what they’re going to do, I just pray that most will wake up!

Here’s the most recent data (March 17, 2022 from page 45) and it is much worse:


There is simply no way to explain this data if the vaccine works as is claimed (even though they try to make excuses in the report). We have all been victims of a massive fraud.

But the whole point of mandates was that it would protect you from getting sick so you wouldn’t infect others. Clearly, the mandates make you more likely to get sick. This is opposite what you were told. Everyone should be outraged at this.

The same UK report claims a death benefit, but that’s only if you ignore all the deaths caused by the vaccine. If you include those, it’s negative as well.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


The COVID vaccines have rates of PE over 1,000 times normal in all age ranges and we had that data in January 2021

PE is a blood clot affecting the blood supply to your lungs; it is like a heart attack on your lungs. If the blood supply is cut off, your lungs die and if your lungs die, you die. It’s that simple. You don’t need to be a doctor to understand how serious this is.

The signal for Bell’s palsy is even worse than PE

The signal for adrenal gland-related adverse events seems to be detectable to me. How did they miss this?

JP Sears has an explanation for how the CDC and FDA can ignore the safety signals

There is one explanation that does make sense to me as to how the CDC and FDA can miss these safety signals (and why the mainstream press, mainstream medical community, Congress, and world leaders missed it as well). Here’s JP’s 8 minute video explaining in detail how it happened.


If you want clear, compelling evidence of corruption at the CDC and FDA, here it is.

The CDC knew these vaccines were unsafe in January. They cause clotting everywhere. Pulmonary embolism is just a canary in the coal mine for blood clots. I could have picked something else.

It is troubling that the FDA and CDC didn’t spot this signal. It is huge and in plain sight. Even today, they still don’t acknowledge that the risk of pulmonary embolism is elevated. And if they aren’t talking about that, it means they aren’t talking about any of the thousands of other safety signals in VAERS either.

If you wanted proof of corruption and proof that we cannot trust the authorities, this is it in black and white. It doesn’t get any more obvious than this.

There is simply no way to explain how the CDC and FDA refused to tell people about it when they knew it was happening. And they can’t say they didn’t see it since it was so obvious. If they say they never saw it, they are incompetent.

...The mainstream press will never report on this.

Edited by Tom Nolan

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Bioethics and the New Eugenics

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

At first glance, bioethics might seem like just another branch of ethical philosophy where academics endlessly debate other academics about how many angels dance on the head of a pin in far-out, science fiction like scenarios. What many do not know, however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of bioethics has its roots in the dark history of eugenics. With that knowledge, the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the hands of a select few become even more apparent.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

CLICK HERE for a German dub of this video


Bioethics is the study of the moral issues arising from medicine, biology and the life sciences.

At first glance, bioethics might seem like just another branch of ethical philosophy where academics endlessly debate other academics about how many angels dance on the head of a pin in far-out, science fiction like scenarios.

PAUL ROOT WOLPE: Imagine what's going to happen when we have a memory pill. First of all, you don't have to raise your hand but let's be honest: who here's going to take it?

SOURCE: Memory Enhancing Drugs: Subject of "Arms" Race?

MICHAEL SANDEL: I've read of a sport—it's a variant of polo that is I think played in Afghanistan if I'm not mistaken—where the people ride on horses. Is it horses or camels? I don't know which. And they use a—it's a dead goat or something—to, I don't know, whack the polo ball or whatever it is. Now it's a dead—I think it's a goat. Maybe someone knows who studies sociology about this. So it's not that the goat is experiencing pain. It's dead already. And yet there is something grim about that practice, wouldn't you agree? And yet it's not that the interests of that goat are somehow not being considered. Let's assume it was killed painlessly before the match began.

SOURCE: The Ethical Use of Biotechnology: Debating the Science of Perfecting Humans

MOLLY CROCKETT: What if I told you that a pill could change your judgement of what is right and what is wrong. Or what if I told you that your sense of justice could depend on what you had for breakfast this morning. You're probably thinking by now this sounds like science fiction, right?

SOURCE: TEDxZurich - Molly Crockett - Drugs and morals

But the bioethicists cannot be dismissed so lightly. Their ideas are being used by governments to assert control over people's bodies and to enforce that control in increasingly nightmarish ways.

ARCHELLE GEORGIOU: Lithium is a medication that in prescription doses treats mood disorders in people with bipolar disorder or manic-depressive illness. And what these researchers found in Japan is that lithium is present in trace amounts in the normal water supply in some communities and in those communities they have a lower suicide rate. And so they're really investigating whether trace amounts of lithium can just change the mood in a community enough to really in a positive way without having the bad effects of lithium to really affect the mood and decrease the suicide rate very interesting concept.

SOURCE: Lithium May Be Added To Our Water Supply

GATES: You’re raising tuitions at the University of California as rapidly as they [sic] can and so the access that used to be available to the middle class or whatever is just rapidly going away. That’s a trade-off society’s making because of very, very high medical costs and a lack of willingness to say, you know, “Is spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient—would it be better not to lay off those 10 teachers and to make that trade off in medical cost?” But that’s called the “death panel” and you’re not supposed to have that discussion.

SOURCE: Bill Gates: End-of-Life Care vs. Saving Teachers’ Jobs

Even a short time ago, talk about medicating the public through the water supply or enacting death panels for the elderly still seemed outlandish. But now that the world is being plunged into hysteria over the threat of pandemics and overburdened health care systems, these previously unspeakable topics are increasingly becoming part of the public debate.

What many do not know, however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of bioethics has its roots in the dark history of eugenics. With that knowledge, the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the hands of a select few become even more apparent.

This is a study of Bioethics and the New Eugenics.

You are tuned in to The Corbett Report.

On November 10, 2020, Joe Biden announced the members of a coronavirus task force that would advise his transition team on setting COVID-19-related policies for the Biden administration. That task force included Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

JOE BIDEN: So that’s why today I’ve named the COVID-19 Transition Advisory Board comprised of distinguished public health experts to help our transition team translate the Biden-Harris COVID-19 plan into action. A blueprint that we can put in place as soon as Kamala and I are sworn into office on January 20th, 2021.

SOURCE: President-elect Biden Delivers Remarks on Coronavirus Pandemic

ANCHOR: We've learned that a doctor from our area is on the president-elect's task force. Eyewitness News reporter Howard Monroe picks up the story.

THOMAS FARLEY: I know he's a very bright, capable guy and i think that's a great choice to represent doctors in general in addressing this epidemic.

HOWARD MONROE: Philadelphia health commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley this morning on Eyewitness News. He praised president-elect Joe Biden's transition team for picking Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to join his coronavirus task force. He is the chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

SOURCE: UPenn Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel To Serve On President-Elect Biden’s Coronavirus Task Force

That announcement meant very little to the general public, who likely only know Emanuel as a talking head on tv panel discussions or as the brother of former Obama chief of staff and ex-mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel. But for those who have followed Ezekiel Emanuel's career as a bioethicist and his history of advocating controversial reforms of the American health care system, his appointment was an ominous sign of things to come.

He has argued that the Hippocratic Oath is obsolete and that it leads to doctors believing that they should do everything they can for their patients rather than letting them die to focus on higher priorities. He has argued that people should choose to die at age 75 to spare society the burden of looking after them in old age. As a health policy advisor to the Obama administration he helped craft the Affordable Care Act, which fellow Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber admitted was only passed thanks to the stupidity of the American public.

JONATHAN GRUBER: OK? Just like the people—transparency—lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really critical to getting the thing to pass.

SOURCE: 3 Jonathan Gruber Videos: Americans "Too Stupid to Understand" Obamacare

During the course of the deliberations over Obamacare, the issue of "death panels" arose. Although the term "death panel" was immediately lampooned by government apologists in the media, the essence of the argument was one that Emanuel has long advocated: appointing a body or council to ration health care, effectively condemning those deemed unworthy of medical attention to death.

ROB MASS: When I first heard about you it was in the context of an article you wrote right around the time that the Affordable Care Act was under consideration. And the article was entitled "Principles for the Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions." I don't know how many of you remember there was a lot of talk at the time about [how] this new Obamacare was going to create death panels. And he wrote an article which I thought should have been required reading for the entire country about how rationing medical care—you think that that's going to start with with the Affordable Care Act? Medical care is rationed all the time and it must be rationed. Explain that.

EZEKIEL EMANUEL: So there are two kinds of "rationing," you might say. One is absolute scarcity leading to rationing and that's when we don't simply don't have enough of something and you have to choose between people. We do that with organs for transplantation. We don't have enough. Some people will get it, other people won't and, tragically, people will die. Similarly if we ever have a flu pandemic—not if but when we have a flu pandemic—we're not going to have enough vaccine, we're not going to have enough respirators, we're not going to have enough hospital beds. We're just going to have to choose between people.

SOURCE: Dr. Zeke Emanuel: Oncologist and Bioethicist

When the debate is framed as an impersonal imposition of economic restraint over the deployment of scarce resources, it is easy to forget the real nature of the idea that Emanuel is advocating. Excluded from these softball interviews is the implicit question of who gets to decide who is worthy of medical attention. Emanuel's various proposals over the years, and those of his fellow bioethicists, have usually supposed that some government-appointed but somehow "independent" board of bioethicists, economists and other technocrats, should be entrusted with these life-and-death decisions.

If this idea seems familiar, it's because it has a long and dark history that harkens back to the eugenicists who argued that only the "fittest" should be allowed to breed, and anyone deemed "unfit" by the government-appointed boards—presided over by the eugenicists—should be sterilized, or, in extreme cases, put to death.

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW: [. . .] But there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. Not in any unkind or personal spirit, but it must be evident to all of you — you must all know half a dozen people, at least—who are no use in this world. Who are more trouble than they are worth. And I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board, just as he might come before the income tax commissioner, and, say, every five years, or every seven years, just put him there, and say: “Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?”

SOURCE: George Bernard Shaw talking about capital punishment

This is the exact same talk of "Life Unworthy of Life" that was employed in Nazi Germany as justification for their Aktion T4 program, which resulted in over 70,000 children, senior citizens and psychiatric patients being murdered by the Nazi regime.

In 2009, author and researcher Anton Chaitkin confronted Ezekiel Emanuel about this genocidal idea.

MODERATOR: So we'll do the same format. It'll be three minutes and then time for questions. We'll start with Mr. Chaitkin.

ANTON CHAITKIN: [My name is] Anton Chaitkin. I'm a historian and the history editor for Executive Intelligence Review.

President Obama has put in place a reform apparatus reviving the euthanasia of Hitler Germany in 1939 that began the genocide there. The apparatus here is to deny medical care to elderly, chronically ill and poor people and thus save, as the president says, two to three trillion dollars by taking lives considered "not worthy to be lived" as the Nazi doctors said.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and other avowed cost-cutters on this panel also lead a propaganda movement for euthanasia headquartered at the Hastings Center, of which Dr. Emanuel is a fellow. They shape public opinion and the medical profession to accept a death culture, such as the Washington state law passed in November to let physicians help kill patients whose medical care is now rapidly being withdrawn in the universal health disaster. Dr. Emmanuel's movement for bioethics and euthanasia and this council's purpose directly continue the eugenics movement that organized Hitler's killing of patients and then other costly and supposedly "unworthy" people.

Dr. Emanuel wrote last October 12 that a crisis, war and financial collapse would get the frightened public to accept the program. Hitler told Dr. Brandt in 1935 that the euthanasia program would have to wait until the war began to get the public to go along. Dr. Emanuel wrote last year that the hippocratic oath should be junked; doctors should no longer just serve the needs of the patient. Hoche and Binding, the German eugenicists, exactly said the same thing to start the killing.

You on the council are drawing up the procedures to be used to deny care which will kill millions if it goes ahead in the present world crash. You think perhaps the backing of powerful men, financiers, will shield you from accountability, but you are now in the spotlight.

Disband this council and reverse the whole course of this nazi revival now.

SOURCE: Obama's Genocidal Death Panel Warned by Tony Chaitkin

It should come as no surprise, then, that Emanuel emerged last year as the lead author of a New England Journal of Medicine article advocating for rationing COVID-19 care that was later adopted by the Canadian Medical Association. The paper, "Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19," was written by Emanuel and a team of prominent bioethicists and discusses "the need to ration medical equipment and interventions" during a pandemic emergency.

Their recommendations include removing treatment from patients who are elderly and/or less likely to survive, as these people divert scarce medical resources from younger patients or from those with more promising prognoses. Although the authors refrain from using the term, the necessity of setting up a "death panel" to determine who should or should not receive treatment is implicit in the proposal itself.

In normal times, this would have been just another scholarly discussion of a theoretical situation. But these are not normal times. As Canadian researcher and medical writer Rosemary Frei documented at the time, the declared COVID crisis meant the paper quickly went from abstract proposal to concrete reality.

JAMES CORBETT: Let's get back to that question about hospital care rationing, which is such an important part of this story. And it's one of those things that when you read it at a surface level at first glance sounds reasonable enough, but the more that you look into it I think it becomes more horrifying.

And you quote, for example, specifically a March 23rd paper, "Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19," which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, which calls for "maximizing the number of patients that survived treatment with a reasonable life expectancy." Which, again, I would say sounds reasonable at first glance. Yes, of course we want to maximize the number of patients that survive. What's wrong with that?

So what can you tell us about this paper and the precedent that it's setting here.

ROSEMARY FREI: Well it's all of a sudden changing the rules in terms of saying, "Well, the most important thing is that it's the older people get a lower place in terms of triaging."

And I point out in my article, also, that Canadians have a lot of experience with SARS because we had that—there were a significant number of deaths in Ontario because of it. And there were people from Toronto who had direct experience with SARS—which of course is (ostensibly, at least) a cousin with the novel coronavirus—who wrote triaging guidelines, or at least an ethical framework for how to triage during a pandemic—this was in 2006—they didn't mention age at all. And here we are 14 years later, every single set of guidelines, including this really important New England Journal of Medicine paper say, "Well, age is an important criterion." And this is what's interesting.

So this paper is really important because—and also the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is the official organ, I would say, of the American Medical Association says the same thing: it's age. So they're all stepping in line and then the Canadian Medical Association said, "Oh, we don't have time to put our own guidelines together so we'll just use this one from the New England Journal of Medicine." To me, that's astonishing.

When I was a medical writer and journalist, I did some work helping various—one particular organization: the Canadian Thoracic Society, which does, you know, chest infections and stuff. I helped them put together guidelines. There's a whole big set of organizations for every single specialty for creating guidelines. Yet, "Oh!
We don't have time to put together this—" And also, I mean Canada had a lot of experience with SARS, so we had a lot of this background. Yet, "Oh, we can't do so it!" So they gave totally—they, quote, they said we have to go with the recommendations from the New England Journal of Medicine.

SOURCE: How the High Death Rate in Care Homes Was Created on Purpose

That bioethicists like Emanuel are writing papers that are changing the rules for rationing health care in the midst of a generated crisis should hardly be surprising for someone whose brother infamously remarked that you should never let a good crisis go to waste.

RAHM EMANUEL: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that, it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

SOURCE: Rahm Emanuel on the Opportunities of Crisis

But from a broader perspective, it is not at all surprising that the concept of "death panels" has been effectively smuggled in through the back door by the bioethicists.

In fact, when you start documenting the history of bioethics, you discover that this is exactly what this field of study is meant to do: Frame the debate about hot button issues so that eugenicist ideals and values can be mainstreamed in society and enacted in law. From abortion to euthanasia, there isn't a debate in the medical field that wasn't preceded by some bioethicist or bioethics institute preparing the public for a massive change in mores, values and laws.

That research into the history of bioethics leads one to the doorstep of the Hastings Center, a nonprofit research center that, according to its website, "was important in establishing the field of bioethics." The founding director of the Hastings Center, Theodosius Dobzhansky, was a chairman of the American Eugenics Society from 1969 to 1975. Meanwhile, Hastings cofounder Daniel Callahan—who has admitted to relying on Rockefeller Population Council and UN Population Fund money in the early days of the center's work—served as a director of the American Eugenics Society (rebranded as The Society for the Study of Social Biology) from 1987 to 1992.

As previous Corbett Report guest Anton Chaitkin has extensively documented, there is a line of historical continuity connecting the promotion of eugenics in America by the Rockefeller family in the early 20th century to the creation of the Hastings Center in the late 20th century. The Center, Chaitkin points out, was fostered by the Rockefeller-founded Population Council as a front for pushing the eugenics agenda—including abortion, euthanasia and the creation of death panels—under the guise of "bioethics."

CHAITKIN: Eugenics practices that we saw and discussions and preparations for eugenics, which were going on in the United States in the early 1920s and earlier going back to the late 19th century—those discussions were carried over—and the same discussions and preparations in England—were carried over into Nazi Germany. After the war—after World War II—people who had participated in these movements wanted to keep the eugenics idea alive and with the backing of particularly the Rockefeller Foundation—which had backed Nazi eugenics before World War II in Europe—they set up a population control movement that overlapped with the Eugenics Society and with eugenics ideas. And out of that combination of eugenics and population control was born the institutes and programs which are today at the heart of what's called "bioethics," where you decide—so, supposedly decide—ethical questions in a medical practice based on supposedly limited resources.

So it's a completely phony and morally disgusting field in general. It's ill-born at the root of it and it's a practice which has never confronted—in the medical community and in the academic community that has this as part of its, you know, its practice—they've never confronted the basis for the existence of this "bioethics."

SOURCE: Anton Chaitkin on the Eugenics / Euthanasia Agenda

The history of bioethics connects the Rockefeller funding behind the first wave of American eugenics, the Rockefeller funding behind the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes and the Nazi-era German eugenics program, and the Rockefeller funding behind the Population Council, the Hastings Center and other centres for post-war "crypto-eugenics" research. As a result, it is perhaps not surprising to find that many of the most well-known and most controversial bioethicists working today are associated with the Hastings Center.

Take Ezekiel Emanuel himself. In addition to being a senior fellow at the John Podesta-founded Center for American Progress—which was accused in a 2013 expose from The Nation of maintaining "a revolving door" with the Obama administration and running a pay-for-play operation for various industry lobbyists—Emanuel is also a Hastings Center fellow. In fact, Emanuel's career as a bioethicist was kickstarted by a November 1996 article in The Hastings Center Report, whichafter praising Daniel Callahan's attempts to inject a debate about the goals of medicine into the discussion of health care—highlighted a point on which both liberals and communitarians can agree: "services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed." For "an obvious example" of this principle in action, Emanuel then cites "not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

Just last year, The Hastings Center hosted an online discussion about "What Values Should Guide Us" when considering COVID-19 pandemic restrictions in the United States, during which Emanuel opined that big tech was not doing enough to share data about users' movements with governments and researchers:

EMANUEL: I have to say I've actually found Big Tech totally unhelpful so far in this. It's hard for me to see that they've done something really, really helpful in this regard when it comes to COVID-19. They have lots of capacity. Believe me: Facebook already knows who you interact with on a regular basis; how close you've gotten to them; when you leave your house; which stores you go into. Google does the same. And they have not used this data. Maybe they're afraid that people are going to be all upset, but they haven't even been willing to give it to someone else to use in an effective manner. And I think either they're going to become irrelevant in this process or they're going to have to step up and actually be contributory to solving this problem.

SOURCE: Re-Opening the Nation: What Values Should Guide Us?

Or take Hastings Center fellow and University of Wisconsin-Madison bioethics professor Norman Fost, who, in addition to questioning whether it is "important that organ donors be dead" in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, made the case for involuntary sterilization—the hallmark of the now universally denounced American eugenics program—at a 2013 panel discussion on "Challenging Cases in Clinical Ethics."

NORMAN FOST: On the sterilization thing, if his sexual behavior can be attenuated so that he's not a risk of impregnating anybody that would be the best thing. But I don't think we should rule out sterilization as being in his interest also, as well as potential victims of his sexual assault.

I think sterilization has a bad reputation in America because of the eugenic sterilization of a hundred thousand or more people with developmental disabilities, most of them inappropriate. But the overreaction to that . . . and Wisconsin leads the way at overreacting to that. We have a Supreme Court decision that says you can never sterilize a minor until the legislature gives us permission to do it and they never will and that's not in the interest of a lot of kids with developmental disabilities for whom procreation would be a disasterthat is pregnancy or inflicting a pregnancy.

So if it's the case that this fella is never going to be capable of being a parent . . . and I can't tell quite that from the limited history here and it may not be the casebut I just want to say that the country's overreaction to sterilization—like it's wrong, it's always terrible to involuntarily sterilized somebody—is not true and it ought to be at least on the table as something that might be in his interest.

SOURCE: A Conversation About Challenging Cases in Clinical Ethics

But these discussions are not limited to the ranks of the Hastings Center.

Take Joseph Fletcher. Dubbed a pioneer in the field of biomedical ethics by both his critics and his apologists, Fletcher was the first professor of medical ethics at the University of Virginia and co-founded the Program in Biology and Society there. In addition to his position as president of the Euthanasia Society of America and his work helping to establish the Planned Parenthood Federation, Fletcher was also a member of the American Eugenics Society. In a 1968 article in defense of killing babies with Down's syndrome "or other kind[s] of idiot[s]," Fletcher wrote:

“The sanctity (what makes it precious) is not in life itself, intrinsically; it is only extrinsic and bonum per accident, ex casu - according to the situation. Compared to some things, the taking of life is a small evil and compared to some things, the loss of life is a small evil. Death is not always an enemy; it can sometimes be a friend and servant.”

Or take Peter Singer. If there is any bioethicist in the world today whose name is known to the general public it is Peter Singer, famed for his animal liberation advocacy. Less well known to the public, however, are his arguments in favor of infanticide, including the notion that there is no relevant difference between abortion and the killing of “severely disabled infants,” positions which have driven his critics to call him "Son of Fletcher."

Although Singer is extremely careful to frame his argument for infanticide using the least controversial positions when speaking to the public. . . .

PETER SINGER: . . . So we said, "Look, the difficult decision is whether you want this infant to live or not." That should be a decision for the parents and doctors to make on the basis of the fullest possible information about what the condition is. But once you've made that decision it should be permissible to make sure that the baby dies swiftly and humanely, if that's your decision. If your decision is that it's better that the child should not live, it should be possible to ensure that the child dies swiftly and humanely.

And so that's what we proposed. Now, that's been picked up by a variety of opponents, both pro-life movement people and people in the militant disability movement—which incidentally didn't really exist at the time we first wrote about this issue. And they've taken us as, you know, the stalking horse—the bogeyman, if you like—because we're up front in saying that we think this is how we should treat these infants.

SOURCE: The Case for Allowing Euthanasia of Severely Handicapped Infants 

. . . his actual writings contain much bolder assertions that would be sure to shock the sensibilities of the average person if they were plainly stated. In Practical Ethics, for example, intended as a text for an introductory ethics course, Singer dispenses with arguments about severe handicaps and birth defects and talks more broadly about whether it is fundamentally immoral to kill a newborn baby, noting that "a newborn baby is not an autonomous being, capable of making choices, and so to kill a newborn baby cannot violate the principle of respect for autonomy."

After conceding that "It would, of course, be difficult to say at what age children begin to see themselves as distinct entities existing over time"—noting that "Even when we talk with two or three year old children it is usually very difficult to elicit any coherent conception of death"we could provide an "ample safety margin" for such concerns by deciding that "a full legal right to life comes into force not at birth, but only a short time after birth—perhaps a month."

Singer is by no means alone in his profession in discussing this subject. In fact, he's just part of a long line of bioethicists musing about exactly where to draw the line when discussing infanticide.

Take Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, two bioethicists working in Australia who published a paper titled "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" in The Journal of Medical Ethics in 2012. In that paper, they explicitly defend the practice of infanticide on moral grounds, claiming that "The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus," and thus "the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn." Lest they be mistaken for forwarding the same old argument on killing severely handicapped newborn babies that bioethicists have been making for decades, the two are careful to add that their proposal includes "cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk."

Unlike so many other academic papers on this subject, however, this one was picked up and widely circulated in the popular press, with even establishment media outlets like The Guardian insisting that "Infanticide is repellent. Feeling that way doesn't make you Glenn Beck."

Seemingly taken aback by the strong negative reaction to a scholarly article about the moral permissibility of killing babies, the authors of the article responded by accusing the general public of being too ignorant to understand the complex arguments made in the highly academic field of bioethics:

When we decided to write this article about after-birth abortion we had no idea that our paper would raise such a heated debate.

“Why not? You should have known!” people keep on repeating everywhere on the web. The answer is very simple: the article was supposed to be read by other fellow bioethicists who were already familiar with this topic and our arguments. Indeed, as Professor Savulescu explains in his editorial, this debate has been going on for 40 years.

Whatever else may be said about the researchers' response, this was not a dishonest defense of their work. Julian Savulescu, the editor of The Journal of Medical Ethics that published the article, did point out in his own defense of the publication that the scholarly debate about when it is permissible to kill babies goes back to at least the 1960s, when Francis Crick—the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and an avowed eugenicist who proposed that governments should prevent the poor and undesirable from breeding by requiring government-issued licenses for the privilege of having a baby—proposed that children should only be allowed to live if, after birth, they are found to have met certain genetic criteria.

Indeed, the pages of the medical ethics journals are filled with just such debates. From Dan Brock's article on "Voluntary Active Euthanasia," published in The Hastings Center Report in 1992,  to John Hardwig's 1997 article in the pages of The Hastings Center Report asking "Is There A Duty to Die?" to Hastings Center Deputy Director Nancy Berlinger's 2008 pronouncement that "Allowing parents to practice conscientious objection by opting out of vaccinating their children is troubling in several ways," these ethics professors toiling in a hitherto unknown and unremarked corner of academia are having a greater and greater effect in steering the policies that literally mean the difference between life and death for people around the world.

In his prescient 1988 article on "The Return of Eugenics," Richard J. Neuhaus observed:

Thousands of medical ethicists and bioethicists, as they are called, professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on its way to becoming the justifiable until it is finally established as the unexceptionable. Those who pause too long to ponder troubling questions along the way are likely to be told that “the profession has already passed that point.” In truth, the profession is usually huffing and puffing to catch up with what is already being done without its moral blessing.

Indeed, bioethicists are not, generally speaking, trained doctors, researchers or medical workers. As academics, they are forced to take the word of doctors and researchers at face value. But which doctors? Whose research? Inevitably, it will be that of the WHO, the AMA and other organizations whose workas even those within its ranks admitis not solely dictated by medical need, but by the arbitrary whims of the organizations' billionaire backers.

We are feeling the effects of this now, when these bioethics professors are held up as gurus who can not only provide medical advice, but actually lecture the public on which medical interventions they are morally obligated to undergo regardless of their own feelings about bodily autonomy.

*CLIP (0m35s-1m27s)

SOURCE: Emanuel: Wearing a mask should be as necessary as wearing a seatbelt

JULIAN SAVULESCU: It's important to recognize that mandatory vaccination would not be anything new. There are many mandatory policies, other coercive policies—taxes are a form of coercion. Seatbelts were originally voluntary and they were made mandatory because they both reduce the risk of death to the wearer by 50% and also to other occupants in the car. But importantly some people do die of seat belt injuries, but the benefits vastly outweigh the risks.

Some countries in the world already have mandatory vaccination policies. In Australia the "no jab, no pay" policy involves withholding child care benefits if the child isn't vaccinated. In Italy there are fines. And in the US children can't attend school unless they're vaccinated. All of these policies have increased vaccination rates and have been implementable.

SOURCE: "Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination: the arguments for and against": Julian Savulescu & Sam Vanderslott

KERRY BOWMAN: Some form of vaccination passport is almost inevitable. With travel it's virtually a given. And you look at countries like Israel is now introducing the green card. And all this is going on the assumption that people that have been vaccinated are not going to be able to spread the viruses easily, meaning they can't transmit it and it's kind of looking like my read on the science is it's looking like that is the case with most of the vaccines. So that would be the question.

Now some people say we absolutely can't do it, like, it's just not fair in a democratic society because there's people that refuse—don't want vaccines—and there's people that can't have vaccines. But here's the other side of the argument: Is it really fair to the Canadians that have been locked down for a year when they are vaccinated—they're no longer a risk to other people—is it really fair to continue to limit their freedom?

So you've kind of got those two sides of it colliding.

SOURCE: 'Vaccination passports' a near certainty says bio-ethicist | COVID-19 in Canada

From its inception, the field of bioethics has taken its moral cue from the card-carrying eugenicists who founded its core institutions. For these academicians of the eugenics philosophy, the key moral questions raised by modern medical advances are always utilitarian in nature: What is the value that forced vaccination or compulsory sterilization brings to a community? Will putting lithium in the water supply lead to a happier society? Does a family's relief at killing their newborn baby outweigh that baby's momentary discomfort as it is murdered?

Implicit in this line of thinking are all of the embedded assumptions about what defines "value" and "happiness" and "relief" and how these abstract ideas are measured and compared. The fundamental utilitarian assumption that the individual's worth can or should be measured against some arbitrarily defined collective good, meanwhile, is rarely (if ever) considered.

The average person, however—largely unaware that these types of questions are even being asked (let alone answered) by bioethics professors in obscure academic journals—may literally perish for their lack of knowledge about these discussions.

All things being equal, these types of ideas would likely be treated as they always have been: as a meaningless parlor game played by ivory tower academics with no power to enforce their crazy ideas. All things, however, are not equal.

Perhaps taking a page from the notebook of his brother, Rahm, about the utility of crisis in effecting societal change, Ezekiel Emanuel declared in 2011 that “we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest." He didn't add "pandemic" to that list of excuses, but he didn't have to. As the events of the past year have borne out, the public are more than willing to consider the previously unthinkable now that they have been told that there is a crisis taking place.

Forced vaccination. Immunity passports. The erection of a biosecurity state. For the first time, the eugenics-infused philosophers of bioethics are on the verge of gaining real power. And the public is still largely unaware of the discussions that these academics have been engaged in for decades.

At the very least, Bill Gates can relax now: We can finally have the discussion on death panels.


Filed in: Podcasts
Tagged with: bioethicscoronaviruseugenicshistoryphilosophyrockefeller

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Globalists Release Timeline for Health Tyranny

Globalists Release Timeline for Health Tyranny


by James Corbett
March 20, 2022

One thing you learn after spending years in the conspiracy realist space: when the globalists tell you that something is about to happen, you'd better believe they're hard at work behind the scenes to make that "prediction" a reality.

For example, when 9/11 suspect Philip Zelikow takes to the pages of Foreign Affairs to "warn" about the "eminent threat" of "Catastrophic Terrorism" that, "like Pearl Harbor," will "divide our past and future into a before and after," you'd better believe his neocon cronies are about to deliver a 9/11 to the public.

When Bill Gates "warns" us that "we're not ready" for what he calls "the next epidemic," you'd better believe that he's using his monopolization of global "health" to prime the pump for the COVID scamdemic.

When Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping release a joint statement vowing to "accelerate the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development" by cooperating on "key areas" like "vaccines and epidemics control, financing for development, climate change, sustainable development, including green development, industrialization, digital economy, and infrastructure connectivity," you'd better believe they are actively collaborating on the promotion of an AI-driven, Fourth Industrial Revolution globalist agenda with their WEF cronies.

And when the globalists release a detailed timeline telling you exactly what the next steps are in the rollout of the global biosecurity security state, you'd better believe they are hard at work erecting that enslavement grid as we speak.

Luckily for us, we do not need to be mind readers or fortune-tellers to know what the globalists are preparing for our dystopian future. We simply have to read their documents. And boy, have they released some real doozies in the past month: three documents that lay out a precise timeline and an overview of what they're hoping to achieve and how they're hoping to achieve it.

Today, let's examine these documents so that we can better understand what we're up against and form a more effective plan for derailing this agenda of control.

DOCUMENT #1: The European Council's Handy-dandy Infographic Timeline

Earlier this month, the European Council released a document laying out the EUreaucrats' own timetable for the implementation of global health tyranny. Entitled "Infographic - Towards an international treaty on pandemics," it cuts down on all those complicated linguistic thingies—what do you call them again? words?—and reduces the complexities of a legally binding global pandemic treaty down to the lowest common denominator: the "infographic."

With this Buzzfeed-worthy gimmick in hand, the European Council wastes no time in getting down to business, informing us that "On 3 March 2022, the Council adopted a decision to authorize the opening of negotiations for an international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response" before patting itself on the back for its role in proposing the idea of a global pandemic treaty in the first place:


So far, so unsurprising. This is the exact kind of mealy-mouthed "global approach" blah blah blah "common cause" yadda yadda "protecting health" pabulum that you would expect the global technocratic class to administer in a document like this.

Then, they lay out an incredibly abbreviated history of how we have arrived at the proposal for a global health tyranny:

You'll note that this curiously truncated "history" unhelpfully informs you that 2021 was "only the second time in WHO history that its governing body . . . met for a second time in the same year" without bothering to link you to the list of World Health Assembly meetings. If they had bothered to do so, as I do here, you could see for yourself that the first time this two-meetings-in-one-year event happened was back in 2006, when the WHO met in May to discuss "Strengthening pandemic-influenza preparedness and response" in the context of the newly revised International Health Regulations and then again in November of that year to appoint Margaret Chan as the organization's Executive Director.

It's not hard to understand why they leave out that part of the history, though. Not only would it be too much information to include in their childish infographic, it also might have prompted you to learn more about the creation of the "public health emergency of international concern" that lewas then invoked by Chan during the ginned-up swine flu "pandemic" of 2009 (and again during the ebola "pandemic" of 2014) to justify the consolidation of WHO powers in the dawning era of biosecurity. And, obviously, that kind of history is not what the European Council is aiming for here.

Back to the document:


Next, we see what is really at stake in this seemingly innocuous proposal for a global pandemic treaty. We learn that what is really being proposed is not that political blather about "banding together for a common cause" but creating a legally binding agreement to govern the global response to global public health "crises" (real or imaginary). Don't worry, though, this agreement—in addition to promoting the sharing of genetic data and samples among WHO member countries—is rooted in the constitution! . . . The WHO constitution, that is, not your silly, outdated national constitution. This agreement will override that.

At last, we arrive at the juicy part:


And so we discover the real roadmap for the creation of the biosecurity state as the European Council sees it. First there will be a meeting of an "intergovernmental negotiating body" to discuss progress on a draft for the globalist "health" takeover. "What body? Representing which governments? Convening under what authority? And represented by whom, exactly?" you might ask, if you were the sort to question the information that is forcibly shoved down your throat by the self-proclaimed authorities. But relax, dude! This is an infographic, not one of those complicated overly talky explainer doohickeys! Just turn off you mind, relax and float downstream with the European Council and whoever else is steering this ship!

Next we learn that this "negotiating body"—"Is this an official body? Who gets to decide who is appointed to this body? Is it part of the WHO itself?" . . . but there you go again with those pesky questions—will deliver a "progress report" to the WHO's annual-ish meeting next year. (Now don't go asking what this progress report will consist of, how it will be delivered, who will review it or what these unnamed officials will do with it! That's way more information than these poor infographic designers could possibly supply you with!)

And then, in May 2024, the "proposed instrument" will be presented for adoption at the WHO's World Health Assembly, and the biosecurity takeover will be complete. Think of it as Patriot Act 2.0, but global. And focused on medical martial law.

Finally, our friends at the European Council put our minds at ease about why a legally binding global agreement is needed after all:


You see, it's just about keeping you safe in the loving arms of the de facto global health tyranny so that they can implement long-term fascism at all levels! Nothing to see here, right?

So there you have it, folks: we have two years left before they close the barn door on health freedom at the global governmental level. At least, according to the European Council.

But why listen to the EU, you might ask? Good question. The simple answer is that they have a track record of correctly "predicting" the next moves in the erection of the medical martial law grid. Remember when the European Commission released the snappily named "Roadmap for the Implementation of Actions by the European Commission Based on the Commission Communication and the Council Recommendation on Strengthening Cooperation against Vaccine Preventable Diseases" back in 2019? No? Well, let me refresh your memory:


Ahhh, right. It just so happens that the EUreaucrats were forecasting the creation of a vaccination card/passport for EU citizens in 2022 just months before the scamdemic was launched. Coincidence, I'm sure.

DOCUMENT #2: A Roadmap for Living with COVID

But, to be sure, it isn't just the European Council talking about the coming biosecurity grid, and we don't have to rely on some contextless, sourceless, idiotic infographic to learn what the globalists are planning next.

We could turn, for example, to "Getting to and Sustaining the Next Normal: A Roadmap for Living with COVID."

This is a document from . . . who exactly? Well, according to the "About" page on the website, this 136-page report on our coming medical martial law nightmare was put together by some unnamed group of random individuals. Apparently, they all woke up one day filled with concern for Americans in the COVID era and decided out of the goodness of their hearts (and with the help of a bit of Rockefeller funding) to write a handy-dandy roadmap for getting us to what they call the "next normal." And which random good Samaritan took on the role of "shepherding" (their word) the 53 authors of this report? None other than Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Vice Provost for Global Initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania and former Biden Transition COVID-19 Advisory Board member.

Yes, that Ezekiel Emanuel.

The document is precisely as disturbing as you would expect, laying out step-by-step exactly how to hardwire the biosecurity state into place through the creation of centralized testing, surveillance, data sharing, monitoring and reporting standards. It also calls for the development of new technologies and processes for combating the inevitable next pandemic.

But if all that wasn't Huxleyan enough, the report also advocates the creation of "a comprehensive, scientifically-tested communication and behavioral intervention infrastructure to increase vaccination, testing and treatment" and . . . wait for it . . . the creation of a new post on the National Security Council: Deputy Assistant to the President for Biosecurity! (And you thought I was joking about biosecurity being the next paradigm, didn't you?)

DOCUMENT #3: National Covid-19 Preparedness Plan


Equally disturbing is the Biden White House's own "National Covid-⁠19 Preparedness Plan," unveiled earlier this month.

Purporting to be a plan for "getting America back to our normal routines while protecting people from COVID-19, preparing for new variants, and preventing economic and educational shutdowns," the document is broken down into four goals:

  • Protect against, and treat, COVID-19

  • Prepare for new variants

  • Prevent economic and educational shutdowns

  • Continue to lead the effort to vaccinate the world and save lives

Worryingly, many of the creepy aspects of the biosecurity state embedded in this particular plan are already being implemented. For example, on page 34 of the document the US surgeon general is directed to "issue a Request for Information (RFI) from researchers, healthcare workers, tech platforms, and community organizations on the impact of health misinformation during the pandemic."

As The New York Times reports, this request has now been issued:

President Biden’s surgeon general on Thursday formally requested that the major tech platforms submit information about the scale of Covid-19 misinformation on social networks, search engines, crowdsourced platforms, e-commerce platforms and instant messaging systems.

A request for information from the surgeon general’s office demanded that tech platforms send data and analysis on the prevalence of Covid-19 misinformation on their sites, starting with common examples of vaccine misinformation documented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The notice asks the companies to submit “exactly how many users saw or may have been exposed to instances of Covid-19 misinformation,” as well as aggregate data on demographics that may have been disproportionately exposed to or affected by the misinformation.

Meryl Nass summarizes the bone-chilling nature of this request nicely in a recent Substack post on the topic:

The feds are asking for detailed information about the demographics 'exposed to misinformation.'  You know that obtaining the names of who is reading what is their next step.

Furthermore, read the last paragraph in the NY Times article below, closely.  The feds want citizens to start 'sharing' information on misinformation.  Isn't that sweet?  This is how they dress up the Stasi in 21st century euphemism to encourage ratting out your friends and neighbors.

Given what we have just seen taking place in Canada around the doxing and financial de-personing of the Freedom Convoy supporters, can there be any doubt that the systems are now being erected so that thoughtcriminals will be penalized for sharing "misinformation" about the next scamdemic?


The COVID narrative has fallen apart in recent months and the mockingbird repeaters of the MSM have refocused the attention of their zombie-like viewers onto the spectacle in Ukraine, but the biosecurity agenda has not gone away. Indeed, as Kit Knightly warns in his latest insightful article at Off-Guardian, the "stealth omicron" scare story that is being floated in the media right now reminds us that the COVID narrative has not gone away; it is merely sleeping for now.

Regardless of what happens next in the continuing COVID saga, though, the erection of the biosecurity state continues apace. In fact, it is even helped along by the fact that so few are paying attention to this agenda now. Distracted by the pyrotechnics of warfare, the hoi polloi hardly notice that the European Commission is happily announcing their imminent victory in the war over the formerly free peoples of the world. By 2024, if all goes well, they will have their global pandemic treaty in place and absolute power to implement their will anywhere in the world at any time under the cover of any declared health emergency.

If you had sprung any of this (literally any of it) on the public two years ago, it would have been swiftly and roundly rejected. Today, it is simply accepted that this is happening. After all, it is the next logical step in the narrative of "pandemic and recovery" that the masses have been brainwashed with for the past two years.

The social engineers know what they are doing. They are wearing the population down, first generating hysteria over a perceived crisis and then slipping in the poison pill once the public's attention has turned elsewhere.

This suggests, once again, that our perception and attention are themselves important. They cannot implement their agenda without our acquiescence, so they spend unbelievable amounts of energy propagandizing the public, preventing information about their true agenda from circulating among the public, and working to distract the public. And, once again, this suggests that the work we are doing in pursuing this information and sharing it with others is an important part of stopping the would-be rulers from erecting their biosecurity state.

However, this also implies that if we cannot raise sufficient awareness of this agenda among the general public then we will surely lose this fight.

The choice is ours. We can either go back to sleep and follow the shiny baubles of the latest breaking news on the MSM news feeds or we can continue to focus on the creation of the biosecurity state, build coalitions with those who are resisting it, and move forward with the creation of a parallel economy for overcoming our reliance on the state's tools of coercion and control.

I know which of those two options I'll be choosing. I hope you'll be here with me.

This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: James Corbett’s 3/21/2022 article
Globalists Release Timeline for Health Tyranny

Under DOCUMENT #1…
INFOGRAPHIC: What are the potential benefits of an international agreement on…
Last two items…
~~~ ”Sharing of monitoring data, genetic data, samples, technology, and their associated benefits.”
~~~ ”A One Health approach that connects the health of humans, animals, and the planet.”

Under DOCUMENT #2…
Ezekiel Emanuel – When people follow Corbett’s “that” link, it takes them to Corbett’s 3/06/2021…
Episode 396 – Bioethics and the New Eugenics (with transcript) [Use your Ctrl + F keys to search “Ezekiel Emanuel”.]
That announcement meant very little to the general public, who likely only know Emanuel as a talking head on tv panel discussions or as the brother of former Obama chief of staff and ex-mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel. But for those who have followed Ezekiel Emanuel’s career as a bioethicist and his history of advocating controversial reforms of the American health care system, his appointment was an ominous sign of things to come.

He has argued that the Hippocratic Oath is obsolete and that it leads to doctors believing that they should do everything they can for their patients rather than letting them die to focus on higher priorities. He has argued that people should choose to die at age 75 to spare society the burden of looking after them in old age. As a health policy advisor to the Obama administration he helped craft the Affordable Care Act, which fellow Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber admitted was only passed thanks to the stupidity of the American public.
Much more on Ezekiel Emanuel and his Eugenics mindset in Episode 396.

The New York Times:
President Biden’s surgeon general on Thursday formally requested that the major tech platforms submit information about the scale of Covid-19 misinformation on social networks, search engines, crowdsourced platforms, e-commerce platforms and instant messaging systems…
… The notice asks the companies to submit “exactly how many users saw or may have been exposed to instances of Covid-19 misinformation,” as well as aggregate data on demographics that may have been disproportionately exposed to or affected by the misinformation.


As Corbett says: ”…can there be any doubt that the systems are now being erected so that thoughtcriminals will be penalized for sharing “misinformation” about the next scamdemic?”

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

USA alone broke 1 million covid deaths recently.

You and I both know that the Covid death count is highly aberrated by many deceptive layers, including intentional death by remdesirir/intubation while the kidneys wreck and sepsis sinks in...Go look up number of sepsis deaths in the U.S for previous years compared to 2020.  We know about the inaccurate PCR tests and how even the CDC admits in their official statements that many categorized Covid deaths were actually gunshot wounds or car wrecks or whatever.  Hospitals get paid by Covid patients.  Nebraska hospitals were getting $375,000 for every Covid patient.  There are so many aberrated aspects which deceptively hide true figures.  The ENTIRE intention of the government (and Big Pharma) is to promote a vaccine which does NOT stop Covid infection nor stop the spread of Covid.  Only people who believe and trust government and mainstream media are duped by all the crazy lies and deceptions.  Authoritarians are their gods.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jessica Rose, MSc, PhD




Dr. Jessica Rose is a Canadian researcher with a Bachelor’s degree in Applied Mathematics and a Master’s degree in Immunology from Memorial University of Newfoundland. She also holds a PhD in Computational Biology from Bar Ilan University and 2 post-doctoral degrees: one in Molecular Biology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and one in Biochemistry from the Technion Institute of Technology. She was also accepted for a 2-month program as a senior researcher at the Weizmann Institute prior to completion of her latest post doctoral degree at the Technion. 


During the first 39 minutes of “The Highwire with Del Bigtree” on Thursday March 24, 2022 “Episode 260: WINNERS, SINNERS, & THE DEATH OF A GENERATION”, Del leads into the interview with Jessica Rose, MSc, PhD while discussing the alarming number of vaccine injuries around the world.  VIDEO: or


On Jessica’s SUBSTACK, she has the following article with Images.  It is very telling…

What is killing the millenials?

Drugs? Suicide? Injections? Cancer?

What is killing the millenials?

Drugs? Suicide? Injections? Cancer?

Mar 16

Please note: you are advised to come back to this article as it will be constantly updated! And you are also most welcome to contribute! This Substack is far from complete.

As y’all are aware, I’ve been doing some looking around in VAERS at young people who have reported dying for a time now and I want to share some data and get some feedback.

On the subject of excess deaths of youths, enter Edward Dowd. He is an interesting fellow. He was a portfolio manager for the multinational investment firm BlackRock and a former analyst and Wall Street executive. We spoke at a meeting together not long ago. He has more recently spoken about the young deaths in a very specific way: in the context of the Vietnam War.

The Millennials, about ages 25 to 40, experienced an 84% increase in excess mortality in the fall, he said, describing it as the “worst-ever excess mortality, I think, in history.” It was the highest increase in excess deaths of any age group last year, seven times higher than the Silent Generation, those who are older than 85.

And the increase coincided with the vaccine mandates and the approval of the booster shots.

“Basically, Millennials experienced a Vietnam War in the second half of 2021,” Dowd said, noting 58,000 people died in the conflict.

He is not wrong. Actually, he is absolutely correct. What is happening on our doorsteps is shocking and everyone needs to pay stop genuflecting and start paying attention.


But wait! There’s more! If you head online to, prepare to have some fun. You can select ‘Filter’ and then pick the United States and a particular age group. If you select the age group from 25-44 years old you get the chart below. As you can see, this plot confirms what Edward said: there is, in fact, an 80% increase in excess mortality in this young age group in late summer/early fall 2021.


This also confirms the insurance data.

What on earth could have caused this incredible increase? Was it COVID with its Infection Fatality Rate for this age demographic of virtually 0 (“The IFR was zero among people aged 18 to 39 years”)1? Probably not. The timing is off with regard to Delta. Was it opioids? Maybe, but according to CDC, the deaths due to opioids is not sufficient to account for such an excess.2 Was it suicides? Maybe, but according to CDC, the deaths due to suicides is not sufficient to account for such an excess either.3

Was it the injections? Unknown. Can we find out using VAERS data? Maybe. We can look for hints.

Fast and dirty. My ongoing Substack diary. I love it. (I admit I have left out the analysis part of this particular article but I really just wanted to put this out there for now.)

Here’s some VAERS data. I plotted the data in VAERS reported for 25-44 year olds and extracted their death data. Of all of the Domestic deaths reported in VAERS, this age group represents 9.3% of the deaths (Total deaths: N = 12,136; Deaths individuals aged 25-44: N = 1,132). For the combined Domestic and Foreign data sets, the total number of deaths is double that of Domestic alone (Total deaths: N = 25,301; Deaths individuals aged 25-44: N = 1,828) where the 25-44 age group represents 7.2% of the deaths. The following plot includes the data for the combined data sets.


The distribution of death shows that there about twice as many reports for the ages on the elder end of the 25-44 spectrum, which is not surprising. Nothing else too shocking here. Besides dead young people reported to VAERS in the context of the magical COVID-19 injections.

I wanted to know how many deaths were reported per month so that I could compare the distribution to the overt excess in mortality reported by the CDC in late summer 2021. Below is a plot of all deaths in the combined data sets per month in 2021. (1 = January → 12 = December).


There is a peak in death reports (this is according to RECVDATE - date the entry was received to the front-end data set) in April and in August. This accounts for all deaths reported to VAERS regardless of time from injection date. Interestingly, if we only plot the death reports for this age group that were received at least 30 days following injection, we see a shift to a single ‘peak’ in late summer than appears to maintain itself.


This is interesting because it coincides with the same time that we see the excess mortality in the CDC data. This becomes clearer when we the data is superimposed. There is a peak in deaths in this age group at the same time as the peak in deaths overall for this age group as per the CDC excess mortality data.


The question remains, what is killing the millenials? The timing fits for the delayed entries and there’s also a peak in August/September for entries arising within 30 days of the injections. I am not sure if this is significant yet. Still thinking on it.

I believe that drug-related deaths and suicides are accounting for some of the deaths in this age group based on the upward trend from previous years.

Determining the percentages of deaths attributed to all of the different causes for this particular age group is tricky. It might be me and my desire for organization and order in data, but I find these 2 things are lacking in the source data.


From what I can see so far, the suicides and overdoses, even though they have been on the rise for the past 2 years, comprise only a small percentage of the deaths in this age group.4

Surprisingly, malignant neoplasms outrank all other ‘select’ death causes across all age groups and have done so for many years. I am also surprised not to see the overdoses and suicides listed in the select cause of death list as plotted below even though, percentage-wise, neither comprise even 1% of the total death count for this age group.


To be continued…

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Images from above...











Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

January 14, 2022
France: Court rules COVID Vaccine-related Death a Suicide
Businessman’s Multi-Million Dollar Life Insurance Not Paid

[“Experimental Vaccine” – Voluntary – Declared side-effects]

In France, the court equated vaccination with suicide, taking the side of an insurance company that refused to pay money to the family of an insured millionaire who died from vaccination.

The case caused a huge resonance in society. An elderly businessman who died from vaccination, which was officially confirmed, insured his life for several million. However, after his death, the relatives were left with nothing, writes Unser Mitteleuropa.

In France, the case of a wealthy elderly Parisian businessman who insured his life for many millions and died from COVID-vaccination caused a great resonance. The insurance company refused to pay money to the relatives of the deceased, and the court found the company to be right. At the same time, the insurance company argued its refusal precisely by the fact that death occurred as a result of the vaccination: taking experimental drugs and treatments (including vaccination against coronavirus) is excluded from the policy. The judge’s verdict is as follows:

“The side effects of an experimental vaccine are being made public, and the deceased could not have professed ignorance when voluntarily taking the vaccine. There is no law or regulation in France requiring him to be vaccinated. Therefore, his death is, in fact, a suicide.
The Court recognizes the qualification of an insurer who legally regards participation in the third phase experiment, the lack of evidence of which has not been proven, as the voluntary assumption of a fatal risk not covered by the contract, taking into account the declared side effects, including death is covered and legally recognized as suicide. “

The family filed an appeal. However, the insurer’s defense is recognized as reasonable and contractually justified, since this well-known risk of death is legally considered suicide, the client was notified and agreed to voluntarily risk his life without being forced to do so.

The insurance company noted that suicide, like death from an experimental drug, is not an insured event. The lawyer for the family of Carlo Alberto Brusa published the case materials on social networks and expressed his outrage at such a decision. It appears that insurers will now stop paying out life insurance policies on a large scale, as the death risk from vaccination effectively blocks their contract, rendering it void.

After the publication of similar cases in France, something similar was heard from the United States.
Paul Graham, Senior Vice President for Policy Development at the American Life Insurers Council, says:

“Life insurance companies may refuse to pay out for vaccinated people because Covid vaccines are “medical experiments”. When deciding on the payment of damages, it is taken into account whether the insured has received a COVID vaccine. Life insurance contracts are very clear on how policies work and what reasons, if any, can lead to a denial of payment.
The COVID-19 vaccine is not one of them. An assessment of an applicant’s insurance capacity is not affected by an individual’s immunization status.”

The publication notes that, upon request, domestic insurance companies promise not to make benefits dependent on the appropriate vaccination status, both for those who have been vaccinated and for those who have not been vaccinated. But everyone knows that vaccination campaigners are calling for the unvaccinated to be penalized in terms of costs if they stay in the hospital. The information from France in the article refers to the referenced sources and to information provided by Nicole Delepin, former Head of Pediatric Oncology Medicine at Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, on the Riposte Laïque website.

Steve Kirsch – If you die from the vaccine, your life insurance company may not pay out

VIDEO 2 minutes – Via America’s Frontline Doctors
Dr. Peterson Pierre “Vaccine” Death Insurance Payout Denied

American Life Insurers Council

Brian Peckford

En France, décès après la vaccination d’un grand-père très fortuné, ancien chef d’entreprise parisien de Versailles, avec assurance vie de plusieurs millions d’euro pour le bénéfice de ses enfants et petits-enfants, l’assurance ne rembourse pas et ne paye pas la prime de plusieurs millions d’euro….

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

More people died who took the drug than those who didn’t take the drug. The Pfizer 6 month study showed that more people died who got the drug than who got the placebo (they conveniently forgot to mention this in the abstract or conclusion). Isn’t it supposed to be the other way around? Where is the RCT showing an all-cause death benefit? See this article for updated numbers in the pre-unblinding phase showing 21 dead who took the drug vs. 17 dead who took the placebo. And how was Pfizer certain that none of the people who got the drug was killed by the vaccine? What tests were done during the autopsies that exonerated the drug? These tests were never revealed and they are still being kept hidden for some odd reason. Since the vaccine wasn’t the cause, why not make the autopsy reports and tests done public that prove this?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:

More people died who took the drug than those who didn’t take the drug. The Pfizer 6 month study showed that more people died who got the drug than who got the placebo (they conveniently forgot to mention this in the abstract or conclusion).


Actually read the Pifzer study and appendices. You are wrong.


But thanks for posting the link which supports the vaccine:

"In this update to the preliminary safety and efficacy report of two 30-μg doses, at 21 days apart, of BNT162b2, 91.1% vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was observed from 7 days to 6 months after the second dose in participants 12 years of age or older. Vaccine efficacy against severe disease with an onset after receipt of the first dose was approximately 97%. This finding, combined with the totality of available evidence, including real-world effectiveness data,15-18 alleviates theoretical concerns over potential enhancement of vaccine-mediated disease.19


Edited by TailingsPond
  • Downvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


4 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Actually read the Pifzer study and appendices. You are wrong.

Did you just look at page 16 and 17? There is nothing about death from related real and placebo shots. Tho I coulda misread the charts..but no think so.

Edited by Old-Ruffneck

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


3 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Did you just look at page 16 and 17? There is nothing about death from related real and placebo shots. Tho I coulda misread the charts..but no think so.

I read the whole thing.

The misinformation that Tom is pushing is on page 11.

15 of 21,296 died (of any cause) in the vaccine arm versus 14 of 21,291 in the placebo arm.  That is not statistically significant by a long shot.

What is meaningful is that zero people died of covid in the vaccine arm and two people died of covid in the placebo arm.  There is nothing about deaths from injection adverse events (vax or placebo) because none happened.

People still die of other causes....


Edited by TailingsPond

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


23 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Actually read the Pifzer study and appendices. You are wrong.


But thanks for posting the link which supports the vaccine:

"In this update to the preliminary safety and efficacy report of two 30-μg doses, at 21 days apart, of BNT162b2, 91.1% vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was observed from 7 days to 6 months after the second dose in participants 12 years of age or older. Vaccine efficacy against severe disease with an onset after receipt of the first dose was approximately 97%. This finding, combined with the totality of available evidence, including real-world effectiveness data,15-18 alleviates theoretical concerns over potential enhancement of vaccine-mediated disease.19


More people died in the key clinical trial for Pfizer's Covid vaccine than the company publicly reported

Pfizer told the world 15 people who received the vaccine in its trial had died as of mid-March. Turns out the real number then was 21, compared to only 17 deaths in people who hadn't been vaccinated.

On July 28, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech posted a six-month data update from their key Covid vaccine clinical trial, the one that led regulators worldwide to okay the shot.

At a time when questions about vaccine effectiveness were rising, the report received worldwide attention. Pfizer said the vaccine’s efficacy remained relatively strong, at 84 percent after six months.

It also reported 15 of the roughly 22,000 people who received the vaccine in the trial had died, compared to 14 of the 22,000 people who received placebo (a saline shot that didn’t contain the vaccine).

These were not just Covid deaths. In fact, they were mostly not from Covid. Only three of the people in the trial died of Covid-related illnesses - one who received the vaccine, and two who who received the saline shot. The other deaths were from other illnesses and diseases, mostly cardiovascular.

Researchers call this datapoint “all-cause mortality.” Pfizer barely mentioned it, stuffing the details of the deaths in an appendix to the report.

But all-cause mortality is arguably the MOST important measure for any drug or vaccine - especially one meant to be given prophylactically to large numbers of healthy people, as vaccines are.


(SOURCE: Appendix to “Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine,” available at

Although the researchers released their update in July, the data was already more than four months old. They had stopped collecting information about deaths as of March 13, the “data cut-off.”

But even at the time, their figures were somewhat troubling.

In their initial safety report to the FDA, which contained data through November 2020, the researchers had said four placebo recipients and two vaccine recipients died, one after the first dose and one after the second. The July update reversed that trend. Between November 2020 and March 2021, 13 vaccine recipients died, compared to only 10 placebo subjects.

Further, nine vaccine recipients had died from cardiovascular events such as heart attacks or strokes, compared to six placebo recipients who died of those causes. The imbalance was small but notable, considering that regulators worldwide had found that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines were linked to heart inflammation in young men.

(I reported accurately on this study on Twitter on July 29, and the next day Twitter suspended me for a week for doing so, the fourth of my five defamatory “strikes” for Covid “misinformation.”)

At best, the results suggested that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine - now pushed on nearly a billion people worldwide at a cost of tens of billions of dollars and ruinous and worsening civil liberties restrictions - did nothing to reduce overall deaths.

Worse, Pfizer and BioNTech had vaccinated almost all the placebo recipients in the trial shortly after the Food and Drug Administration okayed the vaccine for emergency use on Dec. 11, 2020.

As a result, they had destroyed our best chance to compare the long-term health of a large number of vaccine recipients with a scientifically balanced group of people who had not received the drug. The July 28 report appeared to be the last clean safety data update we would ever have.

But now the FDA has given us one more.

On November 8, the agency released its “Summary Basis for Regulatory Action,” a 30-page note explaining why on August 23 it granted full approval to Pfizer’s vaccine, replacing the emergency authorization from December 2020.



And buried on page 23 of the report is this stunning sentence:

From Dose 1 through the March 13, 2021 data cutoff date, there were a total of 38 deaths, 21 in the COMIRNATY [vaccine] group and 17 in the placebo group.

Pfizer said publicly in July it had found 15 deaths among vaccine recipients by mid-March. But it told the FDA there were 21 - at the same data cutoff end date, March 13.


Not 15.

The placebo figure in the trial was also wrong. Pfizer had 17 deaths among placebo recipients, not 14. Nine extra deaths overall, six among vaccine recipients.

Could the discrepancy result from some odd data lag? Maybe, but the FDA briefing book also contains the number of Covid cases that Pfizer found in vaccine recipients in the trial. Those figures are EXACTLY the same as those Pfizer posted publicly in July.

Yet the death counts were different.

Pfizer somehow miscounted - or publicly misreported, or both - the number of deaths in one of the most important clinical trials in the history of medicine.

And the FDA’s figures paint a notably more worrisome picture of the vaccine than the public July numbers. Though the absolute numbers are small, overall deaths were 24 percent higher among vaccine recipients.

The update also shows that 19 vaccine recipients died between November and March, compared to 13 placebo recipients - a difference of almost 50 percent.

Were the extra deaths cardiac-related? It is impossible to know. The FDA did not report any additional details of the deaths, saying only that none “were considered related to vaccination.”

But with tens of thousands of post-vaccine deaths now reported in the United States and Europe - and overall non-Covid death rates now running well above normal in many countries - a fresh look at that vague reassurance cannot happen soon enough.

(NOTE: I initially accidentally swapped the vaccine and placebo Covid deaths - two people who received placebo died of Covid in the trial, and one who received the vaccine. This error does not affect the overall figures.)

Edited by Tom Nolan

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


There are currently 14,752 deaths recorded in VAERS for people over the age of 50 following a COVID-19 vaccine, covering a period of 15 months. That’s an average of 983 deaths a month for this age group.

Here are the results for this age group for the previous 30 years following ALL vaccines in VAERS. (Source.) There were 1,590 deaths recorded following ALL vaccines for the previous 30 years for people older than 50. So if we divide that number by 360 months we get a monthly average of 4.4 deaths.

So we have seen a increase in deaths 22,000% for people over the age of 50 following COVID-19 vaccines, and the FDA just authorized another booster for those who are left in this age group.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 68,000% increase in strokes
  • 44,000% increase in heart disease
  • 6,800% increase in deaths
  • 5,700% increase in permanent disabilities
  • 5,000% increase in life threatening injuries
  • 4,400% increase in hospitalizations




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.