Tag: coronavirus

Covid injections pose risk of pilots having in-flight seizures even years after having taken a shot

A couple of weeks ago, Dr. Kevin Stillwagon posted an update on pilot incapacitation.  The Federal Aviation Administration does not maintain records of who took covid injections and when, he said.

But it gets worse, he said.  “The FAA stopped entering data into the incapacitation data registry very early in the year 2021 and completely cancelled the program in 2022.”

“Trying to identify risks is even more critical now, because starting in December of 2020, airline pilots were forced to get injected with a product that causes subclinical myocarditis and has been tied to cerebrovascular events, including seizures, even several years after the injections.”

He concluded by issuing a call for pilots and other airline crew members to voluntarily have medical tests done to assess their risk of, for example. an in-flight seizure or cardiac event.

Keep reading

We’ve Obtained Data That Could Decommission mRNA Once and for All

We have just stumbled upon a goldmine of new data — the kind of evidence that could decommission mRNA technology once and for all.

For the first time, long-term immune function can be directly compared across four key exposure groups within high-quality electronic medical record datasets from thousands of real patients — capturing every possible combination of vaccination and infection status:

  1. Vaccinated and infected
  2. Vaccinated and uninfected
  3. Unvaccinated and infected
  4. Unvaccinated and uninfected (baseline control)

These data span YEARS before and after COVID-19, giving us the clearest picture yet of how the genetic injections and the virus itself have altered human immunity on a global scale.

The early signals are alarming.
What we are seeing points to a progressive, possibly irreversible immune collapse — a vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (VAIDS) — accompanied by surges in autoimmune conditions, chronic infections, cancers, and cardiometabolic disease.

This is not speculation. This is measurable — in lymphocyte counts, antibody profiles, T-cell exhaustion markers, and verified clinical outcomes.

The implications are staggering. And that’s why we need your help.

Keep reading

Senate Grills Meta and Google Over Biden Administration’s Role in COVID-Era Content Censorship

A Senate hearing this week discussed government influence on online speech, as senior executives from Meta and Google faced questions about the Biden administration’s communications with their companies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The session, titled “Part II of Shut Your App: How Uncle Sam Jawboned Big Tech Into Silencing Americans,” highlighted the growing concern in Washington over what lawmakers describe as government-driven pressure to suppress lawful expression.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who led the hearing, began by declaring that “the right to speak out is the foundation of a free society” and warning that “censorship around the world is growing.”

He accused the Biden administration of pushing technology companies to restrict Americans’ speech during the pandemic, and he faulted both the companies and Democrats for failing to resist that pressure.

“Today, we pick off where the story left off,” Cruz said, pointing to Meta and Google as examples of firms that “were pressured by the Biden administration to censor the American people.”

He pledged to introduce the Jawbone Act, which he said would “provide a robust right to redress when Americans are targeted by their own government.”

Markham Erickson, Google’s Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy, defended the company’s approach, emphasizing that its moderation decisions are guided by long-standing internal policies, not by government direction.

“While we are a company dedicated to the goal of making the world’s information universally accessible, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have certain rules,” Erickson said, citing restrictions on “terrorist content, child sexual abuse material, hate speech, and other harmful content.”

He acknowledged that officials in the Biden administration had contacted Google during the pandemic to urge the removal of certain COVID-19 content from YouTube.

But Erickson maintained that the company “develop[ed] and enforce[d] our policies independently” and “rejected suggestions that did not align with those policies.”

Keep reading

We Have Not Properly Reckoned with the Economic Insanity of 2020

It’s been nearly six years since the SARS-CoV-2 virus spread into the United States, ushering in the pandemic that would come to define the first quarter of this decade.

Considering how recently it occurred and how much it affected every facet of American life, it is somewhat remarkable how absent the pandemic and the government’s response are from today’s news cycle, the daily political fights online and in the media, or in popular culture and fiction.

Even when the pandemic is brought up and re-examined, the focus is usually on the necessity and nature of the government measures put in place to control the spread of the virus or the public’s level of compliance.

That is, to be sure, a worthwhile debate. But the government’s economic response is often left out, which can give the impression that—as controversial as the lockdowns or vaccine mandates might have been—the quick and extensive mobilization of the government’s considerable fiscal and monetary powers was one uncontroversial success story of the covid years.

It wasn’t, and the lack of controversy surrounding it is disturbing.

For most of American history, there had been a fairly consistent understanding that it’s wrong for the government to step in and help a company when it was suffering economic losses or facing bankruptcy.

Beyond that being an avenue for cronyism and corruption, economic theory has also made it very clear for hundreds of years that economic losses are a necessary element for economic growth.

The economy is, after all, a process. And specifically, it’s a process for producing goods and services that people want to consume. In a market unhampered by government, every part of every line of production is geared towards eventually making something that people value enough to pay for. That’s the whole point.

For an economy to grow and everyone to become wealthier, some people need to take on the role of an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs reallocate resources to new lines of production or refine existing lines to account for factors that are constantly changing—things like technology, capital availability, and consumer preferences.

In our role as consumers in a truly free market, we can opt out of any exchange for any reason. So entrepreneurs can only make profits if they offer a good or service consumers’ value enough to pay more for than the business had to pay to produce it. When they don’t, they are stuck with the losses. Economic losses are a very motivating signal that the resources used in a line of production would be better used elsewhere. They are crucial for reorganizing the economy to better meet the needs and wants of the end consumer—which, remember, is the entire purpose of the economy in the first place.

To be clear, the federal government has been intervening in the economy since it was founded. And especially since the beginning of the twentieth century, government officials have been using state power to warp the economy in ways that benefit themselves and their well-connected friends in various industries.

Keep reading

The Covid Re-Review Project: All Models Are Wrong, and Some Are Dangerous

Iwelcome Eyal Shahar’s call for a re-review of Covid vaccine papers. In fact, I started long before Eyal blew the whistle — even before the vaccines appeared.

At the end of the terrible year 2020, a highly influential paper appeared in Science. It made headlines in major media outlets around the world. The paper, titled “Inferring the effectiveness of government interventions against COVID-19,” was soon used by governments across the globe to justify their increasingly authoritarian policies.

It attracted my attention because the last author was Czech mathematician Jan Kulveit. Together with my two colleagues, Ondřej Vencálek and Jakub Dostál, we wrote the following response:

“All models are wrong, but some are useful“ goes a famous saying usually attributed to George Box. Today, he would perhaps say that all models are wrong, and some are even dangerous. This, in our opinion, is the case for the study “Inferring the effectiveness of government interventions against COVID-19”1 that appeared in Science and received widespread attention around the world. 

The study aims at understanding the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in controlling the Covid-19 pandemic. The authors analyze data on the total case counts and death counts from 41 (mostly European) countries between January and the end of May 2020. They produce an estimate of the effects of 8 different NPIs (such as limiting gatherings of people, closing schools, etc.) which were implemented in many countries during the studied period. The effect of each NPI is quantified by the reduction in the infection reproduction number R at the time of the NPI imposition in the respective country. 

The results have been widely welcomed because they seem to show that all of the NPIs generally work, and the effect sizes seem to agree with the common sense (e.g. the more you restrict gatherings, the greater reduction of R you obtain). Governments across the world will be very happy to hear that the restrictions they imposed were justified. But were they?

In fact, we do not know, and this study does not help us to find out. We argue that there is a fatal flaw in the model which renders it useless. Looking at the only equation in the body of the paper (see the “Short model description” section), we see that the authors assume the underlying (unobservable) basic reproduction number R0,c to be constant in time for each country. This basic reproduction number is then multiplied by the effects of the NPIs and this is fitted to data. Thus, the model assumes that any change in the dynamic of the epidemic is due to the NPIs. This is deceptive because it is circular. If you want to quantify the effects of an intervention, you cannot assume that all the observed effects are due to the very intervention. 

Also, this assumption of constant R0,c suggests why the authors chose to stop modeling once any NPI is lifted. The NPIs are usually lifted as the epidemic dwindles. Thus, the NPIs are present when R is high, and they are absent when R is low. With data from a longer time interval (including the summer period of low prevalence and relaxed NPIs), the simple model the authors used would learn a negative effect – that NPIs speed up the epidemic. This was clearly undesirable, so the authors chose not to use the data from the summer to fit the model. Such modeling strategy is highly questionable.

To make our point completely clear, we performed the following experiment. We took the original dataset2 and invented a new NPI that never existed. Let us say that from the imposition of this new NPI on, each citizen was required to wear a T-shirt with a “Stop-Covid” inscription, until this NPI was lifted. 

We drew a random date uniformly from the period over which a particular country was modeled, and “imposed” this T-shirt NPI on the data (see reference [3] for the original dataset with the T-shirt NPI added). We did not change the numbers of cases and deaths anyhow. Such an NPI never existed and so it could not have had any effect. We then ran the original model (see reference [4] for the link to GitHub to the version we used) without touching any parameters. The result is shown in Figure 1. The T-shirts almost made the pandemic go away!

How is this possible? Every epidemic has its intrinsic dynamics. The simplest SIR model produces a single peak in the number of active cases. If we want to reproduce such a peak with a simple exponential function (which is what the authors do), the coefficient in the exponent (i.e. the empirical reproduction number) must decrease in time from the beginning of the first wave. Thus, assuming that any effect on the reproduction number is due to NPIs, the model cannot produce anything other than assign a positive effect (i.e. a reduction in R) to any NPI. Even to a nonexistent one, as we have shown.

Thus, in our view the model is deceptive and very dangerous, because it can be used by the governments to retrospectively justify any NPI they chose to impose on the people. We do not claim that some/all of the NPIs have not had a positive effect. We only say that this model is no way to find out.

Keep reading

Covid response killed more children than covid, UK Covid Inquiry hears

Professor Steve Turner, President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (“RCPCH”), provided evidence to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry on 8 October 2025, on behalf of the paediatric workforce.

His testimony focused on the impact of the pandemic on children, young people and their health services, highlighting that the de-prioritisation of children’s healthcare services persisted for too long and that the indirect effects on their health and wellbeing were not adequately recognised. 

Speaking of the most vulnerable children who had serious health issues and should have been at risk of falling victim to covid, as the official narrative had claimed, Prof. Turner explained that it was known very early on that this was not the case.

“When we started, we thought this [covid] could be really nasty, and there were three categories into which people of all ages were placed in terms of risk. But very, very, very, very quickly, our patients and their parents told us that if … children who have gone through heroic surgery, have life-threatening problems, are ventilated at night, when they get covid and the rest of the family gets covid, it was the parents and the carers who were [sick].

“Children who had kidney transplants, whose immune system was suppressed – we were really worried about them.  But the virus bounced off them.  So, we knew very, very quickly that this virus, for whatever reason, was not doing harm for the vast majority of children in whom we thought it would,” he said.

When asked what the Government and its advisors had not done well in responding to covid, Prof. Turner said: “There was not enough consideration given to the innumerable harmful indirect harm that was done to them as a consequence of the provisions made around covid.”

At the end of April 2020, RCPCH undertook a snapshot survey of more than 4,000 paediatricians across the UK and Ireland through its British Paediatric Surveillance Unit.  32% of emergency department paediatricians responded to say they had witnessed delayed presentations for, for example, new diabetes and cancer diagnoses and sepsis due to restrictions in place in response to covid.  In other words, children were not being taken to the hospital as soon as they should have been. 

At the time of the survey, 9 children had died from sepsis and new cancer diagnoses.  Delayed presentations were considered to be a significant contributing factor in these deaths.  These 9 deaths were higher than the number of childhood covid deaths reported over the same period in England.

It was expected that a few months later, say in June 2020, a follow-up impact assessment would be conducted. Prof. Turner suggested that questions such as, “What have we learnt for children, what have we done to children, what harm are we doing to children and what should we do to address this?” should have been asked at this point.  “I see very little evidence of that ever happening,” he said.

“The evidence is that, come the second lockdown at Christmas 2020, the same thing was done.  Even though we knew that children, mercifully, were spared from the harm that came from covid.  Even my most sick patients, when they and their families got covid, it was the parents who were unwell – these vulnerable children were remarkably unaffected,” he added.

While the virus “bounced off” children, children suffered psychological harm from the measures imposed in response to covid.

Keep reading

The Truth About Excess Deaths Since COVID Vaxx Is Mind-Blowing!

Jimmy Dore and guest Dr. John Campbell discuss the rise in excess deaths following the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, arguing that mortality rates have remained unusually high even after the pandemic should have subsided.

Dr. Campbell explains that “excess deaths” refers to deaths occurring above the expected baseline, which is typically calculated from prior years’ averages, and notes that data transparency has declined in the U.K. since 2023.

The two suggest a possible temporal link between vaccine distribution and the increase in deaths, while acknowledging that definitive proof is lacking due to limited research funding and institutional resistance.

Both imply that governments and pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to investigate the issue, leaving independent researchers struggling to uncover the truth.

Explanation of Excess Deaths

Dr. Campbell defines excess deaths as the number of deaths observed in a given period that exceed the expected baseline, calculated from historical averages (e.g., 2015–2019 data). This baseline accounts for predictable mortality rates by age groups (e.g., so many deaths per 1,000 people aged 60–70 annually) and is generally stable, except during major events like wars or pandemics (citing historical spikes from the bubonic plague).

  • Pre-2020 Baseline: Used 5–10 years of data to establish “normal” annual deaths.
  • Post-2020 Observations: In the UK, early studies (via the Office for Health Care Improvement and Disparities, which ceased detailed reporting around 2023) showed deaths far exceeding this baseline in 2021 and 2022 across countries like the UK and US.
  • Counterintuitive Trend: After 2020’s high COVID deaths (which killed many vulnerable elderly), excess mortality should have dropped due to a “harvesting effect” (fewer at-risk people left). Instead, it rose sharply in 2021–2022, correlating temporally with vaccine rollout.

Keep reading

The #1 Killer in Hospitals Isn’t a Disease — It’s a Word

Hospitals murdered COVID patients. The more they killed, the more money they made.

When the hospitals tested for COVID, they got paid more.

When they admitted patients for COVID, they got paid more.

When they put people on Remdesivir, they got paid more.

And when they put loved ones on the ventilator, they got paid more.

Meanwhile, family requests for ivermectin were denied, while their loved ones were placed on this death protocol instead.

If you think this started with COVID, think again. Hospitals are still a death sentence for loved ones.

Before the unexpected happens, learn how this death trap works to keep your loved ones safe.

COVID pulled the curtain back for millions of people.

On a mass scale, we learned that hospitals across the country followed standardized federal protocols—not individualized care.

Things like Remdesivir and ventilators were pushed on dying patients.

Ivermectin and other affordable therapies were banned.

Even when doctors knew their patients would die, many refused to try alternatives.

And families were left in the dark.

Keep reading

Army Lieutenant Who Was Court-Martialed for Refusing COVID-19 Shot Granted Full Reinstatement and Retroactive Promotion After Under Secretary of War Steps In to Fix Slow Processing

The U.S. Army has officially granted full reinstatement to former First Lieutenant Mark Bashaw, retroactively promoted to Captain, after Under Secretary of War Anthony J. Tata personally intervened to address the “last mile” delays in the reinstatement process.

Under Secretary Tata announced the action on X, formerly Twitter:

“On Monday, @MCBashaw emailed me about several ‘last mile’ issues in the COVID reinstatement process. We immediately convened @USArmy leaders to address them. At this stage, any delays are unacceptable. We’re committed to reinstating our impacted warriors ASAP.”

He later added that the Army and Department of War were engaging directly with Kevin Bouren and Mark Bashaw to resolve any outstanding concerns, noting that not all corrective efforts are visible to the public, but they are “happening steadily behind the scenes.”

Retired U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 and intelligence officer Sam Shoemate responded on Under Secretary Tata’s announcement, stating: “I spoke to [Bashaw]. You sure lit a fire under their ass to get him taken care of. The problem is that it shouldn’t take the Undersecretary of the DOW to get that done.

Keep reading

The Pandemic That Broke Our Faith in Modeling

Several incidents in the COVID pandemic’s first two years forced me to confront the uncomfortable reality that American society had cracked apart, fleeing the comfort and safety of accepted knowns to float untethered from logic in a foreign ether far from planet Earth. Welcome to Mars.

But prior incidents had already trained and prepared my mind to expect a coming derangement. During the Persian Gulf War and the Northridge Earthquake, I had near-death experiences that lingered for years in memory, forever shaping my future actions. Just as scary as thinking I was about to die were the frightening behaviors I witnessed in those around me. During the Gulf War, a soldier in my division came across an Iraqi mine. Instead of calling for engineers to destroy the device, he decided to flip it away from himself, blowing off his own head. After the 1994 earthquake stopped shaking my condo so hard the refrigerator fell over and the walls seemed close to caving in, I stepped outside to smell gas leaking from the major pipeline that ran beneath our complex and a nervous neighbor lighting a cigarette to calm his nerves.

Terrified someone we couldn’t see might be lighting up a smoke elsewhere in the condo complex, my roommates and I fled for safety, driving through a surreal cityscape of gas line fires, while I rode in the backseat with a loaded pistol.

Both wars and natural disasters upend the laws and rules that govern our normal existence. Experience has taught me that such tectonic shifts in society’s rules leave many unprepared to adapt and navigate a new ecosystem. My safety and survival, I’ve learned, sometimes depend on putting my back against a wall to watch those around me whose thinking refuses to acclimate.

The rules are changing dramatically, I posted on Facebook, back in the summer of 2020. And some people won’t be able to adapt. You’re gonna see people you have long trusted and respected lose their absolute minds, drop trou and show the whole world their entire ass. Be careful.

I knew crazy was coming. I did not expect that crazy to destroy so much trust in our government, media, and social institutions.

Keep reading