VAERS and VSAFE: The “Worst Case Scenario” Twice

Files that were removed from the internet are in the evidence pack.

The scale of the violation is hard to imagine, I know. After the dazed feeling wears off, let’s get busy. I also want to thank Dr. Clayton Baker, who was the first to bring my attention to the role of Tom Shimabukuro in covering up vaccine safety signals for over ten years. Incredibly, he is still at the CDC, serving as the deputy director of the Influenza Division in their National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD).

The following research brief benefited from various digital research assistants, and I have not edited the language yet. But the information cannot wait.

Read and share with friends and family. It’s not over yet.

The United States began vaccinating against Covid-19 on 14 December 2020. Two CDC programs were designed and paid to catch any harm that clinical trials had missed. VAERS takes reports from doctors, patients and manufacturers. V-safe sends vaccinated people text messages asking how they feel. Here we follow the paper trail of those two systems from the Christmas 2020 rollout into 2022. The bottom line:

The government’s “worst case” for amount of Covid vaccine injury reports assumed 1,000 reports a day. For fourteen months it was double that. For some of those months, it was triple.

The document that matters most is a monthly report from the contractor that runs VAERS for the CDC, General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT). It covers December 2020 and went to the CDC’s contracting officer’s representative on 16 January 2021, with CDC program staff and an FDA reviewer copied. Its first page carries a chart.

A red line marks 1,000 reports a day, which the government’s own planning called the “worst case.” The reports crossed that line on 21 December, the winter solstice, in the first week of the rollout. They dipped under it for three days around Christmas. From 26 December they stayed over it. The contractor told the CDC. that it was “unable to meet processing and other timeframes (data processing, telephone inquiries, clinical inquiries, etc.)” (GDIT report, PDF p. 8). All this while they were telling everyone everything was ok.

Keep reading

The UK Is Fast-Tracking Permanent Residency For An Army Of Migrants

It’s not quite citizenship, but it’s close enough. The UK offers a number of loopholes or “fast tracks” to permanent residency for third world migrants, and one of those loopholes is “Indefinite Leave to Remain” (ILR), also known as permanent settlement.

Settlement status allows migrants to stay in the UK essentially for the rest of their lives, with unrestricted access to the labor market, access to health and welfare benefits, and the ability to leave and reenter the country any time they wish. It also gives them the ability to bring their families to live in the UK.  They enjoy many of the advantages of citizens, except they don’t get to vote and their children do not automatically become citizens.

Many critics of the system argue that once these migrants become entrenched, it is impossible to legally deport them.  They also argue that “settlement” is a progressive government agenda to provide to mass citizenship for millions of migrants in the near future.

At bottom, ILR is a way for left-wing leaders to import masses of migrants while pretending as if this is not true immigration.  

A debate has been raging over more strict rules for who qualifies for settlement, but the UK government’s obsession with multiculturalism makes any serious immigration reform difficult. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has announced final details of the government’s reforms to permanent settlement rules, and she notes that there will be special allowances for most migrants working in social care.

Keep reading

Carney takes a swipe at Musk and Starlink, while his government writes seven speech and surveillance bills

In an interview with POLITICO in Montreal on Thursday, following the Canada-EU summit, Carney said: “If you’re connected to a satellite system that a billionaire, almost trillionaire, decides to turn off at one moment or not, that’s not a good idea either.” He did not name Elon Musk or Starlink. The interviewer raised Musk, Starlink and Ukraine, and Carney answered, “Yeah.” He added that Canada would never tie its defences to Musk’s system, “nor would we, given the track record.” POLITICO called the remark the “subtweet of the day.”

The track record includes Musk switching Starlink on for Ukraine in the first days of the war, when Russian missiles were knocking out other communications and the Ukrainian army risked fighting blind. The remark appeared aimed at the Liberal base and at Democrats in Washington who have made Musk a political villain. Had Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre sneered at a named businessman in the same terms, the CBC reaction would likely have been far harsher.

Carney’s broader point, that one powerful actor able to cut people off is dangerous, is a fair one. It also describes his own legislative agenda. At least seven government bills either govern what Canadians can say online or expand state surveillance. Four deal with speech and three with surveillance, and some are already law.

Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, received royal assent June 18 and took effect July 18. It creates new offences for displaying certain symbols, adds a stand-alone hate crime offence, writes a legal definition of “hatred” into the Criminal Code and repeals the defence for people expressing, in good faith, an opinion on a religious subject or text. The Department of Justice states that “the law repeals this specific defence,” while maintaining the change does not criminalize religious expression. The government has not explained why a defence it says changes nothing needed to go.

Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, was introduced June 10 and remains before Parliament. It would create a Digital Safety Commission of Canada with three to five cabinet-appointed commissioners empowered to issue orders, investigate, inspect and fine. The government’s fact sheet sets penalties of up to three per cent of global gross revenue or $10 million, whichever is higher, a scale that would fall hardest on the largest platforms, including Musk’s X. Alongside material that is already illegal, such as child abuse imagery and intimate images shared without consent, platforms would have to police “content that foments hatred,” a standard interpreted by commissioners the Liberal cabinet appoints. The framework closely resembles Justin Trudeau’s Online Harms Act under a new name.

Bill C-25, the Strong and Free Elections Act, received royal assent June 18. It makes it a crime to knowingly spread false or misleading information about elections or voting with intent to disrupt an election or affect its results, and bans deepfakes of candidates and election officials made to mislead. Opinion and satire are exempt, but officials working for a government that is itself on the ballot will decide what was false, what a speaker knew and what he intended. The government says the rules now reach activity outside Canada, an odd position for a Prime Minister troubled by one man’s satellites crossing borders.

Bill C-16, the Protecting Victims Act, became law the same day. Most of it targets child predators and sextortion, but it also rewrites criminal harassment. According to the Department of Justice, the prosecutor once had to show the victim feared for their safety. Now it is enough that “a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances would fear for their safety,” including through “modern technology.” Rebel News reporters have been labelled harassers by Liberal politicians for asking questions in public, and the lower bar gives that label new legal weight.

Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, passed the House of Commons in June and is now before the Senate. It lets police demand information on “reasonable grounds to suspect,” allows the public safety minister to order providers to build in technical access for police, which critics call a backdoor, and permits metadata to be kept for up to six months.

Bill C-8, the cyber security act, received royal assent June 15. It lets the minister and cabinet issue orders to telecom companies, with secrecy orders attached, including cutting off service to an individual where “strictly necessary.” Conservative amendments on the public safety committee requiring prior judicial authorization passed, but the Speaker ruled them out of order and they were removed, so judges review such orders only after the fact.

Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, was among Carney’s first major bills and drew enough backlash over its surveillance powers that the Liberals split it. The border measures moved into Bill C-12 and passed, while C-2 stalled. Its lawful access powers returned as C-22.

Musk cannot jail anyone, levy fines worth three per cent of global revenue, secretly order a phone company to cut off a customer or strip a religious defence from a hate speech trial. The Government of Canada can now do, or soon will be able to do, each of those things. Carney’s remark leaves open who in this country really has a finger on the off switch: the billionaire with the satellites, or the Prime Minister who spent the past year writing the laws to use one.

Keep reading

Carney Liberals block motion to study Canadian church arsons

A motion by a Conservative MP to study arson attacks and crimes against Christian churches and other religious places was shot down by Liberal MPs, who claimed that it is not warranted.

On October 29, during debate in a House of Commons Heritage Committee meeting, Conservative MP Andrew Lawton made a motion to “undertake a study of no fewer than eight meetings on vandalism, arson, shootings and other criminal attacks against places of worship in Canada.”

Lawton’s motion noted that since 2015, “police-reported hate crimes targeting religion have more than doubled, from 469 to 1,115 a year.”

He called on the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture to “appear on a panel of his own, without other witnesses, for no less than two hours, and invite the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Statistics Canada, police services and their hate crime units, and representatives of Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and other faith communities, including congregations whose places of worship have been attacked, as well as any other witnesses the committee deems relevant,” to discuss the matter.

However, the committee chair, Liberal MP Lisa Hepfner, ruled the motion “inadmissible as it exceeded the mandate of the committee.”

When the question was asked, “Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?” all Liberal and other MPs except the Conservatives on the committee voted “yes.”

Lawton then brought forward another motion asking the committee recognize that “historic religious buildings and faith traditions are important parts” of Canadian society and must be protected and reported to the House for further debate.

This motion was voted down as well.

Conservative MPs for some time have urged Liberal MPs to back a bill that, if passed, would make church arsonists pay for the damages they cause, saying that it is needed, as “vandalizing places of worship is unacceptable.”

The Liberals thus far have refused to back the bill.

Keep reading

Ballot Scanners Malfunction Across Westchester County, New York – Ballots Being Placed in Orange Bags?

No later than the polls opened in Westchester County, New York, at 6 am this morning, the machines started malfunctioning in what the Board of Elections has reportedly called a countywide problem.

Trump-Endorsed Republican Bruce Blakeman is on the ballot, challenging New York Governor Kathy Hochul.

Now, instead of scanning their votes, people are being told to place their ballots in ballot bags, which will later be sent to the Board of Elections to be counted.

Per News 12:

The Westchester County Board of Elections says an issue with the thickness of paper ballots is preventing voting machines from accepting them at polling locations throughout the county. Officials urge voters to stay in line and complete their ballots as instructed, saying ballots will be secured in monitored orange emergency ballot bags and counted according to election procedures.

The board is instructing poll workers to check voters in and provide them with ballots. The ballots are being placed in orange bags while technicians work to resolve the problems.

The bags will be sent to the Board of Elections at the end of the night. Those ballots will be counted first, before ballots cast through the machines.

Keep reading

“I Can’t Believe That N—-r” – Democrat Alaska Senate Candidate Mary Peltola Accused of Lashing Out at Army Veteran, Calling Him the N-Word

Two former staffers are accusing Alaska Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola of repeatedly using the n-word, including once to attack an Army veteran who organized a fundraiser for her.

An unnamed staffer says that during an October 25, 2024 dinner to honor Black Army soldiers who helped construct the Alaska-Canada Highway during World War II, she used the slur while privately lashing out at the man promoting the event.

Ed Wesley, an Army veteran and former commander of the American Legion Post 34, had urged Peltola’s campaign to purchase multiple tables for the event, assuring her they would be filled. But when the event was poorly attended and the tables sat mostly empty, according to Alaska Landmine, Peltola lost it, calling Wesley a “scammer” and the n-word, according to the former staffer.

“I can’t believe that n—r,” she allegedly said.

According to another staffer, Peltola used the n-word multiple times during a 2024 campaign staff meeting.

Peltola’s campaign has denied the claims to the outlet and the New York Post. In a statement to the Post, they described it as “part of a smear campaign driven by an unstable, disgruntled former staffer.”

“Mary would never use this word, which is a vile slur with a painful, hateful history,” the spokesperson said.

Keep reading

Soviet Dictators Used War and Famine To Create Ukraine

The Russian Empire entered the First World War in 1914 as one of Europe’s great powers, yet four years of catastrophic military defeats, economic dislocation, and social upheaval destroyed the foundations of the Romanov autocracy. By early 1917 the army was demoralized, the cities were hungry, and the authority of Nicholas II had evaporated.

In February 1917 strikes and demonstrations in Petrograd escalated into open mutiny. The Tsar abdicated, ending three centuries of Romanov rule. A Provisional Government, composed of liberal and moderate socialist politicians and eventually led by Alexander Kerensky, attempted to steer Russia toward a constitutional order while simultaneously continuing the war against the Central Powers.

The government introduced civil liberties and promised land reform and elections to a Constituent Assembly, but it refused to withdraw from the conflict or to sanction the spontaneous seizure of noble estates by the peasantry. Parallel to the Provisional Government stood the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, creating the unstable system of “dual power.” Kerensky’s attempts to rally the army for a summer offensive in 1917 failed, and by autumn the Provisional Government commanded little loyalty outside a narrowing circle of officers and urban liberals.

On the night of 25–26 October 1917 the Bolshevik Party, directed by Vladimir Lenin and executed through Leon Trotsky’s Military Revolutionary Committee, carried out an armed coup in Petrograd. Red Guards and sympathetic garrison units seized bridges, railway stations, and the telephone exchange; the Winter Palace, where the remaining ministers had taken refuge, was stormed with relatively little bloodshed.

The Provisional Kerensky Government was there upon arrested and the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets ratified the transfer of power. Lenin’s new Council of People’s Commissars immediately issued decrees calling for an end to the war and for the distribution of land to the peasants. In March 1918 the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany formally removed Russia from the World War, ceding vast territories to Germany and its allies.

The October coup did not bring peace. Instead it ignited a brutal civil war that lasted until 1921. The Bolshevik “Reds” confronted a heterogeneous array of “White” forces – former Tsarist generals such as Denikin, Kolchak, and Wrangel, together with liberal and socialist opponents of the incipient Bolshevik dictatorship.

National movements, peasant insurgencies, and foreign intervention by British, French, American, Japanese, and other contingents further fragmented the struggle. Fighting raged across European Russia, Ukraine, Siberia, and the Caucasus.

The Reds ultimately triumphed because they controlled the industrial core and the railway network, maintained stricter internal discipline through the Cheka (secret police), and offered the peasantry at least the promise of land. By contrast, the Whites remained divided, often restored landlord claims, and failed to articulate a compelling political program. By the end of 1920 the principal White armies had been defeated – even as sporadic resistance continued into 1921 but no longer threatened Bolshevik power.

In the Ukrainian lands the imperial collapse opened a brief window for independence. After the February Revolution, Ukrainian activists in Kiev organized the Central Rada, which progressively asserted autonomy and, in January 1918, proclaimed the Ukrainian People’s Republic. The republic adopted national symbols, issued currency, and sought international recognition.

The latter was short-lived, however, because German and Austrian troops now occupied much of Ukraine under the terms of Brest-Litovsk. Accordingly, they installed the conservative Hetman Pavlo Skoropadsky in place of the socialist-leaning Rada. After the Central Powers’ defeat in November 1918, the Directory under Symon Petliura restored a republican regime and attempted to defend Ukrainian independence against both Bolshevik and White Russian forces.

None of these successive Ukrainian governments possessed the military or administrative capacity to hold the territory. By 1920–1921 the Red Army had overrun the greater part of the Ukrainian provinces east of the emerging Polish frontier. The Ukrainian People’s Republic survived thereafter only as a rump émigré government based in Warsaw, Paris and scattered elsewhere in Europe.

Moreover, at the Paris Peace Conference the Allied powers revived an independent Polish state. The Treaty of Versailles and subsequent arrangements awarded Poland eastern Galicia, including the city of Lviv and the surrounding districts that had belonged to the Austrian Empire. These western Ukrainian territories therefore remained outside Soviet control and inside the Polish Republic until 1939.

In a similar manner,Crimea, historically administered as part of the Taurida Governorate, stayed within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and was not transferred to Ukrainian jurisdiction until 1954.

Lenin’s incorporation of the remaining Ukrainian lands into a Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was an act of administrative state-building based and geographic contiguity. It was focused on control of factories, railroads, coal mines and other resources – not the vindication of an underlying national sovereignty.

Once the Civil War was won, the Bolshevik leadership had confronted the practical problem of governing an immense, ethnically diverse territory. So rather than reconstitute a unitary Russian state, they created a federal structure of nominally sovereign Soviet republics.

Keep reading

Why Are So Many British Teens Being Treated As Terrorists?

What is going on with Britain’s children? Last year, more than 6,000 under-18s were referred to Prevent, the UK government’s counter-terrorism scheme, with a record number reported for being obsessed with mass violence and extremism. Believe the headlines, and we are raising a generation of committed terrorists and murderous nihilists. But scratch beneath the surface, and a far more complex picture of adult failure begins to emerge.

Clearly, some children really are attracted to terrorism and extreme violence. Last week, Yusuf Shah was convicted of providing cybersecurity support to groups including al-Qaeda. He was just 16 when he was arrested at Heathrow Airport and was found to have downloaded instructions for making explosives and using different types of weapons. In 2024, Axel Rudakubana was 17 years old when he entered a dance class in Southport, killing three girls and injuring eight other children and two adults with a kitchen knife. And in 2018, 18-year-old Safaa Boular became Britain’s youngest convicted female Islamic State terrorist after she helped plan an attack on the British Museum in London.

Yet in all three of these cases, these terrorists were either not referred to Prevent, or Prevent failed to ensure their deradicalization. Rudakubana was referred to Prevent three times between 2019 and 2021, but was deemed unsuitable for intervention as officers could find no evidence that he had a fixed ideology or motivation driving his obsession with violence.

One problem for Prevent officers is their rapidly increasing workload. The 6,085 under-18s referred to the scheme in 2025 represent a threefold increase on the 2,129 participants recorded in 2020. In just that one year, the education sector reported 3,129 individuals.

Another problem is that Prevent focuses on the wrong issue. Data from 2025 show that ‘extreme right-wing‘ concerns accounted for 21 per cent of all referrals. This is more than double the proportion of referrals for ‘Islamist extremism’ (10 per cent). What’s more, compared with the previous year, referrals for ‘extreme right-wing’ concerns increased, while referrals for ‘Islamist extremism’ decreased (down from 13 per cent).

Yet this is completely at odds with the reality of the terrorist threats we face in the UK. Since 2001, nearly 100 people have been killed in terrorist attacks in Britain. Fifty-two people were slaughtered in London on 7 July 2005 when Islamist terrorists bombed public transport. In 2017, three separate attacks resulted in multiple deaths at Westminster Bridge, Manchester Arena and London Bridge. Just two people have been killed by right-wing extremists: Mohammed Saleem (2013) and Jo Cox (2016). Prevent officers kept busy dealing with children referred for right-wing extremism have less time to worry about the far more real threat posed by Islamists.

Panic about children, especially boys, being radicalized by right-wing extremists spills over into actual arrests. Figures from UK Counter Terrorism Policing show that one in five of those arrested for terrorism-related offenses is under 18. Earlier this month, a 15-year-old boy was arrested for calling a Conservative councillor a ‘rent boy’. Four police officers in two cars turned up outside the house of the Reform UK activist, despite Reform being a mainstream political party and it not being illegal to call someone a ‘rent boy’. The boy understandably believes he was targeted for his political views and allegiances. If so, then the definition of ‘extremism’ has been stretched so much it is now meaningless.

The completely disproportionate number of teenage boys being referred to Prevent for right-wing extremism betrays the cowardice of adults. It is far easier to panic about children, social media, hate speech and toxic masculinity than it is to name, let alone confront, the real threat of Islamist terrorism. Teachers, social workers and police officers routinely assume that boys with even mainstream right-wing views pose a serious threat to society.

The increase in referrals to Prevent points to adults’ failure to relate to children in ways once taken for granted. It suggests that rather than engaging with young people by talking to them about their opinions and questioning their views, adults hit the panic button and retreat. Rather than being arrested, the 15-year-old schoolboy critical of his local councillor should have had his interest in politics taken seriously. Perhaps the offended councillor could have suggested some good books for him to read instead of calling the police.

The latest Prevent statistics point to other problems with our failure to socialize the next generation. A growing number of children are being referred to Prevent for having a fascination with ‘mass violence unrelated to a political cause’. Following the Southport attack, the government is updating Prevent to enable it to better deal with children who are obsessed with violence, mass shootings and weapons despite having no obvious ideological motive. Clearly, some of these children are mentally ill and need psychiatric treatment rather than anti-radicalization counseling. Prevent is being expected to pick up the pieces when mental-health services fail.

Something else is going on, too. An increasing number of children obsessed with violence, mass shootings and weapons hints at a prevalent sense of nihilism. As we see playing out across France right now, Western nations harbor a proportion of youngsters who feel only contempt for the society they inhabit. They have no sense of allegiance to their country, its history or its institutions. Teachers, journalists, politicians and cultural curators who should have taught children to love their country and respect their fellow citizens have failed in this task.

Referring ever more children to Prevent helps no one. As adults fail in the task of socializing children and raising decent adults, the anti-extremism program has become the institution of last resort, expected to deal with every disaffected or non-conforming teenager. Meanwhile, the role Prevent should be playing in stopping terrorism – which primarily comes from Islamist extremists – is lost to panic and political correctness.

Keep reading