Tag: pandemic

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

Canada surrenders control of future health crises to WHO with ‘pandemic agreement’: report

Canada’s top constitutional freedom group warned that government officials have “relinquished” control over “future health crises” by accepting the terms of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) revised International Health Regulations (IHR).

The warning came in a report released by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF). The group said that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s acceptance earlier this year of the WHO’s globalist-minded “pandemic agreement” has “placed Canadian sovereignty on loan to an unelected international body.”

“By accepting the WHO’s revised IHR, the report explains, Canada has relinquished its own control over future health crises and instead has agreed to let the WHO determine when a ‘pandemic emergency’ exists and what Canada must do to respond to it, after which Canada must report back to the WHO,” the JCCF noted.

The report, titled Canada’s Surrender of Sovereignty: New WHO health regulations undermine Canadian democracy and Charter freedoms, was authored by Nigel Hannaford, a veteran journalist and researcher.

The WHO’s IHR amendments, which took effect on September 19, are “binding,” according to the organization. 

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canada’s government under Carney signed onto them in May.

Hannaford warned in his report that “(t)he WHO has no legal authority to impose orders on any country, nor does the WHO possess an army, police, or courts to enforce its orders or regulations.”

“Nevertheless, the WHO regards its own regulations as ‘an instrument of international law that is legally binding on 196 countries, including Canada” he wrote. 

Hannaford noted that “Surrendering Canada’s sovereignty” to the IHR bodies is itself “contrary to the constitutional principle of democratic accountability, also found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

“Canada’s health policies must reflect the needs, desires, and freedoms of Canadians – not the mandates of distant bureaucrats in Geneva or global elites in Davos. A free and democratic Canada requires vigilance and action on the part of Canadians. The time to act is now” he wrote. 

Keep reading

Alliance Of Indigenous Nations International Tribunal Issues ORDER: “mRNA nanoparticle injections, are in Fact Biological and Technological Weapons of Mass Destruction”!

A screen shot and downloadable pdf of this extraordinary declaration and ORDER are below.

I assisted Lisa Miron in this effort, by sharing the evidence from my case and helping persuade A.I.N. to take up the issue. Lisa organized it all and did a fantastic job.

After reviewing hundreds of pages of evidence from my current case, including scientific papers and legal briefs filed in the Florida court system, as well other scientific papers, the Alliance of Indigenous Nations (A.I.N.) International Tribunal, issued a declaration and ORDER declaring the MRNA nanoparticle injections biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.

The Alliance of Indigenous Nations (A.I.N.) International Tribunal is the first governing body and judicial authority in the world to issue an ORDER declaring MRNA nanoparticle injections biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.

In addition to legal briefs and scientific studies, the Alliance of Indigenous Nations (A.I.N.) reviewed affidavits filed in my current case in the Florida court system from Ana Mihalcea, M.D., PhD; Rima Laibow, M.D.; Karen Kingston; Andrew Zywiec, M.D.; Marivic Villa, M.D., and Avery Brinkley, M.D.. Dr. Ben Marble, M.D., and Dr. Paul Alexander, PhD.; and the late Francis Boyle, J.D., PhD, the law professor that wrote the U.S. domestic implementation legislation of the Biological Weapons Convention, called the Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act of 1989. Dr. Boyle publicly stated the COVID 19 injections were bioweapons in late 2020, before they were even deployed.

The declaration and ORDER include quotes from and or cites affidavits from Dr. Francis Boyle, J.D, PhD; Dr. Ana Mihalcea, M.D., PhD; Dr. Andrew Zywiec, M.D.,; Dr. Paul Alexander, PhD; and Dr. Rima Laibow, M.D. It also cites the work of Dr. James Thorp, M.D.; Dr. David J. Speicher, who also provided an affidavit; Dr. Jessica Rose; and Dr. Kevin McKernan; and cites a recent paper by Dr. Andrew Zywiec, et. al., stating that the ‘vaccine’ violated the Biological Weapons Convention.

This extraordinary declaration and ORDER comes in the wake of the World Council for Health Florida chapter declaring the MRNA nanoparticle injections to be biological and technological weapons of mass destruction. Previously county Republican Parties across the U.S. as well as the Idaho and Arizona GOPs declared MRNA nanoparticle injections to be biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.

The Indigenous Nations (A.I.N.) International Tribunal stated:

“This Tribunal finds and hereby declares that the COVID-19 injections, mRNA injections, or mRNA nanoparticle injections, are in fact biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.

This Tribunal finds and hereby declares that the ‘COVID-19 nanoparticle injections’ or ‘mRNA nanoparticle injections’ or ‘COVID-19 injections‘ meet the criteria of biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction according to the Biological Weapons Anti Terrorism Act, of 1989 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023), Canada‘s Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 2004, and the International Biological Weapons Convention. This Order and Declaration is intended to have immediate worldwide effect.”

The Indigenous Nations (A.I.N.) International Tribunal has nation to nation status recognized by the Canadian government. The Indigenous Nations (A.I.N.) International Tribunal is the first governing body and judicial authority in the world to issue an ORDER declaring the MRNA nanoparticle injections biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.

Keep reading

Fauci’s Lies Are Catching up with Him

ver the last year, it has become abundantly clear that Dr. Fauci lied and gaslit Senator Rand Paul during sworn Senate testimony during July of 2021, stating “Sen. Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about, quite frankly. And I want to say that officially, you do not know what you’re talking about.”

But it turns out that Senator Paul did know what he was talking about, and it was Fauci who was lying and deflecting, much as he did during his sworn testimony in the case of Missouri vs Biden. Or maybe it was just a memory failure, as Fauci repeatedly claimed during his Missouri v Biden testimony.

Here is the infamous 2021 exchange, as spun by ABC News:

“On May 11, you stated that NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Paul said. He claimed that gain-of-function research — which could, in theory, enhance the transmissibility of a virus — was performed in the lab and referred to an academic paper by a Chinese scientist, which he then asked to be entered into the record and for a copy to be given to Fauci.

“Dr. Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11, where you claimed at the NIH never funded gain-of-function research and move on?” Paul said, repeating his unsupported accusation. <Note: in the paragraph above, ABC news documented that this was actually an accusation supported by a specific reference>

Fauci flatly rejected Paul’s suggestion.

“Sen. Paul, I have never lied before the Congress. And I do not retract that statement,” he said.

Paul suggested Fauci and the NIH could be partly responsible for the pandemic and the deaths of 4 million people worldwide.

The virology expert <Note: I would not call Fauci a virologist. He is a physician and a politician/administrator. This is a form of the logical debate error of “appeal to authority”> explained that the paper Paul referenced does not represent gain-of-function research, and when Paul interrupted, the shouting match ensued.

“Let me finish!” Fauci said, when Paul tried to interject. “Sen. Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about, quite frankly. And I want to say that officially, you do not know what you’re talking about.” <Note: and that is an classic example of diversion, gaslighting, and academic bullying.>

Continuing their ongoing feud, the two argued over the definition of gain-of-function. NIH Director Francis Collins, in a statement earlier this year, warning of misinformation, said, “neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.” <Note: It is now clear that this was another lie>

But Paul would not be swayed.

“You’re dancing around this because you’re trying to obscure responsibility for four million people dying around them from a pandemic,” Paul said.

Keep reading

First Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Direct Molecular Evidence of mRNA “Vaccine” Genomic Integration

For the first time in the peer-reviewed literature— we present direct molecular evidence that genetic material from a COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” has integrated into the human genome.

In our sentinel peer-reviewed case report, Genomic Integration and Molecular Dysregulation in Aggressive Stage IV Bladder Cancer Following COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination—published in the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (John A. Catanzaro, Nicolas Hulscher, and Peter A. McCullough; a Neo7Bioscience–McCullough Foundation collaboration)—we describe a previously healthy 31-year-old woman who developed rapidly progressive stage IV bladder cancer within 12 months of completing a three-dose Moderna mRNA injection series.

Bladder cancer is exceedingly rare in young women, and such aggressive presentations are almost unheard of.

To investigate, we performed comprehensive multi-omic profiling, including plasma-derived circulating tumor DNA, whole-blood RNA, and urine exosome proteomics. What we uncovered was striking:

  • Direct genomic integration event: Within circulating tumor DNA, a host–vector chimeric read mapped to chr19:55,482,637–55,482,674 (GRCh38), in cytoband 19q13.42, positioned ~367 kb downstream of the canonical AAVS1 safe harbor and ~158 kb upstream of ZNF580 at the proximal edge of the zinc-finger (ZNF) gene cluster. This sequence aligned with perfect 20/20 bp identity to a segment (bases 5905–5924) within the Spike open reading frame (ORF) coding region (bases 3674–7480) of the Pfizer BNT162b2 DNA plasmid reference (GenBank accession OR134577.1).
  • Oncogenic driver hyperactivation (KRAS, NRAS, MAPK1, ATM, PIK3CA, SF3B1, CHD4) — unleashing uncontrolled proliferative and malignant signaling cascades.
  • Critical DNA repair pathway collapse (ATM, MSH2) — leaving the genome acutely vulnerable to instability, double-strand breaks, and catastrophic mutations.
  • Severe transcriptomic and proteomic disarray across plasma, blood, and urine biospecimens — consistent with systemic molecular breakdown.

Although the patient received only Moderna injections, the sequence aligned to Pfizer’s published BNT162b2 plasmid reference because Moderna has never deposited its proprietary plasmid in NCBI. Crucially, both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines encode the same prefusion-stabilized SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein and therefore share identical stretches of nucleotide sequence within the Spike ORF coding region. It is within one of these conserved regions that the integration was captured, producing the perfect 20/20 bp match to the Pfizer reference.

Keep reading