Rounding the Earth
Science & Tech • Education • Investing & Finance
Canada's Political Chaos
Brook Jackson v. Pfizer, NBC News Crimea Reporting, Christine Anderson
March 05, 2023
post photo preview

Here are the show notes for Canada's Political Chaos - Rounding the News, livestreamed on March 3, 2023. Watch the episode on the following platforms:

You can also listen to the audio podcast here:


Oral arguments on Pfizer’s motion to dismiss whistleblower lawsuit

Image source: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division via Brook Jackson

On Wednesday, lawyers for Pfizer and two research contractors appeared in court to argue in favour of dismissing the landmark lawsuit brought against them alleging substantial misconduct during clinical trials for their COVID-19 genetic vaccine, BNT162b2.

The plaintiff in the case, Brook Jackson, filed the complaint after witnessing a series of critical flaws in how the Phase III clinical trial was being run at Ventavia Research Group, where she had been hired to oversee the conduct and activities of research staff. According to Jackson’s testimony at A Citizens’ Hearing in June 2022, Ventavia had enrolled more trial participants than their facilities could safely accommodate. “Pfizer was applying pressure on Ventavia to enrol more patients than they were capable of safely overseeing, despite being understaffed and lacking the infrastructure to conduct this type of study.”

Other issues included the inadvertent unblinding of participants, failure to maintain the integrity of trial data, and miscategorizing of adverse events observed during the trial. The explosive allegations were brought to the public in November 2021 through an investigative report published in the British Medical Journal by Paul Thacker.

Jackson filed a claim under the federal False Claims Act, a provision of law allowing citizens to seek legal action on behalf of the citizens of the United States. Otherwise known as a qui tam case, her claim accuses Pfizer, Ventavia and another contractor, ICON, of defrauding the U.S. government and the American people, given that the data from the Phase III clinical trial was subsequently used as the basis for awarding an Emergency Use Authorization for BNT162b2 in December 2020.

According to lead attorney Robert Barnes, oral arguments lasted more than three hours and did not immediately result in a ruling.

For those new to the case, Brook’s story can be explored further by watching her testimony at A Citizens’ Hearing. Mathew and I also had the pleasure of welcoming Brook and Warner Mendenhall, another attorney on the case, to one of our first round table discussions back in August 2022.

Finally, all of the court documents related to the case can be found on Brook’s website. We’ll be continuing to follow Brook and the case as it progresses!


NBC Journalist Placed on Ukrainian “Hit List” for Crimea Story

NBC News journalist Keir Simmons is facing alarming blowback after reporting that Crimean citizens consider themselves Russian rather than Ukrainian.

In his February 28 Nightly News report titled “A rare look inside Crimea, the territory illegally annexed by Russia in 2014”, Simmons interviews several residents on the ground who assert that Ukraine has no chance of reclaiming the region of Crimea.

Each person interviewed expresses that they are Russian, and support the military led by Russian President Vladimir Putin in their defense. On the other hand, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has insisted Crimea will be retaken — so long as the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance Organization (NATO) provide Ukraine with “more powerful weapons.”

“Crimea is our land, our territory,” he said in January. "Give us your weapons — we will return what is ours." And if Ukraine does try to take the peninsula back by force as its leaders have promised, many of the 2.4 million people living here will be caught in the middle. 

Formerly controlled by the modern nation of Ukraine, Crimea rejoined Russia in 2014 in a move characterized by the coalition of Western Nations as an illegal annexation. A referendum was held March 17, 2014 in which an overwhelming majority of respondents voted to rejoin Russia, though the process and results remain contested by Ukraine and its Western allies.

Image source: Myrotvorets via @KanekoaTheGreat on Twitter

Following the NBC News report, Simmons was added to the highly controversial website Myrotvorets, described by the Kyiv Post as maintaining a list of “enemies of Ukraine”. As the Post explains, “[t]he website is widely recognized as tied to the law enforcement or security agencies, although none have ever admitted a connection.”

As pointed out by Max Blumenthal, editor of The Gray Zone, inclusion on this list has previously been tied to the targeted killings of Ukrainian journalist Oles Buzina and politician Oleg Kalashnikov, among others.

Others dismiss the characterization of Myrotvorets as a “kill list” to be “disinformation,” such as this writeup from DisinfoWatch, a "leading Canadian foreign disinformation monitoring and debunking platform":

By identifying the Myrotvorets list as a “kill list”, Russian state media seeks to undermine the organization’s credibility in the Western world. This characterization is intended to shock and infuriate western human rights groups and governments, into falsely believing that the Ukrainian government is encouraging violence against listed individuals and groups. It is not.

Blumenthal inquired rhetorically on Twitter as to whether NBC News would highlight Simmons’ addition to the Myrotvorets website, or whether “press freedom” groups would denounce the action.

One woman in the NBC News feature offered some wisdom that I wish to emphasize: “We all pray to the same God. Why can’t we share bread?”


What Would Christine Anderson Do?

Image source: WWCAD Tour website

This was the question at the heart of a recent tour across Canada that led to a dramatic division among the nation’s Conservatives and their apolitical allies.

Context: Canada Experiments with Totalitarianism

Christine Anderson is a Member of European Parliament (MEP) from Germany, representing the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party, which translates to Alternative for Germany. She made international headlines back in March 2022 when she scolded Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to his face for his unprecedented human rights violations during the COVID-19 crisis and his invocation of the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy 2022 protest in Ottawa.

Anderson was joined by several other MEPs who confronted Trudeau and refused to give him an audience during his visit.

This understandably resonated with many Canadians, myself included, who found themselves singled out and oppressed on the basis of a personal, private medical decision. Trudeau employed rhetoric historically associated with totalitarian regimes, describing thousands of protesters representing millions of Canadians as “a fringe minority” with “unacceptable views.”

While seeking re-election in late 2021, he accused those who decided against receiving a COVID-19 genetic vaccine of being racist, misogynistic, anti-science extremists, openly inquiring as to whether the rest of Canada should "tolerate" these people.

It is vital to consider how alarmingly overt our Prime Minister was in his attempts at “othering” — historically seen as a dangerous step in the process of dehumanizing citizens of a totalitarian state. The Canadian Museum for Human Rights offers the following:

The process of othering can be divided into two steps:

  1. Categorizing a group of people according to perceived differences, such as ethnicity, skin colour, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

  2. Identifying that group as inferior and using an “us vs. them” mentality to alienate the group. 

Othering involves zeroing in on a difference and using that difference to dismantle a sense of similarity or connectedness between people. Othering sets the stage for discrimination or persecution by reducing empathy and preventing genuine dialogue. Taken to an extreme, othering can result in one group of people denying that another group is even human.

Contemporary discussion is correctly centred around the Holocaust, during which people were systematically eliminated based on all of the above-described attributes: ethnicity, skin colour, religion, gender and sexual orientation. Unfortunately, there are many who are deeply disinterested in considering the possibility that what is observable today can be in any way compared to the years leading up to the Holocaust, angrily dismissing such comparisons as disrespectful and insensitive.

I lost one of my oldest friends, Nathalie, when I spoke out in the summer of 2021 against a policy announced by the National Football League which encouraged teams to have “unvaccinated” football players wear yellow wristbands for easy identification. To me, this was as clear a parallel as we could ever get, and served no scientific or medical purpose whatsoever — other than to enforce the “othering” of a group artificially manufactured based on whether or not they had accepted a specific pharmaceutical intervention. I have no idea how anybody could have ever defended this, or failed to speak out against it.

The very next month, The Toronto Star ran a cover story that openly called for "the wilfully unvaccinated" to be allowed to die without any empathy or care from the "vaccinated":

Yes, that really happened. These are just a couple of examples of what we’ve been dealing with in Canada. 2021 was a dark year.

It will take me a lifetime to process.

Christine Comes to Canada

With that context in mind, it seemed very reasonable to invite an ally from across the pond to come to Canada and meet with likeminded people. A tour was scheduled for February 18th through the 25th of 2023, taking Christine Anderson to various cities across the Provinces of Alberta, Ontario and Québec.

I am personal friends with at least one of the organizers of the tour, who I will not name for the sake of their privacy. I’ve heard about the tour since its early planning stages, and was excited to possibly join at the Calgary stop (which didn’t wind up being in the cards.)

Friday Morning Crisis

On Friday morning last week, I got a call from my friend who told me there was a rapidly unfolding public relations incident arising from a picture taken at a dinner during one of Anderson’s tour stops.

Oshawa MP Colin Carrie responds to backlash from photo op withcontroversial German MP | Durham Radio News

The picture itself is completely innocuous, capturing a friendly gathering at a restaurant. In the picture are one or two people that may be familiar to long-time Rounding the Earth podcast listeners, but most notable is the trio of people surrounding Christine Anderson: Colin CarrieLeslyn Lewis and Dean Allison, all Members of Parliament representing the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), self-described as “the advocacy agent of Jewish Federations across Canada,” published a message on Twitter expressing their deep "concern" that these MPs had met with Anderson, who they described as being "a member of the far-right German AFD Party known for Islamophobic and anti-immigrant views."

This was followed up by a number of scathing opinion pieces, doubling and tripling down on assertions that Anderson and her party evoked a form of modern Naziism. One of the first — if not the first — was the Toronto Sun, publishing a piece written by columnist Warren Kinsella with the headline “Conservative MPs wrong to meet with German extremist.”

Then, Pierre Poilievre, the recently-elected leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and the Official Opposition, issued his own statement condemning Anderson as being "vile" with "racist, hateful views."

Carrie, Allison and Lewis, coming under intense fire from both outside and inside their party, quickly released a statement claiming they were not aware of Anderson’s political views and had failed to conduct their usual due diligence in arranging a meeting with a foreign government representative.


At first, I was taken aback by this response. All three of these MPs have been champions of Canadians harmed by the federal government’s COVID-19 response, and have frequently gone out on a limb to ask hard questions others avoided confronting.

Colin Carrie, for example, brought to the House of Commons a question from constituents about the role of the World Economic Forum in Canadian politics following an unprecedented amount of scrutiny on the group, particularly Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland’s high-level position on the group’s Board of Trustees, and a resurfaced video of WEF founder Klaus Schwab boasting about having “penetrated the Cabinets” of Prime Minister Trudeau and other world leaders.

Instead of allowing Carrie's question to be completed, his mic was cut off and he was shouted down for spreading “conspiracy theories.”
Carrie and Dean Allison both participated in A Citizens’ Hearing in June 2022, organized by the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. They were two out of only four politicians to show up to what was intended to be a “cross-partisan round table discussion,” with two representatives from each provincial and federal party having been invited.

Leslyn Lewis ran against Pierre Poilievre for leadership of the CPC, using the opportunity to shine a spotlight on the highly-concerning "pandemic treaty" currently being finalized, which would offer the World Health Organization far-reaching powers to supersede national sovereignty anytime the agency felt it appropriate for "global health" purposes.

With the benefit of a week of thought and a couple of conversations with people directly involved in the affair, I now admit that I personally overreacted to the situation and didn’t help anybody resolve things. I believe these three MPs mishandled the situation - not by making the “mistake” of meeting Anderson for dinner, but by giving benefit of the doubt to the organizers of the dinner, resulting in them walking into a deeply inappropriate political situation for which they were not prepared. Combine that with their upsetting public statement and Poilievre’s tone deaf and hateful condemnation of Anderson and her allies, and you have an utter trainwreck for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Even worse than that, though, is the disaster this causes for those who strategically allied with Poilievre and the CPC out of a temporary alignment of interests — an alliance which seems utterly fruitless and unwelcome now.

What the Heck Happened?

Given the chaos of the situation, it felt reasonable to consider that some of the people and organizations involved in the dinner and the tour as a whole that may help frame what went wrong.

In fact, this wasn’t my first thought, but it became hard to ignore once my friend name-dropped a specific person that has come up time and time again in their role as an alleged “chaos agent.” I have chosen not to name names, but I encourage everyone to peruse through Mathew Crawford’s Chaos Agents series of articles, as well as the Themis Report written by our friend Kristin Elizabeth.

How crazy is it that this one person keeps coming up in so many different large-scale events that wind up turning into chaos?

Let’s take a look at the players involved in this nonsense.

Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

As mentioned above, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) was among the first to shine a spotlight on the meeting between Anderson and the three Conservative MPs, and to invoke racism and “anti-Islam” in framing who Anderson and her party are.

CIJA is a Zionist and Jewish lobbying organization operating as an agency of the Jewish Federations of Canada. It works “in support of activities to strengthen Jewish communities in Canada,” as well as “supporting charitable activities, in accord with its objects, in Israel and in Jewish communities overseas.”

It stands to reason that CIJA would be concerned if they legitimately believe Anderson and her party represent a version of Neo-Nazism, or anything that even begins to resemble it. Of course, this is made more complicated by the example of Vera Sharav, a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust, who delivered an address to attendees at at least one stop on Anderson’s tour calling on Canadians to remain vigilant about the familiar path towards totalitarianism.

Contrary to Judaism, which is jointly cultural and religious, Zionism is a nationalist political ideology devoted to the establishment and protection of the nation of Israel for ethnic Jewish people. It is vital to understand the difference between these two concepts, as they are absolutely not one and the same. As noted in a 2016 report by the BBC, conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is “wrong” and risks blurring the lines between hatred towards Jewish people and criticizing the actions of the Israeli state.

As a political lobby, CIJA is partnered with a number of other Canadian and international organizations aligned with their interests. This includes an initiative hosted by CIJA itself called the Canadian Coalition to Combat Online Hate, founded in the spring of 2020 with funding from none other than the Government of Canada.

CCTCOH’s website was developed in partnership with MediaSmarts and Project Someone. MediaSmarts describes itself as “Canada’s Centre for Digital and Media Literacy” and is funded by tech giants BellGoogleMetaTelus and TikTok. Project Someone is a program of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Another of CIJA’s affiliates is the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (CJPAC), which specifically describes itself and its work with CIJA as being “in the political arena.” 

CJPAC is funded by hugely influential corporations including the Postmedia Network — the parent company of the Toronto Sun, which had swiftly followed up on CIJA’s initial statement with a scalding opinion piece blasting the Conservative MPs for meeting with Anderson.

Image source: The Toronto Sun

Other sponsors include the Bank of Montreal (BMO)Air CanadaTD Bank GroupGoodmans LLP, the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC)Meta, the National Bank of CanadaCIBCPOINT BioPharmaCiti Private Bank and Rogers.


Once again, this story has shown itself to be even more interesting than immediately meets the eye. With just a cursory look at the first group to instigate this political attack, we find ourselves with an advocacy campaign funded by the Government of Canada; the same government lambasted by Christine Anderson and under scrutiny from Colin Carrie, Dean Allison and Leslyn Lewis. One step deeper and we find that this same network also influences (or is influenced by) one of Canada’s largest media giants.

I have further questions about some of the people and groups that actually organized the tour, and led the Conservative MPs into this politically unwise situation. The investigation will continue on the Campfire Wiki, where I have documented the majority of relationships and funding discussed in today’s episode. Explore all of this and more at

In the meantime, I ask you: what is the result of this mess? As Robert Barnes always says, qui bono? Who walked away from this in a better position than before? Well, some might point out that while this chaos was unfolding, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau successfully diverted attention away from the revelation that his re-election was helped in no small part by interference from the Chinese Communist Party.

Like I said, others will say that.

I’m far too polite.



Sturgess, L. (2023). A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response. Canadian Covid Care Alliance, 198-203.

Thacker, P. D. (2021). Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial. BMJ375, n2635.

Hinton, D. M. (2020, December 11). Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine EUA Letter of Authorization. Food and Drug Administration.

Barnes, R. (2023, March 1). No Ruling Yet in Brook Jackson Case. VivaBarnesLaw.

Lederman, J., & Sanchez, R. (2023, February 21). After dueling speeches, the war’s focus will return to the battlefield for a decisive year. NBC News.

Simmons, K., Lebedeva, N., & Chistikova, T. (2023, February 28). A view from Crimea, the Russian-annexed territory Ukraine wants back. NBC News.

Associated Press. (2014, March 17). Crimea Referendum: Final Results Show 97 Percent Of Voters In Crimea Support Joining Russia. Huffington Post.

Kupfer, M. (2020, February 17). Shadowy organization adds former Western top officials to “enemies of Ukraine” list. Kyiv Post.

Reuters. (2015, April 16). Prominent pro-Russian Ukrainian journalist killed in Kiev. France 24.

Russian “Kill List” Narrative. (2022, November 10). DisinfoWatch.

About. DisinfoWatch. Retrieved January 6, 2023, from

Christine ANDERSON. European Parliament. Retrieved November 9, 2022, from

Chau, E. (2022, March 24). “DICTATORSHIP OF THE WORST KIND”: European MPs blast Trudeau for COVID “rights violation.” Toronto Sun.

Gilmore, R. (2023, January 26). “Fringe minority” in truck convoy with “unacceptable views” don’t represent Canadians: Trudeau. Global News.

Naylor, D. (2021, December 29). Trudeau calls the unvaccinated racist and misogynistic extremists. Western Standard.

Curle, C. (2020, January 24). Us vs. Them: The process of othering. Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

Beer, T. (2021, July 29). NFL Players’ Rep: League Is Trying To Shame Unvaccinated Players With “Scarlet Marking” Wristbands. Forbes.

Haring, B. (2021, August 29). Toronto Star Backs Down From Article Headlines That Slammed The Unvaccinated. Deadline.

CIJA [@CIJAinfo]. Twitter. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from

CIJA [@CIJAInfo]. (2023, February 23). “We’re deeply concerned by CPC MPs @LeslynLewis @DeanAllisonMP @ColinCarrieCPC meeting with @AndersonAfDMdEP - a member of the far-right German AFD Party known for Islamophobic and anti-immigrant views. We raised this directly with @CPC_HQ .” [Tweet]. Twitter.

Kinsella, W. (2023, February 24). KINSELLA: Conservative MPs wrong to meet with German extremist. Toronto Sun.

Bailey, I. (2023, February 24). Conservative MPs criticized for meeting with anti-immigration German politician. The Globe and Mail.

Steele, A. (2023, February 24). Poilievre condemns “vile” views of German politician seen lunching with Conservative MPs. CBC News.

Leadership and Governance. World Economic Forum. Retrieved March 1, 2023, from

Hopper, T. (2022, June 3). FIRST READING: Does the WEF secretly control the Canadian government? National Post.

Zimonjic, P. (2022, September 3). World Economic Forum official says Canada has bigger issues to discuss than conspiracy theories. CBC News.

Sturgess, L. (2023). A Citizens’ Hearing: Examining Canada’s Covid Response. Canadian Covid Care Alliance, 185–191.

Cucan, K. (2022, September 20). The WHO Pandemic Treaty. Leslyn Lewis.

Our Partners. Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. Retrieved February 14, 2023, from

What’s the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism? (2016, April 29). BBC News.

About the Coalition. Canadian Coalition to Combat Online Hate. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from

Sponsors. MediaSmarts. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from

About. Project Someone. Retrieved February 6, 2023, from

About CJPAC. CJPAC. Retrieved December 7, 2022, from

CJPAC Sponsors. CJPAC. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from

Gelfand, P. (2020, July 29). Toronto Sun Powers Up its Website. Postmedia.

Scherer, S., & Heavey, S. (2023, March 1). Canada’s opposition steps up push for public inquiry on Chinese meddling. Reuters.

community logo
Join the Rounding the Earth Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
What else you may like…
Live Streamed on May 31, 2023 8:00 PM ET
May 31, 2023
Operation Kennedy, a Hypothesis (Locals Exclusive)

Exploring new territory in light of recent events.

Live Streamed on May 24, 2023 7:58 PM ET
May 24, 2023
Breaking Down John Mappin's Interview with Robert Malone Part 2 (Locals exclusive)

Join @RoundingTheEarth as he continues his breakdown of Robert Malone's recent interview with John Mappin.
Available to paid supporters.

Blood of Tyrants Wine Commercial Made by Fan, Video 1

I usually forget that we have a couple of affiliates because my mind is stretched thing with research, writing, and videos. But we do have a wine affiliate is a personal friend of mine. Don't feel pressured to order. Last year, we gave the Bitcoin we made from affiliate sales to another podcaster we know (Tommy Carrigan) for making a "first Bitcoin transaction with Tommy" video with us. We will likely continue cycling our sparse affiliate funds that way. But if you are looking for a good California red that brands well as a gift...this is a pretty good one.

Live Stream Scheduled for June 05, 2023 at 8:00pm ET
21 hours ago
Privatized Information Control (Locals Exclusive)

Gabriel discusses the role advertisers have played in shifting the balance of public discussion, and the ongoing shift in politics.

Scientology and Remote Viewing: Plandemonium?

My research has moved forward on this topic. As it turns out, Remote Vewing was just the renaming of the assumed conclusion of a Scientology idea called externalization.

Also, here are two Scientologists talking about the several Scientologists around the inception of Remote Viewing, essentially calling them liars about multiple important pieces of their story.

"Camouflage – adaptations that prevent detection and/or recognition – is a key example of evolution by natural selection, making it a primary focus in evolutionary ecology and animal behaviour. Most work has focused on camouflage as an anti-predator adaptation. However, predators also display specific colours, patterns and behaviours that reduce visual detection or recognition to facilitate predation. To date, very little attention has been given to predatory camouflage strategies. Although many of the same principles of camouflage studied in prey translate to predators, differences between the two groups (in motility, relative size, and control over the time and place of predation attempts) may alter selection pressures for certain visual and behavioural traits. This makes many predatory camouflage techniques unique and rarely documented. Recently, new technologies have emerged that provide a greater opportunity to carry out research on natural predator–prey interactions. Here we ...

Evidence of the HUB and the Zero Efficacy Hypothesis for COVID-19 Vaccines
Shattering the Efficacy Illusion, Part 4

"The difficult lies to detect are lies our minds wish they were true." -Aniekee Tochukwu Ezekiel

Articles from the Vaccine Wars can be found here. See Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 if you're just getting started. This may be necessary to handle all the acronyms, and if you're truly interested in unraveling the vaccine effectiveness illusion, this is the article you're going to want to read carefully and understand.


All the green lines are straight. The illusion is in the periphery.

For the sake of this article, I would like readers to keep multiple points in mind:

  • HUB = WUB = EUB (health is wealth is education, as variables, in aggregate)

  • It may very well be that HUB accounts for all of VE in U.S. county level data, but may be a small or moderately-size part of the illusion in other nations.

  • If VE is effectively zero in any one nation, then there is likely no complete mechanism for effects of these biological products at all, so any VE in any data set is an illusion. I focus my primary data argument on the U.S. county data via the CDC.

While I led this article series with a graph that showed that the slightly negative correlation between vaccine uptake and COVID-19 deaths basically tracked (was slightly higher than, on average) median household income by U.S. county, that is not alone enough to declare that the HUB validates the ZEH. It would be irresponsible to stop there and scream from the hills, "These quasi-vaccine genetic products don't stop COVID!" So, I've gathered further evidence. A lot of it. Understand that the graphs in this article are a fraction of those that I have available, and may include in a more complete book on the topic. Walk with me…

I'm going to lead with the punchline again. All correlation between vaccine uptake and COVID-19 mortality rates by county appears to be completely explained by income and education status. The correlations are almost perfect mirror images of one another!


This chart screams HUB and ZEH, but let's look for other evidence..

Consider these two charts I made last year of all cause mortality (per million residents) for all U.S. counties where the x-axis represents the percentile score for median household income (a good proxy for wealth).


Clearly, poorer counties suffer substantially higher mortality rates (almost 68% higher from the lowest income to the highest earning counties). Clearly, these are not equivalent cohorts, and any analysis that clumsily mashes them together will necessarily suffer from the ecological fallacy in a way that drives up VE. But this is not my point for the moment.

Now, look at the same charts for 2020 and 2021. The slopes of the trendlines tilt a little more, meaning that the mortality increase among poorer counties was significantly higher throughout the pandemic—both before and after the vaccines were rolled out.


The slope got sharper during COVID, so apparently COVID kills the poor faster. COVID mortality was a bit higher in 2021 than in 2020, and the slope tilted just a bit more negative. If the vaccines were effective, we should see a sharper change—the tilt toward the wealthier counties should be more extreme. In fact, if we combine the 2021 and 2022 slopes through May 22, 2022, we get -646.33, which is a softer slope than in 2020 before the vaccines rolled out, which is the exact opposite of what we would see if the vaccines were effective at reducing death.

Of course, this is all cause mortality, which means that other variables affect the slope. These include changes in rates of obesity and diabetes that make COVID-19 a more severe disease, murder and suicide rates, and drug overdoses. The problem is that these all affect poor counties more severely, which would have the effect of making the slope sharper, so a softer slope post-vaccine than before looks extremely bad for the hypothesis that the vaccines are effective.

Now, I do have the state-level data ready through all of 2022, and while the advantage in excess deaths began the year tilting toward the wealthier, more vaccinated states, that trend began to reverse in 2022. The crowd that argues "waning efficacy" should only see a partial flattening of the trend, but not a reversal.


Over at I Numero, T Coddington has been performing a parallel self-education similar to my own. He graphed serious indicators of poor health versus booster uptake showing much great dose administration in areas where the people are healthier.


Hat tip: T Coddington

There is no possible way that these graphs can be confused: healthier Americans were substantially more likely to get vaccinated. And that only makes sense given the strict mandates put in place for groups that include large numbers of the healthiest Americans: many colleges applied strict mandates, resulting in vaccination rates up to nearly 100%, thumbs were on the scales to push corporate workers into vaccination, and 

More specifically, he firms up my claim that "wealth is health"!


I think that T Coddington has had a similar journey to my own over the past year, recognizing key health/wealth correlates, then discovering the literature (that authorities damn well surely know about) on the HUB.

While the graphs we just saw were based on U.S. county-level aggregates, there is research (in addition to the VSD's publication) that shows the HUB on a more individual level. And that's without mandates that pushed young people (military, college students, corporate workers) into vaccination.

Here is another scatter plot with U.S. county data as of mid-August 2022 (h/t Operation Uplift), this time with both axes rank-ordered (each number is ranked from 1 to the total number of counties, in strictly increasing order). The lack of clustering is another way to see how little relationship exists between vaccination rates and COVID-19 spread.


Before we talk about breakthrough cases, let's talk about R again for a moment. The following plots were provided by computer scientist Timothy Snyder, a volunteer with Operation Uplift. The scatter plots compare vaccination rates with viral spread across U.S. counties. Do you see a trend line? Overall? Or for any one color (month)? I sure don't.


What we see in these charts is that there is no significant correlation between vaccination rates and spread---at least by some definition, which we'll put a pin in and come back to later. But this is at least interesting on its own because it presents a puzzle where "efficacy" (defined only as relative risk reduction) of the vaccines occurs entirely without any absolute risk reduction of the system. If there is relative risk reduction without absolute risk reduction, that means that vaccinating a cohort of individuals somehow prevents infections that take place in that cohort while pushing infections into the remaining unvaccinated cohort. That would be quite bizarre, but would also imply that the effects of the vaccine would not be a public health concern, on the whole. Either that, or somehow, in a way that would seem quite magical, only the people who were never going to get sick got vaccinated (basically), which is evidence of the HUB sculpting the relative risk reduction.

Epidemiology and Biostatistics Professor Emeritus Eyal Shahar agrees that HUB has been at play, artificially elevating VE with what he calls "pseudo-protection".


Shahar on the UK data

Not everyone agrees that HUB is entirely to blame for potentially false appearances of substantial VE. In a paper uploaded to researchgate last year (Neil et al, 2022; preprint), a deep team of investigators analyzed COVID-19 mortality data by vaccine status as presented by the UK's Office of National Statistics (ONS). They concluded that healthy vaccinee bias explained less of the VE than delays in reporting of vaccination status combined with systemic miscategorization of deaths.

The risk/benefit of Covid vaccines is arguably most accurately measured by comparing the all-cause mortality rate of vaccinated against unvaccinated, since it not only avoids most confounders relating to case definition but also fulfils the WHO/CDC definition of "vaccine effectiveness" for mortality. We examine two of the most recent UK ONS vaccine mortality surveillance reports, which provide the necessary information to monitor this crucial comparison over time. At first glance the ONS data suggest that, in each of the older age groups, all-cause mortality is lower in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. This conclusion is cast into doubt upon closer inspection of the data due to a range of fundamental inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. Whatever the explanations for these are, it is clear that the data is both unreliable and misleading. It has been suggested that the anomalies are the result of healthy vaccinee selection bias and population differences. However, we show why the most likely explanations for the observed anomalies are a combination of systemic miscategorisation of deaths between the different categories of unvaccinated and vaccinated; delayed or non-reporting of vaccinations; systemic underestimation of the proportion of unvaccinated; and/or incorrect population selection for Covid deaths. We also find no evidence that socio-demographic or behavioural differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated can explain these anomalies.

Could the answer be a combination of miscategorization and HUB? Since I am more familiar with the U.S. data, I will focus there. After all, if the experimental quasi-vaccines aren't effective in one nation, it stands to reason that they aren't effective in any nations. And while we should expect VE computations [corrected for bias where necessary] to be highly similar between nations, there is no reason to expect that HUB should be the same from one nation to the next. The HUB is highly sensitive to policy decisions made qua nation. For instance, mandates focused on members of the military and universities should be expected to introduce the HUB among young adult demographics.

It's not just in the U.S. where HUB is clearly and substantially observed. Studies around the world tend to point toward consistently unidirectional HUB bias.  A study out of China (Miao et al, 2022) examined the relationship between COVID-19 vaccine uptake and 12 different healthy lifestyle habits. In all 12 cases, there was positive correlation in all 12 cases. Since the vast majority of China (91.8% now; 89.4% in the study) is vaccinated, this pools the least healthy people into the unvaccinated category.


In a recently published study (Kwan et al, 2023), researchers found baseline rates of diabetes to be 41% lower among the vaccinated. Though this measurement did not quite achieve statistical significance, it seems clinically meaningful—particularly in light of all of the other evidence that the vaccinated are a substantially healthier cohort.

We also have the vaccine trial data itself (Benn et al, 2022; still preprint?) to demonstrate that the HUB works to massage the illusion of effectiveness into retrospective vaccine analyses. There was no overall mortality benefit whatsoever for the mRNA vaccines during their trials.

Consistency Across Observations

While there is no "proof" in science or statistics, we love to examine problems from different vectors. We gravitate toward hypotheses that are consistent with all observations.

Recall now that after a basic correction over risk-adjusted person days, the quickly scrubbed data from the military contractor SAIC showed negative efficacy shortly after vaccination, which asymptotically moved toward zero efficacy thereafter.


In Japan, researchers (Aug 2022 Med Check, Vol. 8, No. 24r) discovered two cases of data manipulation by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare. Emphasis mine:

One is the case of misregistration of vaccine recipients. When comparing the proportion of newly reported COVID-19 patients by vaccination status, patients who were surely vaccinated but with unknown date of vaccination were treated as “unvaccinated” by MHLW. Hence, the proportion was extremely low in the vaccinated and extremely high in the unvaccinated. As a result, the data gave the impression that the vaccine worked very well. 

The data from April 11 onwards have been corrected as pointed out by a researcher. As a result, the proportion of new infections per 100,000 people no longer differs across most age groups. Considering the “healthy vaccinee effect”, the protective effect of vaccine is even lower.

Interested readers can also read later in the article about increases in myocarditis rates among young, healthy Japanese citizens, post-transfection. But this article is primarily focused on the benefit side of the risk-benefit analysis—specifically the fact that there doesn't appear to be any.

Also, let us not forget studies showing similar viral loads between the vaccinated and unvaccinated populations (Riemersma et al, 2021). So, all those magical antibodies aren't doing their jobs, but this is supposed to slow mortality?

It didn't.


Even worse, in a reply to the concerns of Statistics and data experts Norman Fenton, Martin Neil (seen on RTE here), Clare Craig, and Scott McLachlan, the UK's Office of National Statistics (ONS) admitted that their publicly presented data summaries suffer from vaccine status errors and demographic skews that likely embeds some amount of HUB into the results (at least for some demographic bands).

…For an individual to be included in the PHDA, they must have responded to the 2011 census and be presently registered with a GP. Approximately 79% of the population fall into this category. Those missing from the PHDA dataset are therefore not missing at random, and they are more likely to fall under one or more of the following categories:

  • Younger in age

  • Born outside of the UK

  • Unvaccinated (as it is more difficult to obtain a COVID-19 vaccination without being registered with a GP)

We consider that it is therefore likely that the sample used in the Deaths by Vaccination Status publication is not representative of the general population. Those who are missing are, we think, more likely to be younger and unvaccinated. This is also acknowledged by ONS in its Deaths by Vaccination Status publications.

ONS is working to address some of the sampling issues present in the first six iterations of the publication…

And while the ONS data does not seem to suffer from as severe a degree of HUB skew as the U.S. county data, one of the frightening things that I discovered when I examined the publicly available ONS data set in May 2022 was that the ONS admitted at the time (as a note in their own spreadsheet) to excluding over 2,000 COVID-19 deaths from their data set—all of whom died shortly after vaccination.


Maybe some of those deaths were due to vaccination, and maybe they weren't, but it does stack the deck not to include the COVID-19 illness rates among the most frail, which is itself a form of HUB.

Globally, the wealthiest nations were generally the most highly vaccinated, though vaccine uptake in the second quartile nations was highly similar to that of the highest quartile nations.


So, did those nations see similar changes in their rates of COVID-19 mortality?

No. In fact, the results look absolutely nothing alike.


If the vaccines were effective, why do we see such dramatic divergence between high income and upper middle income nations more than two years into the experimental mass vaccination program? Is it because the mRNA vaccines more often used among the wealthier nations simply don't work at all? It would seem that way, but there may be other variables at play in terms of what might actually be causing illness around the globe.

A Mechanistic Reason Why None of This Should Surprise Us

The idea that vaccination to generate antibodies in the blood stream has an effect on respiratory viruses has long been a controversial one. And as we've seen, it appears that the influenza vaccines never worked, which bolsters the argument that such antibodies fail to work at the right location—the mucosal membrane. This has been pointed out by Dr. Richard Urso, Dr. Ryan Cole, and others. Dr. Joseph Lee puts it thusly,

Never mind, I'll let you off the hook. No bet. The COVID antibody was barely present in 2020. The COVID antibody doesn't seem to have a path through the lung barrier into the lung alveolar cell area. The lung barrier can stop water molecules that are 18 Daltons in size and the COVID antibody is a gargantuan 145,000 Daltons in size. The lung barrier can stop WATER molecules. This barrier MUST be passed by the COVID antibody in order to reach the lung alveolar cells. But, this barrier WILL stop the COVID antibody.

We are not yet done. More to come…

Read full Article
The Right and Wrong Definitions of Technology
The Monetary Wars, Part II

This article was originally published on March 23, 2021. A couple of minor changes have been made to enhance the article. Find more articles in The Monetary Wars series here.

As I republish around an article a week, this one stands out as important with respect ot the substack of the education enterprises that I have once again started to pursue.

Before we jump into the topic of technology, let us consider the level importance of the topic. You may already understand the immense power of technology on many levels, but we cannot overstate the importance of a good definition. A bad definition is like tunnel vision or blurry eyesight. It can leave us half-blind to the ways in which technology shapes the world.

What is technology?

Go to Wikipedia for the answer and you get a terrible definition---something like the one you were probably taught during your schooling indoctrination years:

Technology is the sum of techniques, skill, methods, and processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the knowledge of...embedded in machines…

To be sure, the Wikipedia answer explores a broad subset of the terrain of technology, pushing visions of academic research and silicon chips. But this terrain falls short. The definition is incomplete. The fundamental quality of technology is entirely missing---perhaps intentionally so?

In order to understand technology, let us dive into a piece of economic history. Don't worry---we dodge the mathy stuff as it doesn't pertain much to our story (but study that if you're interested!). During the mid-twentieth century, one of the chief pursuits of economists was to describe an aggregate growth model, considered by some necessary for the completeness of neoclassical economic theory. In 1956, economists Robert Solow (MIT) and Travor Swan (Australian National University) simultaneously published what has become known as the Solow-Swan growth model. For this achievement and others, Solow received the 1987 Nobel Prize in Economics, though Swan was never acknowledged by the committee. Their model will be the source of our definition of technology.

Let us keep the Solow-Swan model (SSM) as simple as possible. We can certainly build an intuitive understanding of the model without learning how to read differential equations. Simply put, the SSM describes economic output is the result several inputs:

  • Capital: the stuff used in production that can be bought with money.

  • Labor: bodies that do stuff with capital that results in output products/services.

  • Technology: Wizard magic? We'll get to that.

Here are the first basic observations we make:

  1. Capital and labor scale the output linearly. If we double the number of workers and the amount of capital they have to work with, we then double the output of the economy. If we triple those inputs, we triple the output.

  2. We live in a world of exponential rates of wealth and production growth. Who would invest their resources (capital) in production if the output wasn't expected to be larger than the input?! Economic feedback loops result in the multiplication of capital repeatedly, resulting in an exponential output function. (linear in read, exponential in green)

So, given that labor and capital only result in linear scaling of outputs, and technology is the only other system input, that means that technology is the sole source of exponential growth! In fact, this gives us the best definition of technology---one based implicitly on results, and casts aside our biases of what qualifies as "academic" or "process of silicon machines".

Technology is anything that grows resources.

If you make a change to a process so that your outputs are greater than your inputs (or previous outputs), you have applied technology.

So simple. So perfect. This will be a foundation on which we rebuild a lot of the terrible ideas that have led us into the era of The Monetary Wars.

Now, by defining technology implicitly (as opposed to relying on some narrower explicit definition), we might seek to at least describe some areas of technology in order to bring focus to the landscape. Ultimately any of the following might or might not be technology---we only know by evaluating the results of any action!

  • Machines (including computers)

  • Culture! We might even categorize religion here. (I consider culture the most underrated technology.)

  • Education/Meditation

  • Law

  • Medicine

  • Weapons?

  • Agriculture

  • Business organization

  • Human relations (think community building or zoom out to international relations)

  • Literature

  • Transportation

  • Methods of engineering not listed

We'll stop here---not because we cannot think of other good sources of technology, but because those sources are truly limitless. Anything practical or productive you have ever thought---any creative energy---is a source of technology. Technology is all those things that are worth investing ourselves (time, energy, capital...all of it) in doing because by definition they make us better off.

Thank you for reading. We hope you think hard on this topic and we plan to come back to this definition in future articles for the purpose of digging deep into challenging topics. As a teaser, we plan to add another twist: technology is in the eye of the beholder. Just as aggregating utility is difficult, the game theory of technology can get interesting when we realize that some actions and products may be technology for some, but not for others. Check back again in the future.

Read full Article
Woody Harrelson Said the Quiet Part Out Loud
The Pharmafia, Part 2

For more on The Pharmafia, check out the RTE articles here. Also, join our Locals community where active discussions often take place about challenging events in real time.




I can hear the chants if I close my eyes.

"Go, Woody, Go! Go, Woody, Go!"

I don't usually publish the same sensational news that you can read at any of several dozen Substacks, social media accounts (thousands, perhaps), and blogs of highly variable quality and curation, so I owe you a few words of explanation. This is important. We need to know exactly what just happened.

While Woody Harrelson did not say "Pharmafia", he said "drug cartels", by which we know that he means Big Pharma. We're on the same page. And…he was…allowed to say it.

Allowed…why, exactly?

You've just been given an ounce of social approbation. Is this the thin gruel that keeps you alive?

Most people in the Medical Freedom Movement—the millions who woke up due to harsh mandates and other authoritarian government actions—are happy to simply sit behind their screens and pump their fists. These are the same throngs following Chaos Agents through social media and Substack. These are mostly the intuitives who are not well enough educated to track down all the important information on their own, but know that the mainstream media and governments were lying to them. They are at risk of falling into the trap of the mass formation of the movement—and at risk of finding themselves steered by a false prophet.

Why would powerful corporate interests want to keep you alive as you study their crimes and threaten to do something about them?

I have multiple hypotheses that are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and I'm not sure the list is exhaustive in a realistic sense. I may add suggestions from the peanut gallery this time.

  • Part of the corporate power base (possibly military, too) was always against Plandemonium, but could not stop it. Instead, they waited to build momentum on the other side.

  • Perhaps like FTX/Alameida, the Pharmafia's plan was one of several attempts at global domination (the "vax tax") that failed, and this is a necessary step toward recall.

  • This is part of an elaborate trap, much like Mao's Hundred Flowers campaign that saw his opponents out themselves—compiled into an easy list, complete with street addresses so that his communist troops could rip them from their homes one-by-one and imprison, enslave, or murder those who could not be otherwise turned.

Woody Harrelson may be the perfect man to deliver the message such that we cannot easily discern the meaning. He is not a man from a powerful family. He is the son of a heinous hitman who worked his own way up from poverty and obscurity in a career with notable downturns. You won't find him in Jeffrey Epstein's little black book. He is a man that I quite frankly want to root for, given what I know about him.

And yet the fact remains: he was allowed to say what he said.

Unless there is a James O'Keefe moment yet to come where Woody Harrelson finds himself on the outside?

Unfortunately, I think we'll have to wait and find out.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals