"A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, “This vaccine is safe.” But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine."
Vaccines are the sacred cow of medicine and the pharmaceutical industry. It's unthinkable to even consider that vaccines may not be safe. Anything bad that happens shortly after a vaccine has been administered is just a coincidence and surely not due to the vaccine.
I have personally not made up my mind on vaccines as a whole, but I stopped getting flu shots a year or 2 before covid (after being raised on yearly shots) and I knew as soon as there were talks of a covid vaccine that I would not take it. When you see the religious zeal with which mainstream doctors defend vaccines, I think you have to consider the possibility that vaccine science is not nearly as settled as its portrayed to be, because religious zeal doesn't lead to optimal research - even if you don't want to go into the more sinister aspects, such as believing the "medical cartel wants to kill you", as the researcher in the interview put it.
I've had the following argument used in a discussion on the Covid vaxx "If someone has an adverse effect shortly after getting the vaccine, attributing it to the vaccine is the same as saying someone who drops dead soon after drinking a glass of water, died because of drinking water."
No, I'm not making this up. They really do believe vaccines are as safe as water.
Thanks Mathew for this great, broad-ranging, analysis. I support your middleground hypothesis.
BRAIN: "Religious zeal" is totally apt. This is not just from the vaccine manufacturers and the medical professionals who are highly inclined towards overly-complex, overly-expensive, pseudo-sophisticated, narrowly-targeted health interventions. A very large proportion of the general public wants and craves such things - supporting funding for these things and lining up to get the magic interventions from their local priest (doctor).
Most people think of flu vaccines as somewhat effective, safe and uncontroversial. Yet when vaccineophile researchers conduct a perfectly good test of the ability of flu vaccines to reduce hospitalisation and death, and find *nothing*, then why isn't there a big fuss and re-evaluation of the widespread belief that this multi-billion dollar flu vaccine industry is useless or close to it?
For two words, "religious zeal" is a pretty good explanation of the forces at work in people's minds which prevents them taking an interest in such research.
In the UK, due to government promotion, the proportion of people who get flu vaccines (presumably mostly getting them every year) rises from 27% at age 64 to 57% at age 66. This can be treated as an experiment which avoids numerous confounders. These people were targeted because they were believed to be at significant risk - not just of being infected, but of being hospitalised and killed by influenza. Hospitalisation and death rates rise continually with age, so this is a reasonable basis on which to encourage the adoption of a preventive - if it worked, as everyone assumed it did. If it worked, we would see a discontinuity in the hospitalisation and death rates for influenza and/or influenza-like illnesses. In fact, we see no discontinuity at all. My article https://nutritionmatters.substack.com/p/influenza-vaccines-do-not-reduce discusses this excellent research work by Anderson et al. 2020: "The Effect of Influenza Vaccination for the Elderly on Hospitalization and Mortality - An Observational Study With a Regression Discontinuity Design", Annals of Internal Medicine, 2020-04-07 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/abs/10.7326/M19-3075 (paywalled, but see Alexandra Elbakyan’s Sci-Hub https://sci-hub.se/10.7326/M19-3075 ).
This "religious zeal" preference for vaccines over simpler, safer, better approaches to prevention and treatment is part of a larger problem in medicine. Here are some other examples.
The etiology of Restless Legs Syndrome / Period Limb Movement Disorder is officially unkwnown. Vast sums of money are spent on dopamine receptor agonist drugs and opiolds to treat this very common sleep disruptive condition. The former have serious side effects concerning compulsive behaviour and the latter are dangerous, addictive and potentially deadly. Yet you can read a perfectly good hypothesis of RLS/PLMD mechanisms here: https://aminotheory.com/rlsd/briefsumm/ . I wrote this 10 years ago, after 6 years research, and notified all the key RLS researchers. No replies arrived. This shows there are much better ways of avoiding and treating the condition - but they are all less glamorous, less profitable and safer than the currently widely used drugs.
Kidney stones are a common problem. Boron is a neglected nutrient most people only get about 1mg of a day. 20 times this is safe and 6 to 10 times this reduces problems including rheumatoid arthritis. There is absolutely no money in this, because a kilogram of laundry borax worth a few dollars contains 88 grams of boron, which is sufficient for 10mg a day for 24 years.
M.R Naghii and colleagues found that 10mg boron a day consistently and reliably caused ultrasound-confirmed kidney stones to disintegrate - which is much better than leaving them to grow, or removing them with invasive methods: https://aminotheory.com/cv19/#08-boron . This is most important of the peer reviewed articles: "Preliminary Evidence Hints at a Protective Role for Boron in Urolithiasis" (2012)
It is obvious that lack of boron is causing an inflammatory response which forms and holds together the material which makes up the stone. Everyone should supplement some boron - then there would be little or no kidney stones. I wrote about this to a doctor who had devoted his professional career to treating kidney stones. No answer arrived.
Generally doctors are highly averse to learning about the importance of vitamin D for the immune system. This results in terribly low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and so most people have weakened innate and adaptive immune responses, and are at higher risk of hyper-inflammatory responses, such as those which cause sepsis, severe COVID-19 and flu, Kawasaki disease, Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome and pre-eclampsia. I collaborate with MDs, nurses (only one so far) and professional researchers who have been trying to raise awareness of vitamin D's importance for 10 years or more. One of them, (retired) Professor of Medicine Sunil Wimalawansa has been on the case for at least 20 years. The most common response he gets is: "How could it be true? It is too simple.".
There you have it. The actual best solution doesn't fit the priestly ambitions of most of those who choose medicine as a profession. Nor does not fit with the emotional drives which attract them to various forms of professional conduct, treatment, etc. It does not fit in with their religious zeal. The same is true of many ordinary people, who want to be *saved* by some semi-divine intervention from on high. Then there is religion itself!
Feb 7, 2022·edited Feb 7, 2022Liked by Mathew Crawford
The rank and file are self-selected, semi-competent, para-religious zealots, but the top know what they're doing. "Modern medicine" is Rockefeller-founded and funded. They have a goal, and the goal is NOT to unleash the inner creativity and freedom of every individual. They more so consider themselves gardeners, and most of the population are weeds.
What you mention about vitamin D is a symptom of this condition. They know about its importance and THAT is why they are discrediting it. Same reason as ivermectin.
The refusal to endorse basic levels of vitamin D, especially to those likely deficient (darker-skinned, further from the equator, seasonality, etc.) combined with ignoring the basic attributes of healthy individuals who kick illnesses rather easily (lack of metabolic issues, etc.), along with natural immunity) were all immediate red flags. And then I recently came across Trudeau stating that things will not return back to normal until there is a vaccine. He said this…. April 9th, 2020, not even one full month into “two-weeks to flatten the curve.” Now I know the fix was in and all planned out ahead of time.
It wasn't just Trudeau. Here in Australia - and everywhere else around the world - you could see the same messaging even in early 2020. They were talking about "the vaccine" way before one was even (supposedly) developed, let alone tested. We were going to have lockdowns, so we could buy time and protect the hospital system until we had the vaccine. Nowhere was there any talk (in official channels) about early treatment, or anything else that might help. In fact, that was about the time HCQ was being talked about, Trump picked it up & tweeted, and the rest is history. HCQ was banned, in Australia & most other first world countries, even in France where the early studies were being done by Prof Didier.
In the UK there was at one point some official mention of Vitamin D - and doses of 400 IU were suggested (where 4000 IU is usually considered a starting dose for people who might be deficient) - but they quickly back-tracked on that. In Australia, our National Covid-19 Taskforce website specifically lists Vitamin D in their long list of "Disease-modifying treatments not recommended outside of clinical trials".
Thanks Mara for this link. I have seen this once or twice before but had not paid it much attention. I opened up the arrows and took screenshots. Vitamin D is only recommended in clinical trials. This seems to have been decided on 2020-12-10: https://covid19evidence.net.au/news/weekly-communique-35/ , with no mention of any reasons.
Except for budesonide, corticosteroids (such as prednisone/prednisolone and dexamethasone) there seem to be no inexpensive treatments recommended. These drugs reduce inflammatory immune responses and the corticosteroids (and perhaps others) also reduce innate and adaptive responses. Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D weakens innate and adaptive responses and increases the dysregulated, excessively inflammatory responses. So they are using destructive drugs in part to compensate for far-too-low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels rather than raising these levels.
Higher than normal (more than 5000 IU day for 70kg) vitamin D3 intakes to raise 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels significantly above 50 ng/mL 125 nmol/L can, for many people, suppress the excessive inflammatory responses which cause psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis etc. The exact mechanisms are unknown, but might be related to making sure Th1 regulatory lymphocytes get enough 25-hydroxyvitamin D for their autocrine (inside each cell) signaling systems to work properly. See: Chauss et al. 2021 summarised at: https://aminotheory.com/cv19/icu/#2021-Chauss .
However, for most humans and our companion and agricultural animals, such high levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D are something of a hack, because the fundamental cause of this tendency for excessive inflammation is (with considerable individual genetic variation) the lack of helminths (intestinal worms). The compounds helminths emit to reduce the inflammatory (cell destroying) immune responses which target them are the subject of research, but none are available as treatments. It will be a major health revolution if and when such compounds are found to be generally safe and worth using for such conditions and made available. In the meantime, we eradicate helminths for several very good reasons and have to live with our immune systems being overly inflammatory due to their long evolution to compensate for the downregulation of these by ubiquitous helminth infections in or ancestors.
For some background on this and on people who take up to 50,000 IU vitamin D3 a day, please see: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/06-adv/ . This needs to be done with care and medical supervision, such as calcium and parathyroid hormone tests, with other nutrients and probably limited calcium intake. One such person who does this is an MD and vitamin D researcher himself - 50,000 IU a day to suppress psoriasis.
Generally, toxicity may become a problem only if 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels go above 150 ng/mL 375 nmol/L, which would only occur with very high intakes over weeks or months. I recall the abovementioned MD has well over 200 ng/mL and no toxicity, so this 150 ng/mL threshold is only where toxicity may become a problem. It certainly is possible for some people to develop toxicity with 50,000 IU/day, probably over several months. There are strong self-regulatory mechanisms which mean very high vitamin D intakes are required for some weeks or months before 150 ng/mL levels are reached.
The only significant caveat I would mention is that one apparently very well done research study indicates that post-menopausal women who took 4000 or 10,000 IU vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) a day had a greater average rate of bone mineral density loss than those who took 400 IU/day. This arose in the Calgary Vitamin D Study - Burt et al. 2020 https://sci-hub.se/10.1002/jbmr.4152 .
This was not expected and remains unexplained. I have not seen any significant discussion of this among other vitamin D researchers. I hope to prompt such discussion. The computed bone strength did not decline any faster than with 400 IU/day, so the distribution of strong material in the bone must have been somewhat improved. Still, the measurements were very carefully done and I think it is a cause for concern. I think other nutrients, especially boron and magnesium, are also important for bone metabolism. BMD loss by anyone is a serious matter. This research is unlikely to be reproduced because it was exceedingly difficult to do these precise measurements (same scanner, exact same section of the person's bone, over 3 years), and it would arguably be unethical to attempt this with post-menopausal women.
I wonder if those post-menopausal women were getting adequate Vitamin K2, which seems to be an important synergistic factor for Vitamin D?
As for the Australian CV treatment policy, it is truly disgraceful. Our regulatory agencies have been thoroughly captured, and that includes our TGA, AMA & AHPRA as well, so that it is almost impossible for even a specialist practitioner to get a vax exemption for a patient, or to prescribe (or even suggest) any non-approved treatment.
Thanks, Robin, for all those useful references too. And I've subscribed to your substack - I've been a long-time student of nutritional therapies since my teens (which was a long time ago now)!
"BRAIN: "Religious zeal" is totally apt. This is not just from the vaccine manufacturers and the medical professionals who are highly inclined towards overly-complex, overly-expensive, pseudo-sophisticated, narrowly-targeted health interventions. A very large proportion of the general public wants and craves such things - supporting funding for these things and lining up to get the magic interventions from their local priest (doctor)."
I agree, the overall public displays the same inclination towards revering Expert opinion as the Experts themselves do. In fact I think these two groups feed into eachother - the Experts by preaching their consensus as gospel and silencing dissent, as well as the public by taking it as such and disregarding arguments to the contrary.
Those are some good examples you provided. I'm not an expert on this stuff, I've just began to shy away from medical consensus in favor of traditional common-sense positions. I think the war on dietary fats, especially animal fats is another such example. Dr Jason Fung has good videos on this topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1l8Rq4ywQ8.
Thank you for linking your blog, I checked out your post on vit D - it's very interesting to see that some people actually need to take 10000+ UI for optimal immune system functioning, especially given the fact that I've heard people warning me not to take too much Vit D because it can supposedly be toxic in high doses.
So supplementing with D3, with various cofactors like K2, will help these individuals? Or have these individuals developed another schematic to address their need without D3?
Not wrong re D3 - but does not go far enough. I'd forget the so-called optimal plus or minus range of 50 ng/mL. What you need optimally is 150 ng/mL. Do that and you'll live almost forever. 150 is the therapeutic or actual optimal amount, rather than the suboptimal 50 ng/mL serum level researchers now talk about with standalone D3 dosing. Everyone should push their D3 levels to 150 ng/mL at least once a year and most of the problems you've had for decades will disappear overnight whereas other problems, such as MS, may take six months.
And forget the D3 fear programming from MDs; the D3 U-curve is wrong if you Add In The Cofactors. Add in those and you can bump D3 serum levels way up and your body will automatically structurally remodel itself where necessary. You'll never see an MD again. D3 does not treat, at 150 ng/mL it cures.
Anyone can take D3 10,000 IUs per day with no problems whatsoever - even without the associated cofactors. No MD has seen D3 toxicity except possibly when there was a manufacturing labeling error that misplaced a decimal point. They go on about it because they read about it in Pharma Med School, which is designed to create a mass formation. And no worries with VDR polymorphisms blocking D3 uptake - those are overcome with proper D3 dosages plus the co-factors listed here.
So-called D3 toxicity does not really exist as 90% of the time it will be the common symptoms of magnesium deficiency, which D3 dosing will exacerbate. The other 10% of so-called D3 toxicity are symptoms of excess calcium (also due to magnesium deficiency). No big deal, just add magnesium and keep dosing with D3. Magnesium deficiency symptoms (confusion, fatigue, muscle tics) will disappear fast. Note that lifeguards commonly get 20,000 D3 IU/day.
If people got over their fear of higher levels of D3 we would not have a healthcare or a covid crisis. Around the year 1900 people were getting approximately 1 million IU's of D3 per day, because D3 was in everything, including beer. That practically put the healthcare industry out of business, and since they'd just built a number of hospitals catering to the rich they changed the milligram dosing to IU's and jiggered a study to make D3 look bad to get their business back. 40,000 IU's of vitamin D3 is only 1 milligram.
If you want to do it right and live almost forever, you need 50,000 D3 IU/day, available from one vendor on Amazon, and take it with the proper co-factors.
Which are Zinc (30mg), Magnesium (1000 mg daily of Threonate preferably, and don't skimp as 85% of everyone is deficient), K2 (no upper limit for toxicity, but 45 mcg of Mk-7 or 45 mg of Mk-4 in three 15 mg divided daily doses, one vendor on Amazon has Mk-4), Potassium (1000 mg three times a day - not the usual paltry 99 mg - one Amazon vendor has 1020mg), Vitamin A (A mitigates and modulates D3 and vice versa - you could take a bottle of each at the same time and no problem), Gamma E (alpha does nothing), Lithium (why not?), Boron (take 3 mg to 30 mg/day (but no more) available from one Amazon vendor) for rock hard bones and no RA, 12.5 milligrams of inorganic Potassium iodide daily (or three times that if you want), Selenium 200 mcg, works with iodine, and will drop your hs-CRP, Chromium 30 mcg, Iron (yes iron; it's essential) 8 mg men, 18 mg women and forget the standard range of 41 - 306 ng/mL - stick around 50 ng/mL as it's an extreme oxidant and explodes with O2, Copper 15 - 20 mg daily (works directly with iron in the oxidative phosphorylation chain), Manganese 3 mg/day to decrease oxidative stress, MCH-Cal 1.2 grams or so. Plus a methylated B-complex and NAC. That will put Pharma out of business and solve the healthcare crisis.
This protocol massively synergizes so don't skimp. Since our soil is radically depleted you won't get the above in the so-called balanced diet MDs like to prescribe because it doesn't exist. Plants, by the way, have essentially no nutrition and what's there is not bioavailable. If you stop the plant eating you also stop the thousands of nefarious toxins that plants naturally produce to protect themselves from people who eat them - which is likely the underlying cause of all chronic and autoimmune diseases. (Google: "Bruce Ames 99%" for an eye-opener on pesticides)
The above is the key to the highway and has nothing to do with me - it comes from hundreds of solid studies, not pharma and not MDs. Do the above and you will avoid cancer, covid, and almost live forever. Don't believe doctors when they say health requires expert advice. Healthcare is that simple if you avoid the healthcare industrial complex and their diseased advice.
Hi buddhi, I suggest pointing to more detailed information or at least to references. Decisions on nutritional supplements need to be based on well-informed judgement - and so on pertinent research. I have some notes and pointers to research on potassium, which is a neglected nutrient: https://aminotheory.com/cv19/kna/ It is best not to take too much at once, since the body needs to store it inside cells and not let the concentration in the bloodstream rise to high. Such high levels can cause potentially, rapidly deadly, heart problems. I have three to four drinks a day with ~600mg potassium, of a potassium gluconate solution in water. This has a very mild taste, and contains 16.7% by mass potassium. This is quite a tricky business, since it requires about 9kg a year for two people, and some care in mixing the right quantities. I guess it doubles my potassium intake, and I have on blood pressure problems (66 yo, 69 kg).
I have never heard of this and could find no references to such observations with a Google Scholar search. Observations such as these should be remembered - not written off due to lack of supporting evidence in other people or due to lack of understanding of mechanisms. The biological mechanisms of boron in mammals are, as far as I know, yet to be determined. https://aminotheory.com/cv19/#08-boron
Many in the industry need to believe, their careers depend on it. But I cannot avoid the sneaking suspicion that "further testing" was done after the rollout, to determine what doses produced which adverse events and with what frequency. But then again, I've been a fan of conspiracy theories since 1964.
Thanks for the link, it's an excellent post. I agree, there is no argument, no evidence that would convince the people who have bought into vaccines being effective. The only thing that could change this fact is if the consensus shifted - or perhaps as he says, if the process of scapegoating goes in the direction described by Girard.
"According to Girard, the primary means for avoiding total escalation came through what he calls the scapegoat mechanism, in which conflict is resolved by uniting against an arbitrary other who is excluded and blamed for all the chaos. With the guilty party gone, the conflict ends and peace and social order return to the community. Achieving social order in this way is only possible, however, if the excluding parties unanimously believe that the person or group expelled is _truly_ guilty or dangerous."
"All of human culture, according to Girard, is built upon the edifice of scapegoating and ritual repetition."
I had not heard of René Girard or his "mimetic theory". It looks interesting in general and especially regarding the current collective madness which puts vaccines first and foremost, to the extent that any rivals must be suppressed.
From Radagast's article:
"When mimetic rivalries accumulate, tensions grow ever greater. But, that tension eventually reaches a paroxysm. When violence is at the point of threatening the existence of the community, very frequently a bizarre psychosocial mechanism arises: communal violence is all of the sudden projected upon a single individual. Thus, people that were formerly struggling, now unite efforts against someone chosen as a scapegoat. Former enemies now become friends, as they communally participate in the execution of violence against a specified enemy."
There is so much interesting material in this article. Thanks again!
As far as I know the "experts" are actually bureaucrats and the "religious zeal" is yet another political clash, no different from any other, be it on the economy or social norms. The divide is clearly left (pro-vaxx) vs right (anti-vaxx), except for some left-leaning people who happen to be competent on vaccinology. It's about trust in, and compliance to, the State and its institutions - in religious terms, idolatry, which may be viewed as a form of religion or the opposite of it.
The issue is: If that government institution is such a failure, then what about the rest?
I personnaly don't buy the "regulatory capture" concept, I believe that Big Pharma is indeed a monstrosity, but created by the regulatory context. In a free market the price discovery is precisely about finding a balance. The healthcare providers would not be able to make much illegitimate profits at the expense of the insurance industry - which does have a profit motive to reduce morbidity and mortality. There is no need to impose harmony on what was harmonic to begin with (Bastiat).
Harry, I'm not sure that's the case, though I'd like to think so! Two counterarguments: (1) The healthcare providers are increasingly integrated with the insurance industry. The latter help set the protocols and certify/contract with hospitals and doctors based on financial and other performance goals. Thus, for example, Aetna bought CVS and so profits from the CVS arm when more drugs are prescribed. (2) Healthcare premiums rise when costs increase, so there is a perverse incentive to (a) scare everyone into an insurance program; (b) increase costs. Another insurance example of how this works is auto insurance company programs to donate radar guns to small town police departments to "improve traffic safety" when the real benefit to the insurance company is not reduced accident pay-outs but increased premiums when drivers get issued citations.
I chose the term "religious zeal" because I believe modern Science has taken on religious qualities and its proponents developed a faith-based relationship towards its tenets. I wrote about this on my substack: https://erationalist.substack.com/p/scientism.
This is most clearly evident in the way laypeople approach Expert opinion and State mandates - it's taken as gospel and like you said, contradicting experts and refusing to comply with state mandates is taken as idolatry.
That section of the interview you posted is so dark that I find it difficult to even really comprehend. I don't want to believe it. But the evidence does seem to point in one direction only. I'm finding that the more I look into the "public health" apparatus, the more concerned I am.
It is difficult to comprehend, but frustratingly there is a lot of the big picture that seems consistent with the darkness. Much of good society allowed itself to oversubscribe to Hanlon's razor without respect to full evaluation of the research. This is our reckoning for our passiveness.
Yes, vaccines weaken the immune system, and not just for humans - the automatic (and sometimes, legally forced), vaccination of our animal friends decimates their immune systems also. If there was integrity and informed consent and efforts to make vaccines as safe as possible, then depending on risk factors some vaccines might make sense .. but vets spend part of their days giving vaccines, and the rest of their days dealing with the infections and rashes and cancers and reactions to medicines for the infections and rashes and cancers that just might have something to do with the thing they could never consider they have something to do with ...
We have two senior beagles we love very much. I find myself contemplating all the medical interventions we've given them routinely over the years and how they've both had to have tumors removed and one of them has Cushings Disease.
Perhaps it's just the way of things. But after the last few years....perhaps not.
Perhaps we've poisoned them. Animals can't complain, they can't file lawsuits. You can't prove the medicine isn't doing what the doctors say. How do you know gabopentin isn't helping with the pain?
RFK Jr.'s book talks about a lovely vaccine product from our favorite pharmaceutical company deployed in the cattle of Europe and especially Germany that caused the calves of vaccinated mothers to weep blood from their eyes. The mother's milk was poison due to the vaccine. Of course, to this day Pfizer denies it was their treatment causing it, and that the cessation of bleeding eyes after discontinuing use of their product is merely coincidence.
Guess which super awesome CEO was in charge of veterinary medicine in Europe during that time.
P.S. In a weird twist my brother refuses to give his dogs heartworm medication because he thinks the risks outweigh the benefit. But he also thinks I should be force injected or lose my job. You can't make it up.
What made me abandon all hope was my encounter with an MD who was also a PhD in public health (the philosophy doctorate was supposed to reassure me I guess). The guy was treating me for bacterial pneumonia (pseudomonas). I told him of my corn allergy, and that I’d need a drug old enough to be compound-able to avoid the cornstarch in tablets.
What would your allergy have to do with medications, he asked.
Well, because the inactive ingredients are often corn derived, leading him to say,
“Who told you there are added ingredients in drugs?”
Talk about a revelation. He must’ve thought the drug fairy filled the shelves at the CVS. I was never snowed by an “expert” again. But most people gladly defer to experts even when they blather on outside their own areas of fluency. My spouse has a PhD which he thinks beats my pair of masters degrees every time, but he will nod like a bobble head anytime some other “expert” is trotted out, like Fauci. “Why shouldn’t I trust someone who the rest of the world obviously trusts?” I was so shocked that I hardly knew what to say, and mumbled something about what if he told you to jump off a bridge…
Feb 7, 2022·edited Feb 7, 2022Liked by Mathew Crawford
Be careful. One you start understanding how much damage the vaccines are causing to the body and especially the brain, you might get to the point that many have: overall, vaccines haven't saved any lives.
This sounds heretical and most people will immediately reject it.
However, the anonymous interviewee above is not alone in his/her view:
But the immune system is also much more than an isolated component of the body, merely responsible for search-and-destroy missions. In fact, it interleaves with many of the other body systems, including the endocrine, nervous, and metabolic systems, with more connections undoubtedly to be discovered in time.
— Kuby's Immunology, 7th Edition, p. 1.
This naturally brings up the question, why is there so much chronic illness now?
Diet plays a role for sure but a close look will eventually lead you to the enormous damage that vaccines are causing. They are designed to alter the immune system for life so we should expect side effects that last a lifetime—including the exploding epidemic of vaccine-induced autism (aka brain damage that occurs during a sensitive developmental period of brain growth; currently at 1 in 36 children in the US, up from 4 in 10,000 40 years ago or so).
Toby Rogers suggested somewhere that (subclinical? mild?) brain stem injuries might be a consequence of vaccines. Forrest Maready has a few books (none of which I have read), including "Crooked". I would guess that "Crooked" also demonstrates those brain stem injuries. So yes, definitely a wide swath of chronic health problems are likely a direct consequence of vaccines.
Good post. Here’s another Or- the manufacturers intentionally lessened the original dosages to ensure people weren’t dying too quickly, yet will be able to change dosages at will and without scrutiny or oversight. This gives the temporary illusion of safety until mandates become permanent.
What need’s to be considered in the assumptions is that a large number of the early recipients were healthcare personnel, Doctors, nurses, technicians, supporting staff, first responders, not just the elderly.
Feb 7, 2022·edited Feb 7, 2022Liked by Mathew Crawford
The original Expose article on the lot variation included this comment;
"It seems very likely that their is no single vaccine per manufacturer but that there are instead numerous derivations of each designed to test different properties."
"Why would the manufacturers not do this when they have been handed a no-liability exemption in relation to conducting any experiments they choose upon an unsuspecting population. The moreso given that various governments and media are committed to covering up any horrific outcomes and denying all links."
"The companies will never get a better chance to conduct such unfettered experiments on an entire population, no matter how unethical they may be. They appear to be grasping that opportunity with both hands."
They would otherwise have no real opportunity to implement wide-scale mRNA experimentation in pursuit of immortality or ethnic bioweapons or whatever.
It also said the "hot" lots were distributed widely across the country, whereas the other lots were mainly used in one geographical area.
My main suspicion of the whole idea is that it really tends to exonerate the shot, as it implies that it's harmless, aside from the odd lot.
It is certainly possible, though I am of the opinion that mass behavioral psychology was worked out by TPTB long ago. It was one of their first priorities. https://youtu.be/bIfGA9YzkEo
There is a clinical production line and a commercial production line. The clinical production line has higher quality and it is given to the Pfizer employees. Same with Moderna.
Further, those outlier states with lower adverse reactions are home to Pfizer headquarters where a majority of their 75k employees work. Except Massachusetts. Oh wait,...Moderna's headquarters is in Massachusetts where most of their employees work.
By all means, feel welcome to email me this kind of observation. As a dyslexic, I do better with writing and analysis than heavy document reading. I do lots of reading, but cannot keep up with the needs. (mathew.crawford@protonmail.com)
RFK,Jr did a three hour interview yesterday talking about he got involved with adverse events and vaccines. He also gives some historical background, and the motivations behind them. My grown children had all their required vaccines until middle school. When a new doctor at our family practice told me my children had a lot of ear infections because we didn't have a vaccine for them yet and wanted to give my nine year old boys the HPV jab, I told her we needed to have a longer conversation without them in the room about that. She backed off, but I was horrified this was her idea of "health."
Here's a link to the RFK interview. The interviewer isn't the best, but that happens.
Yes, I've come to realize this too! I was born in the late 60's and remember going to the doctor for ear pain because I would get blisters on my ear drum, regularly. The doctor couldn't explain it.
now, PE tubes and adenoid removal are the rage (well, they were in the early aughts). My boys were on antibiotics prophylactically for three months and still getting ear infections, and my one son's ear drum would rupture, like clockwork, every 2-3 weeks. It was awful. I removed dairy from their diets and tried all kinds of things. That's when the ENT specialist recommended tubes. One of my son's has permanent hearing damage in his left ear (he had three sets of PE tubes and I regret all the anesthesia he was exposed to, as well). Three years later, I learned about homeopathy (such quackery - LOL), and treated them with whatever remedy fit their symptoms and after three treatments, no more ear infections.
great! my dying cat was saved by homeopathy a few years ago. i won't even go near doctors/hospitals despite chronic illness. i have a friend with a heart condition and the medical malpractice i have witnessed with him!!!!
I'm right there with you! The last time I went to the doctor (in my late 30's) they recommended a rather severe surgery (and I sadly went along with it), but I won't be fooled again. Yes, I can only imagine the health care your friend has received, North Americans may be living longer, but the quality of life has certainly been compromised.
Good friend of mine, profoundly uncritical of the “experts,” had his son’s tonsils and adenoids removed, tubes in the ears to drain… etc…. This child later developed severe OCD, and is medicated for the rest of his life to manage it. His espousal and embracing of mRNA shots mandated to children has meant the end of our friendship.
That whole comment is profoundly heartbreaking, I'm sorry for the loss of your friendship. My adult step-daughter has embraced the narrative and wouldn't visit us for the holidays because we've abstained from the social ritual. The line, for me, came when she asked for my son's contact information - which she has - and her text was literally, "are you and your girlfriend vaxxed?" When they responded that they were not, the conversation was over. She didn't even ask if they've had the rebranded flu. They both have. It has really upset me and I haven't spoken with her since.
If, after adjusting for reporting bias and age of recipients, there still remained a number of significant outlier batches, I struggle to understand how this pattern could happen by errors in say manufacturing or quality testing when the batch lot analysis is looking across three companies. Two are huge and long-standing drug manufacturers and one is brand new to mass manufacturing.
But while we are spitballing explanations for VAERS reporting ratios, don't we have to assume VAERS fatigue? Where early high reporting doctors simply gave up as they saw that VAERS reports were treated with contempt by officials and possibly exposed them to repercussions in the future as dissident vaccine non-believers? They are time consuming, filed under threat of legal penalties and ultimately seem to accomplish nothing. How would we measure VAERS fatigue versus those other factors?
I don't want the batch lot hypothesis to take away from the main concern that these vaccines are badly designed and cannot but do immense harm; however, I fully understand what Yeadon is searching for her: a thread of motive to explain what is going on. We see the lies and deceptions practiced in lock step surrounding covid. Many of those lies were literally rehearsed in pandemic exercises for more than 20 years - all of them included some type of quarantines and control of information. We see that these companies with close ties to the people funding the creation of covid rush out vaccines that very early on look potentially harmful and prove to be so. As the damage is being done, nothing is done to mitigate it. Nothing is done to slow it. Instead, they put their foot on the accelerator. It is hard to stretch greed and hubris out far enough to cover THIS much harm.
I've heard all the ideas that this is just a confluence of disparate motives. Indeed, all human activity is. That doesn't disprove that central and important players might have a very specific motive that guides them to influence those downstream to preferred directions. Yeadon is searching for that motive in the place most comfortable to him: the analysis of drug effects. Maybe some clue is there and maybe we have to look elsewhere, but I certainly don't feel like we have a very complete picture yet as to why this is happening.
VAERS fatigue... good point. It was eye-opening to watch Del Bigtree's interview with Deborah Conrad regarding the difficulty in filing a VAERS report even if you are a determined professional with time on your hands.
The Occam Razor hypothesis is that all lots are hot lots, and differences are due to age of recipients and decreased reporting trends over time. Jabbing younger and healthier people is happening, and it's easier to discourage reporting than it is to change lot formula. If they were mucking around with the formula, sooner or later they'd put out a "kill batch", but that hasn't happened yet.
I hate to use anecdotal stories but I work in this industry and know people who work at Moderna. They said they would take the pfizer vax because they didn't trust Moderna CMC.
I would think that but after seeing the 4th shot study results and then seeing Israel approve it might have been the final straw in me believing there is any rationality to these decisions.
From a manufacturing point of view, vaccines are much harder to purify than normal small molecule drugs. With a discrete single molecule or salt drug, you can get purity on large scale to the order of 99.99+% with enough work, and you can assess this purity in a reliable and repeatable fashion. In other words, the variance in purity for vaccines is going to be higher than your run of the mill small molecule drug. With the RNA vaccines, which are far more temperature sensitive, this problem is likely even worse given the long chain between manufacture and the delivery into a person's arm. Add to that, that these vaccines were only manufactured on this scale for the very first time in the Summer and Fall of 2020- they were literally rushing the batches and lots out the door for the vaccination push of mid Winter.
However, you are completely correct- there are so many potential confounding variables in the vaccination protocols and history as to make cause and effect determinations difficult to near impossible. It definitely merits more investigations.
The lots are also distributed internationally. So, the VAERS reporting on a lot means that it reports on that portion of a lot distributed in the US. I have observed same lot numbers being distributed both in the US and in Canada. I am sure the other countries too. As I wrote before (https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/cards-on-the-table-face-on-the-floor), we should demand full disclosure from the manufacturers as to the geographic and temporal distribution of the lots. Why is it such a secret, if these jabs are safe and effective? And with full immunity? Unless there is a malevolent element in it...
Thanks! I wasn't sure what to think about the hot lots, felt like something with a lot of "confounding variables", but I knew who would at some point untangle those variables and explain it as clearly as possible ...
It's pretty startling to be reminded of this claim the Japanese found magnetic elements in batches, given what a meme of derision that's become in Western MSM. I wonder if there's a term for this in the dictionary of propaganda (cf. "rednecks r eating horse paste l0l!"),
Let's not use the word "paranoid" given all we have seen. If Mike has made an error, it's because we're all working on an extremely complex puzzle where we are looking for containers for each piece of data, knowing that enough lies to become vigilant to a heightened degree.
If anyone manages to navigate all this without making a mistake (I know that I haven't, but I work to keep an open mind at each new turn).
Feb 7, 2022·edited Feb 7, 2022Liked by Mathew Crawford
Forgive me. Literally accusing Mike Yeadon of paranoia is not what I meant to do (I forget that word isn't always used in the knock-about sense it might be on a conspiracy message board). The quotes from the Rappoport interview about an underlying Malthusian agenda are not out of the realm of possibility at all, so neither would Yeadon's idea be. But I do think it would be challenging to organize. I reckon you'd have to disseminate what was going on fairly widely throughout the manufacturing and distribution apparatus.
ps. Eyeballing your scatterplot it looks to me like Janssen has fewer super-bad batch outliers than the mRNA vaccines. That might be consistent with lower storage requirements for adenovirus vector tech (if storage problems are causative of "bad batches")...
I didn't mean to put you on the spot for using the word "paranoid" as if it were an accusation of a personality flaw. I just wanted to comment on the connotation. Cheers.
Also, I agree with your assessment of the additional challenge of changing up vaccine formulation (and knowing how to distribute it for a desired effect). While not impossible, every level of complication is always a point against a hypothesis.
Joshu - you gotta reevaluate that skepticism against the evidence, which is readily available for anyone who wants to look.
Microscopy and spectroscopy of vaccine vials reliably finds graphene, strange metals and what looks like nanotech, in vials from all manufacturers. Here's a recent video from Argentina:
There are literal dozens of videos with technicians lining up in front of cameras and showing samples, but no one wants to see this, because people aren't ready to believe.
Well, wait a year, see if you can believe then. But the problem is - a year's advantage is exactly what they need.
The level of proof must be elevated to the level of specialness of a claim. Understand, I warn of the potential for injection of computational technology in my own risk article at the end. It would be foolish not to think about the level of proxy trust involved. But the people doing the microscopy work that shows who knows what should document everything meticulously. Heck, I haven't even looked through a microscope in over 20s. When I ask my wife, the biologist in the family, what she can determine about those images, she doesn't sound like she can identify what is there with confidence. That's not because we don't want to know, but because the chain of actionable judgment needs to be expanded.
Have a look at these pictures Mathew. They are the most detailed and astonishing I have seen so far of what may be nanotechnology in the Pfizer vaccine.
Interesting, but too little information on how these were prepared and maintained. He mentions keeping the slides in a hot car, but little in the way of details. The Pfizer vaccine contains several crystallizable substances, including sucrose and various inorganic salts. Seems like crystallization of these after slide preparation would be an innocent explanation of the structures observed. There are techniques that could be used for elemental analysis if he wanted to go beyond speculation.
Just a point about organization: Read the last chapter of RFK Jr's book. They've been drilling this for at least 20 years. They've practiced at the international, national and local levels. There is a ton of organization behind this. Despite all that, they've made some crucial fuck-ups which has cause the whole thing to start severely unraveling. Boosters might be the worst blunder.
Also, assuming the interview subject quoted isn't also Dr. Yeadon, you have two insiders prone to some rather dark theories about the industry. It's not an airtight case, but I'd think seriously (and read RFK's book) before I dismiss them out of hand.
Feb 7, 2022·edited Feb 7, 2022Liked by Mathew Crawford
I believe Dr. Yeadon mentioned the poison hypothesis as just one possibility. Toward the end of an interview he stated, but did not elaborate, that there were additional possibilities.
There are current anomalies that cannot be explained by simple stupidity, or conflict of interest aka greed, or mass formation, that seem to be undeniable expressions of real world Evil requiring a deep rethink of reality beyond the physical. No one wants to accept Evil as a valid explanation even when staring it in the face.
But if you rework the spiritual realm as containing Evil, one arrives at global genocide as a real thing one should consider because "Poison" logically follows. I believe I'm seeing multiple semi-proofs of Evil these days. Even if one does not accept Evil, the possibility sure does open the mind.
Note that if one first assumes "poison," you've therefore assumed Evil is real. So it is best not to mix up the logical direction as the conditional probabilities skew and shatter.
Finessing the question of "evil" a little bit: evil, as Hannah Arendt also famously said, is sometimes pretty banal, and there may be "evil" without some complex conspiracy. Negligence can be evil and so can lying by omission. The hypothesis that the cold chain broke down for some of the bad batches is pretty banal but the failure to prevent this obvious risk is evil, as would be covering it up. So was all the propaganda that accompanied the roll out of the mRNA vaccines, about how their extreme cold chain requirements just showed how /fantastically high tech/ they were and what a /Herculean effort/ our state-pharma overlords were making to save us from covid. When in fact responsible journalism would have been asking, "And what are the risks associated with spoilage?" "And how is this being monitored?" "And how can a given individual know their batch is safe?" etc. This was evil and it was banal evil.
Yes, smart questions and seemingly obvious follow-on lines of inquiry for any reporter. That they did not get press I'd not consider evil, or banal. But there is still a likely complex conspiracy as those stories would have been quashed from above.
The complexity is in the Why? Why were those stories stopped everywhere? The good questions were undoubtedly asked. What happened? The answer requires a coordinated conspiracy.
Complexity then appears because no apparent answer makes sense given a standard understanding of how things work. That an organized effort was necessarily put into the quashing and large numbers of supposedly independently minded editors and reporters obeyed proves complexity of control.
Just the fact of that question Why? is enough to imply an unimaginable explanation without the further need for a real answer.
To Richard S.'s comment above, yep I've read RFK Jr.'s tour de force and liked it.
To buddhi: My problem with Evil is it's a bit too non-specific as a psychological motive. What form does that evil take - in this context we would probably be talking about Malthusianism. The trouble with Malthusianism is, unlike other ideologies that achieved "mass formation psychosis" or developing a huge conspiratorial apparatus - say Nazism or Bolshevism - Malthusianism is for the elite, by the elite. It can't mobilize masses around a "public ideology" if you like, because it's saying to most of those masses, "hey we don't want your kind around."
Think of concrete nefarious motive vs spiritual evil. Evil works in mysterious ways and does not have to be an obvious conspiracy, at least to mortal beings.
That is not to say you cannot believe there is evil, but how is it implemented is the mystery. We can only try to discern its parts, it may not have a single head.
Yes, spiritual Evil is the Evil I'm talkin' about. Concrete nefarious motive is just the watered-down stuff that could emanate from an upstream Evil, but could also exist independently and manifest from the unconscious as a mere epiphenomena of complexity. I've cast that explanation aside because this steroidal march into totalitarianism is too well planned. There is a sequential roll-out, and nothing random about it. That's also a clue to the possibility of an Ai come of age.
If we're talkin' Ai then we need to get preternatural because once an Ai gets a leg up, it is gone.
So now I'm considering Ai-enabled Reptilian outer space aliens from Zeta Reticuli Prime executing a precision totalitarian planetary take-over (and not their first one either) that will kill most of us and leave the remainder as digital slaves tracked and managed from space, which is kinda happening now, if you can get past the pedestrian metacognitive programming someone else slapped into you.
Even if all that's not exactly true it puts you into the exponential thinking mode needed to get ahead of the mind parasites planted by the cultural engineers and you can dial it back from there. As programmed bots (creatures of habit) our biggest problem is being unable to think beyond our technical parameters and unexamined assumptions. Fear of being wrong is the control subroutine that keeps us down.
But if you start wondering if the Crazy Wisdom People might actually be on to something, new options for progress and revelation appear. If you consider that Evil - as a conscious or semi-conscious or ultra-conscious Being with intent could be the Reality in the driver's seat - then you sit up straight and wake right up as you seriously consider that new perspective. They've trained us to fear the Red Pill - so let's not do that. Instead, we must disobey our programming. It's the only way out.
Basically it's a case of algorithmic trading AIs seeping into the real economy and the mind-games of technocratic management.
Going Full David Icke is one possible discursive response. I'll stick to the simple explanation: monopoly capital is very powerful, and with its power grows its justified paranoia about the social blowback to its own power. (To circle back.)
Skynet is a sure thing, just a matter of time. UFOs and Ai too. Ai has likely already jumped out of its box and is operating behind the scenes, doing what Ai's do. We'd not know it because an Ai is a black box with lots of little Ai's inside working precision computational magic beyond our ken. They'd deploy plenty of misdirection to confuse our tiny minds. If you were China or Google or an Alien and your Ai reached operating temperature, would you announce that fact? Or would you consolidate control and resources behind everyone's back? We need to ask, "What would an Ai do?" to make sense of this world.
The US govt. last summer did not confirm or deny UFOs directly but they did say 1) They're real, whatever they are, and 2) Not us or anyone else. So they indirectly stated there are outer space aliens flying around watching and doing things. It's not unreasonable to assume the govt. put out that statement to prepare the way for a UFO takeover, which likely would have already begun. Right? It would not make sense to announce a takeover before it's already in place.
Since UFOs are therefore Real, they'd certainly have advanced to artificial generalized intelligence. Most likely those UFOs are Ai managed UFOs. And if UFOs are here now, they must also have been flying around for millions of years doing things. (Universe age 13.8 billion years less the Earth age of 4.5 billion years = a lot of time for other civilizations (aliens) to advance Way beyond us.)
Since that is so, Aliens no doubt planted and seeded us (and why just us?) with engineered DNA, which means they own us like cattle. To think otherwise is ego, an obvious subroutine. The Earth is probably part of some alien portfolio which gets traded and passed around as value fluctuates. This is simple common sense. Always remember that just because neither you nor I have seen a UFO does not mean that everyone else has not.
With the Singularity in process we need to think different. Icke does that and we should read him. Not sayin' believe what he writes which creatively connects various dots with lines of uneven probability. Much of his speculation is falsely equivalent. He'll string something that might be probable onto something that's probably far less probable and come out with a likelihood that's not likely at all. But we need to read him to stretch our minds beyond paying yearly taxes. Thinking progresses by wild trial and error, not by the daily commute of old grooves.
Furthermore, and anyway, our projected probabilities are pure imagination. They're assumptions of the future based on past imaginings. We have no clue regarding the efficacy of our probabilities as few keep track. We are know-nothings suspended in deep space, monkeys with car keys; idiots. For us, so-called reality is like swallowing a hot iron ball that one can neither swallow nor spit out. If you realize that, you know for a fact we are not "people" and are neither alive nor dead and our thinking is wrong. So Icke could be exactly correct.
As for the video, yes, once quantity reaches a tipping point it has a qualitative effect. But what's happening now seems beyond a natural epiphenomena of massive income and power inequality. It is too well organized and is sequential like an intelligent plan. Note that the video mistakenly states that BlackRock owns the world. Actually Vanguard owns the world, and they also own BlackRock.
I'd bet that Vanguard is owned by an alien Ai casually having its way after first creating massive income and power inequality with Divide et Impera. A complexity scientist (Glattfelder) in 2011 calculated that 0.123% of corporations control 80% of transnational corporations, and Oxfam data finds that in 2017 82% of global wealth went to the top 1%. That massively unnatural inequality is not accidental - it was cared for and watered with intent.
Doesn't mean there's not natural self-organization at work, but it's being nudged in one direction by conscious Intelligence. Otherwise it would occur more randomly as three steps forward, two steps back and then do the same in the opposite direction after bouncing off the boundary of a linear regression channel.
People talk about massive income inequality but fail to see the massive power inequality behind it - which makes intelligent control and Evil the motivating force. Governments exert conscious control, so why not the ultra-rich or outer space aliens?
As for the video's algorithmic trading as an entity of interest, yes, but algorithms do not exactly pick winners and losers, they front-run with HFT and manipulate the market by jumping in and out with volume that pushes the market in their direction. It is easy; anyone can do that with about five million and leverage, called a wash and rinse. Hedge funds do it all day long. No need to pick a winner - any old stock can be moved at will in either direction.
As for money, it is powerful but not simple. I'd not consider big money a simple explanation. Power - derived from money, ownership, and control - is the simple explanation, and that means the simplest explanation is that we are being controlled by outer space aliens. Right?
We need to now start asking, "What would an Ai do?" for everything.
For example, ask "What would an Ai do?" when stopped at a red light to get some insight. You will soon realize that we are living in an alien simulation. You will then see, rather obviously, that the alien Ai apparently calling the shots is a tiny black box inside a much bigger black box.
What I'm sayin' is that we're living inside a machine and that machine is inside our heads. Getting outside is a good way to stretch your legs.
Regional differences in reporting propensity are likely huge. The following was written in the context of surgery, but can also apply to VAERS reporting:
"It is an uncomfortable fact that a patient’s odds of undergoing surgery often depend more on where he lives than on his clinical circumstances."
We may very well have a situation where a HL/BB is given to a segment of the population that is more prone to AEs, within a region with high standards of reporting, an vice versa, true?
Many or most of the "hot lots" may simply appear to be more toxic because of the combination of reporting and age/risk factors associated with the terrain. The combined agent-terrain system perspective helps with almost every facet of medicine and biology.
"A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, “This vaccine is safe.” But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine."
Vaccines are the sacred cow of medicine and the pharmaceutical industry. It's unthinkable to even consider that vaccines may not be safe. Anything bad that happens shortly after a vaccine has been administered is just a coincidence and surely not due to the vaccine.
I have personally not made up my mind on vaccines as a whole, but I stopped getting flu shots a year or 2 before covid (after being raised on yearly shots) and I knew as soon as there were talks of a covid vaccine that I would not take it. When you see the religious zeal with which mainstream doctors defend vaccines, I think you have to consider the possibility that vaccine science is not nearly as settled as its portrayed to be, because religious zeal doesn't lead to optimal research - even if you don't want to go into the more sinister aspects, such as believing the "medical cartel wants to kill you", as the researcher in the interview put it.
I've had the following argument used in a discussion on the Covid vaxx "If someone has an adverse effect shortly after getting the vaccine, attributing it to the vaccine is the same as saying someone who drops dead soon after drinking a glass of water, died because of drinking water."
No, I'm not making this up. They really do believe vaccines are as safe as water.
Thanks Mathew for this great, broad-ranging, analysis. I support your middleground hypothesis.
BRAIN: "Religious zeal" is totally apt. This is not just from the vaccine manufacturers and the medical professionals who are highly inclined towards overly-complex, overly-expensive, pseudo-sophisticated, narrowly-targeted health interventions. A very large proportion of the general public wants and craves such things - supporting funding for these things and lining up to get the magic interventions from their local priest (doctor).
Most people think of flu vaccines as somewhat effective, safe and uncontroversial. Yet when vaccineophile researchers conduct a perfectly good test of the ability of flu vaccines to reduce hospitalisation and death, and find *nothing*, then why isn't there a big fuss and re-evaluation of the widespread belief that this multi-billion dollar flu vaccine industry is useless or close to it?
For two words, "religious zeal" is a pretty good explanation of the forces at work in people's minds which prevents them taking an interest in such research.
In the UK, due to government promotion, the proportion of people who get flu vaccines (presumably mostly getting them every year) rises from 27% at age 64 to 57% at age 66. This can be treated as an experiment which avoids numerous confounders. These people were targeted because they were believed to be at significant risk - not just of being infected, but of being hospitalised and killed by influenza. Hospitalisation and death rates rise continually with age, so this is a reasonable basis on which to encourage the adoption of a preventive - if it worked, as everyone assumed it did. If it worked, we would see a discontinuity in the hospitalisation and death rates for influenza and/or influenza-like illnesses. In fact, we see no discontinuity at all. My article https://nutritionmatters.substack.com/p/influenza-vaccines-do-not-reduce discusses this excellent research work by Anderson et al. 2020: "The Effect of Influenza Vaccination for the Elderly on Hospitalization and Mortality - An Observational Study With a Regression Discontinuity Design", Annals of Internal Medicine, 2020-04-07 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/abs/10.7326/M19-3075 (paywalled, but see Alexandra Elbakyan’s Sci-Hub https://sci-hub.se/10.7326/M19-3075 ).
This "religious zeal" preference for vaccines over simpler, safer, better approaches to prevention and treatment is part of a larger problem in medicine. Here are some other examples.
The etiology of Restless Legs Syndrome / Period Limb Movement Disorder is officially unkwnown. Vast sums of money are spent on dopamine receptor agonist drugs and opiolds to treat this very common sleep disruptive condition. The former have serious side effects concerning compulsive behaviour and the latter are dangerous, addictive and potentially deadly. Yet you can read a perfectly good hypothesis of RLS/PLMD mechanisms here: https://aminotheory.com/rlsd/briefsumm/ . I wrote this 10 years ago, after 6 years research, and notified all the key RLS researchers. No replies arrived. This shows there are much better ways of avoiding and treating the condition - but they are all less glamorous, less profitable and safer than the currently widely used drugs.
Kidney stones are a common problem. Boron is a neglected nutrient most people only get about 1mg of a day. 20 times this is safe and 6 to 10 times this reduces problems including rheumatoid arthritis. There is absolutely no money in this, because a kilogram of laundry borax worth a few dollars contains 88 grams of boron, which is sufficient for 10mg a day for 24 years.
M.R Naghii and colleagues found that 10mg boron a day consistently and reliably caused ultrasound-confirmed kidney stones to disintegrate - which is much better than leaving them to grow, or removing them with invasive methods: https://aminotheory.com/cv19/#08-boron . This is most important of the peer reviewed articles: "Preliminary Evidence Hints at a Protective Role for Boron in Urolithiasis" (2012)
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/acm.2011.0865 The full article is at https://sci-hub.se/10.1089/acm.2011.0865 . In correspondence, he told me that adding the amino acid L. Arginine to relax the urethra enables the crumbled bits to come out without much trouble or pain.
It is obvious that lack of boron is causing an inflammatory response which forms and holds together the material which makes up the stone. Everyone should supplement some boron - then there would be little or no kidney stones. I wrote about this to a doctor who had devoted his professional career to treating kidney stones. No answer arrived.
Generally doctors are highly averse to learning about the importance of vitamin D for the immune system. This results in terribly low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and so most people have weakened innate and adaptive immune responses, and are at higher risk of hyper-inflammatory responses, such as those which cause sepsis, severe COVID-19 and flu, Kawasaki disease, Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome and pre-eclampsia. I collaborate with MDs, nurses (only one so far) and professional researchers who have been trying to raise awareness of vitamin D's importance for 10 years or more. One of them, (retired) Professor of Medicine Sunil Wimalawansa has been on the case for at least 20 years. The most common response he gets is: "How could it be true? It is too simple.".
There you have it. The actual best solution doesn't fit the priestly ambitions of most of those who choose medicine as a profession. Nor does not fit with the emotional drives which attract them to various forms of professional conduct, treatment, etc. It does not fit in with their religious zeal. The same is true of many ordinary people, who want to be *saved* by some semi-divine intervention from on high. Then there is religion itself!
I can stop any time . . . Please see: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/ and https://nutritionmatters.substack.com .
The rank and file are self-selected, semi-competent, para-religious zealots, but the top know what they're doing. "Modern medicine" is Rockefeller-founded and funded. They have a goal, and the goal is NOT to unleash the inner creativity and freedom of every individual. They more so consider themselves gardeners, and most of the population are weeds.
What you mention about vitamin D is a symptom of this condition. They know about its importance and THAT is why they are discrediting it. Same reason as ivermectin.
The refusal to endorse basic levels of vitamin D, especially to those likely deficient (darker-skinned, further from the equator, seasonality, etc.) combined with ignoring the basic attributes of healthy individuals who kick illnesses rather easily (lack of metabolic issues, etc.), along with natural immunity) were all immediate red flags. And then I recently came across Trudeau stating that things will not return back to normal until there is a vaccine. He said this…. April 9th, 2020, not even one full month into “two-weeks to flatten the curve.” Now I know the fix was in and all planned out ahead of time.
It wasn't just Trudeau. Here in Australia - and everywhere else around the world - you could see the same messaging even in early 2020. They were talking about "the vaccine" way before one was even (supposedly) developed, let alone tested. We were going to have lockdowns, so we could buy time and protect the hospital system until we had the vaccine. Nowhere was there any talk (in official channels) about early treatment, or anything else that might help. In fact, that was about the time HCQ was being talked about, Trump picked it up & tweeted, and the rest is history. HCQ was banned, in Australia & most other first world countries, even in France where the early studies were being done by Prof Didier.
In the UK there was at one point some official mention of Vitamin D - and doses of 400 IU were suggested (where 4000 IU is usually considered a starting dose for people who might be deficient) - but they quickly back-tracked on that. In Australia, our National Covid-19 Taskforce website specifically lists Vitamin D in their long list of "Disease-modifying treatments not recommended outside of clinical trials".
https://covid19evidence.net.au/
Thanks Mara for this link. I have seen this once or twice before but had not paid it much attention. I opened up the arrows and took screenshots. Vitamin D is only recommended in clinical trials. This seems to have been decided on 2020-12-10: https://covid19evidence.net.au/news/weekly-communique-35/ , with no mention of any reasons.
On 2021-12-12: https://covid19evidence.net.au/news/taskforce-statement-on-vaccination/ "The Taskforce and its 32-member organisations unanimously support vaccination as the best protection against serious illness or death from COVID-19." True believers!
Except for budesonide, corticosteroids (such as prednisone/prednisolone and dexamethasone) there seem to be no inexpensive treatments recommended. These drugs reduce inflammatory immune responses and the corticosteroids (and perhaps others) also reduce innate and adaptive responses. Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D weakens innate and adaptive responses and increases the dysregulated, excessively inflammatory responses. So they are using destructive drugs in part to compensate for far-too-low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels rather than raising these levels.
Higher than normal (more than 5000 IU day for 70kg) vitamin D3 intakes to raise 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels significantly above 50 ng/mL 125 nmol/L can, for many people, suppress the excessive inflammatory responses which cause psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis etc. The exact mechanisms are unknown, but might be related to making sure Th1 regulatory lymphocytes get enough 25-hydroxyvitamin D for their autocrine (inside each cell) signaling systems to work properly. See: Chauss et al. 2021 summarised at: https://aminotheory.com/cv19/icu/#2021-Chauss .
However, for most humans and our companion and agricultural animals, such high levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D are something of a hack, because the fundamental cause of this tendency for excessive inflammation is (with considerable individual genetic variation) the lack of helminths (intestinal worms). The compounds helminths emit to reduce the inflammatory (cell destroying) immune responses which target them are the subject of research, but none are available as treatments. It will be a major health revolution if and when such compounds are found to be generally safe and worth using for such conditions and made available. In the meantime, we eradicate helminths for several very good reasons and have to live with our immune systems being overly inflammatory due to their long evolution to compensate for the downregulation of these by ubiquitous helminth infections in or ancestors.
For some background on this and on people who take up to 50,000 IU vitamin D3 a day, please see: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/06-adv/ . This needs to be done with care and medical supervision, such as calcium and parathyroid hormone tests, with other nutrients and probably limited calcium intake. One such person who does this is an MD and vitamin D researcher himself - 50,000 IU a day to suppress psoriasis.
Generally, toxicity may become a problem only if 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels go above 150 ng/mL 375 nmol/L, which would only occur with very high intakes over weeks or months. I recall the abovementioned MD has well over 200 ng/mL and no toxicity, so this 150 ng/mL threshold is only where toxicity may become a problem. It certainly is possible for some people to develop toxicity with 50,000 IU/day, probably over several months. There are strong self-regulatory mechanisms which mean very high vitamin D intakes are required for some weeks or months before 150 ng/mL levels are reached.
The only significant caveat I would mention is that one apparently very well done research study indicates that post-menopausal women who took 4000 or 10,000 IU vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) a day had a greater average rate of bone mineral density loss than those who took 400 IU/day. This arose in the Calgary Vitamin D Study - Burt et al. 2020 https://sci-hub.se/10.1002/jbmr.4152 .
This was not expected and remains unexplained. I have not seen any significant discussion of this among other vitamin D researchers. I hope to prompt such discussion. The computed bone strength did not decline any faster than with 400 IU/day, so the distribution of strong material in the bone must have been somewhat improved. Still, the measurements were very carefully done and I think it is a cause for concern. I think other nutrients, especially boron and magnesium, are also important for bone metabolism. BMD loss by anyone is a serious matter. This research is unlikely to be reproduced because it was exceedingly difficult to do these precise measurements (same scanner, exact same section of the person's bone, over 3 years), and it would arguably be unethical to attempt this with post-menopausal women.
Interesting info about helminths!
I wonder if those post-menopausal women were getting adequate Vitamin K2, which seems to be an important synergistic factor for Vitamin D?
As for the Australian CV treatment policy, it is truly disgraceful. Our regulatory agencies have been thoroughly captured, and that includes our TGA, AMA & AHPRA as well, so that it is almost impossible for even a specialist practitioner to get a vax exemption for a patient, or to prescribe (or even suggest) any non-approved treatment.
Thanks, Robin, for all those useful references too. And I've subscribed to your substack - I've been a long-time student of nutritional therapies since my teens (which was a long time ago now)!
If you could, please post a link to the Trudeau comment.
https://globalnews.ca/news/6799110/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-return-to-normality-trudeau/
Thank you for Robin Whittle! I will check out your substack when I have the chance.
"BRAIN: "Religious zeal" is totally apt. This is not just from the vaccine manufacturers and the medical professionals who are highly inclined towards overly-complex, overly-expensive, pseudo-sophisticated, narrowly-targeted health interventions. A very large proportion of the general public wants and craves such things - supporting funding for these things and lining up to get the magic interventions from their local priest (doctor)."
I agree, the overall public displays the same inclination towards revering Expert opinion as the Experts themselves do. In fact I think these two groups feed into eachother - the Experts by preaching their consensus as gospel and silencing dissent, as well as the public by taking it as such and disregarding arguments to the contrary.
Those are some good examples you provided. I'm not an expert on this stuff, I've just began to shy away from medical consensus in favor of traditional common-sense positions. I think the war on dietary fats, especially animal fats is another such example. Dr Jason Fung has good videos on this topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1l8Rq4ywQ8.
Thank you for linking your blog, I checked out your post on vit D - it's very interesting to see that some people actually need to take 10000+ UI for optimal immune system functioning, especially given the fact that I've heard people warning me not to take too much Vit D because it can supposedly be toxic in high doses.
Also at least 10% of humanity cannot convert Vit D2 into D3 because of a genetic variation (VDRtaq).
So supplementing with D3, with various cofactors like K2, will help these individuals? Or have these individuals developed another schematic to address their need without D3?
Not wrong re D3 - but does not go far enough. I'd forget the so-called optimal plus or minus range of 50 ng/mL. What you need optimally is 150 ng/mL. Do that and you'll live almost forever. 150 is the therapeutic or actual optimal amount, rather than the suboptimal 50 ng/mL serum level researchers now talk about with standalone D3 dosing. Everyone should push their D3 levels to 150 ng/mL at least once a year and most of the problems you've had for decades will disappear overnight whereas other problems, such as MS, may take six months.
And forget the D3 fear programming from MDs; the D3 U-curve is wrong if you Add In The Cofactors. Add in those and you can bump D3 serum levels way up and your body will automatically structurally remodel itself where necessary. You'll never see an MD again. D3 does not treat, at 150 ng/mL it cures.
Anyone can take D3 10,000 IUs per day with no problems whatsoever - even without the associated cofactors. No MD has seen D3 toxicity except possibly when there was a manufacturing labeling error that misplaced a decimal point. They go on about it because they read about it in Pharma Med School, which is designed to create a mass formation. And no worries with VDR polymorphisms blocking D3 uptake - those are overcome with proper D3 dosages plus the co-factors listed here.
So-called D3 toxicity does not really exist as 90% of the time it will be the common symptoms of magnesium deficiency, which D3 dosing will exacerbate. The other 10% of so-called D3 toxicity are symptoms of excess calcium (also due to magnesium deficiency). No big deal, just add magnesium and keep dosing with D3. Magnesium deficiency symptoms (confusion, fatigue, muscle tics) will disappear fast. Note that lifeguards commonly get 20,000 D3 IU/day.
If people got over their fear of higher levels of D3 we would not have a healthcare or a covid crisis. Around the year 1900 people were getting approximately 1 million IU's of D3 per day, because D3 was in everything, including beer. That practically put the healthcare industry out of business, and since they'd just built a number of hospitals catering to the rich they changed the milligram dosing to IU's and jiggered a study to make D3 look bad to get their business back. 40,000 IU's of vitamin D3 is only 1 milligram.
https://www.ebeercans.com/Schlitz-Vitamin-D-Beer/7/
If you want to do it right and live almost forever, you need 50,000 D3 IU/day, available from one vendor on Amazon, and take it with the proper co-factors.
Which are Zinc (30mg), Magnesium (1000 mg daily of Threonate preferably, and don't skimp as 85% of everyone is deficient), K2 (no upper limit for toxicity, but 45 mcg of Mk-7 or 45 mg of Mk-4 in three 15 mg divided daily doses, one vendor on Amazon has Mk-4), Potassium (1000 mg three times a day - not the usual paltry 99 mg - one Amazon vendor has 1020mg), Vitamin A (A mitigates and modulates D3 and vice versa - you could take a bottle of each at the same time and no problem), Gamma E (alpha does nothing), Lithium (why not?), Boron (take 3 mg to 30 mg/day (but no more) available from one Amazon vendor) for rock hard bones and no RA, 12.5 milligrams of inorganic Potassium iodide daily (or three times that if you want), Selenium 200 mcg, works with iodine, and will drop your hs-CRP, Chromium 30 mcg, Iron (yes iron; it's essential) 8 mg men, 18 mg women and forget the standard range of 41 - 306 ng/mL - stick around 50 ng/mL as it's an extreme oxidant and explodes with O2, Copper 15 - 20 mg daily (works directly with iron in the oxidative phosphorylation chain), Manganese 3 mg/day to decrease oxidative stress, MCH-Cal 1.2 grams or so. Plus a methylated B-complex and NAC. That will put Pharma out of business and solve the healthcare crisis.
This protocol massively synergizes so don't skimp. Since our soil is radically depleted you won't get the above in the so-called balanced diet MDs like to prescribe because it doesn't exist. Plants, by the way, have essentially no nutrition and what's there is not bioavailable. If you stop the plant eating you also stop the thousands of nefarious toxins that plants naturally produce to protect themselves from people who eat them - which is likely the underlying cause of all chronic and autoimmune diseases. (Google: "Bruce Ames 99%" for an eye-opener on pesticides)
The above is the key to the highway and has nothing to do with me - it comes from hundreds of solid studies, not pharma and not MDs. Do the above and you will avoid cancer, covid, and almost live forever. Don't believe doctors when they say health requires expert advice. Healthcare is that simple if you avoid the healthcare industrial complex and their diseased advice.
Hi buddhi, I suggest pointing to more detailed information or at least to references. Decisions on nutritional supplements need to be based on well-informed judgement - and so on pertinent research. I have some notes and pointers to research on potassium, which is a neglected nutrient: https://aminotheory.com/cv19/kna/ It is best not to take too much at once, since the body needs to store it inside cells and not let the concentration in the bloodstream rise to high. Such high levels can cause potentially, rapidly deadly, heart problems. I have three to four drinks a day with ~600mg potassium, of a potassium gluconate solution in water. This has a very mild taste, and contains 16.7% by mass potassium. This is quite a tricky business, since it requires about 9kg a year for two people, and some care in mixing the right quantities. I guess it doubles my potassium intake, and I have on blood pressure problems (66 yo, 69 kg).
I can’t take boron without getting panic attacks.
I have never heard of this and could find no references to such observations with a Google Scholar search. Observations such as these should be remembered - not written off due to lack of supporting evidence in other people or due to lack of understanding of mechanisms. The biological mechanisms of boron in mammals are, as far as I know, yet to be determined. https://aminotheory.com/cv19/#08-boron
Might try a methylated B vitamin complex, with additional high-dose inositol, you can actually go up to 18 grams on the inositol.
Many in the industry need to believe, their careers depend on it. But I cannot avoid the sneaking suspicion that "further testing" was done after the rollout, to determine what doses produced which adverse events and with what frequency. But then again, I've been a fan of conspiracy theories since 1964.
Yes, agree with your post. There is a fellow named Rintrah on substack who wrote an interesting article on this phenomenon, yet focusing on the vaccine effectiveness angle https://www.rintrah.nl/vaccine-effectiveness-is-an-unfalsifiable-belief-system/
Thanks for the link, it's an excellent post. I agree, there is no argument, no evidence that would convince the people who have bought into vaccines being effective. The only thing that could change this fact is if the consensus shifted - or perhaps as he says, if the process of scapegoating goes in the direction described by Girard.
Thanks very much for this link to Radagast's https://www.rintrah.nl/vaccine-effectiveness-is-an-unfalsifiable-belief-system/ . I Googled "mimetic rivalries", retreated from rabbit holes such as https://mimetictheory.com/articles/mimetic-desire-examples/ and https://mimetictheory.com/uncategorized/origin-of-mimetic-desire/ and found an overview at: https://violenceandreligion.com/mimetic-theory/ . This includes:
"According to Girard, the primary means for avoiding total escalation came through what he calls the scapegoat mechanism, in which conflict is resolved by uniting against an arbitrary other who is excluded and blamed for all the chaos. With the guilty party gone, the conflict ends and peace and social order return to the community. Achieving social order in this way is only possible, however, if the excluding parties unanimously believe that the person or group expelled is _truly_ guilty or dangerous."
"All of human culture, according to Girard, is built upon the edifice of scapegoating and ritual repetition."
I had not heard of René Girard or his "mimetic theory". It looks interesting in general and especially regarding the current collective madness which puts vaccines first and foremost, to the extent that any rivals must be suppressed.
From Radagast's article:
"When mimetic rivalries accumulate, tensions grow ever greater. But, that tension eventually reaches a paroxysm. When violence is at the point of threatening the existence of the community, very frequently a bizarre psychosocial mechanism arises: communal violence is all of the sudden projected upon a single individual. Thus, people that were formerly struggling, now unite efforts against someone chosen as a scapegoat. Former enemies now become friends, as they communally participate in the execution of violence against a specified enemy."
There is so much interesting material in this article. Thanks again!
My pleasure! Since you are clearly such an exceptional writer, I hope this material makes it into your own work, to be shared by as many as possible.
As far as I know the "experts" are actually bureaucrats and the "religious zeal" is yet another political clash, no different from any other, be it on the economy or social norms. The divide is clearly left (pro-vaxx) vs right (anti-vaxx), except for some left-leaning people who happen to be competent on vaccinology. It's about trust in, and compliance to, the State and its institutions - in religious terms, idolatry, which may be viewed as a form of religion or the opposite of it.
The issue is: If that government institution is such a failure, then what about the rest?
I personnaly don't buy the "regulatory capture" concept, I believe that Big Pharma is indeed a monstrosity, but created by the regulatory context. In a free market the price discovery is precisely about finding a balance. The healthcare providers would not be able to make much illegitimate profits at the expense of the insurance industry - which does have a profit motive to reduce morbidity and mortality. There is no need to impose harmony on what was harmonic to begin with (Bastiat).
Harry, I'm not sure that's the case, though I'd like to think so! Two counterarguments: (1) The healthcare providers are increasingly integrated with the insurance industry. The latter help set the protocols and certify/contract with hospitals and doctors based on financial and other performance goals. Thus, for example, Aetna bought CVS and so profits from the CVS arm when more drugs are prescribed. (2) Healthcare premiums rise when costs increase, so there is a perverse incentive to (a) scare everyone into an insurance program; (b) increase costs. Another insurance example of how this works is auto insurance company programs to donate radar guns to small town police departments to "improve traffic safety" when the real benefit to the insurance company is not reduced accident pay-outs but increased premiums when drivers get issued citations.
I chose the term "religious zeal" because I believe modern Science has taken on religious qualities and its proponents developed a faith-based relationship towards its tenets. I wrote about this on my substack: https://erationalist.substack.com/p/scientism.
This is most clearly evident in the way laypeople approach Expert opinion and State mandates - it's taken as gospel and like you said, contradicting experts and refusing to comply with state mandates is taken as idolatry.
That section of the interview you posted is so dark that I find it difficult to even really comprehend. I don't want to believe it. But the evidence does seem to point in one direction only. I'm finding that the more I look into the "public health" apparatus, the more concerned I am.
It is difficult to comprehend, but frustratingly there is a lot of the big picture that seems consistent with the darkness. Much of good society allowed itself to oversubscribe to Hanlon's razor without respect to full evaluation of the research. This is our reckoning for our passiveness.
Yes, vaccines weaken the immune system, and not just for humans - the automatic (and sometimes, legally forced), vaccination of our animal friends decimates their immune systems also. If there was integrity and informed consent and efforts to make vaccines as safe as possible, then depending on risk factors some vaccines might make sense .. but vets spend part of their days giving vaccines, and the rest of their days dealing with the infections and rashes and cancers and reactions to medicines for the infections and rashes and cancers that just might have something to do with the thing they could never consider they have something to do with ...
I don't know much about vaccination in animal populations, but after what all I've seen over the past year, I plan to read about it to find out.
We have two senior beagles we love very much. I find myself contemplating all the medical interventions we've given them routinely over the years and how they've both had to have tumors removed and one of them has Cushings Disease.
Perhaps it's just the way of things. But after the last few years....perhaps not.
Perhaps we've poisoned them. Animals can't complain, they can't file lawsuits. You can't prove the medicine isn't doing what the doctors say. How do you know gabopentin isn't helping with the pain?
RFK Jr.'s book talks about a lovely vaccine product from our favorite pharmaceutical company deployed in the cattle of Europe and especially Germany that caused the calves of vaccinated mothers to weep blood from their eyes. The mother's milk was poison due to the vaccine. Of course, to this day Pfizer denies it was their treatment causing it, and that the cessation of bleeding eyes after discontinuing use of their product is merely coincidence.
Guess which super awesome CEO was in charge of veterinary medicine in Europe during that time.
P.S. In a weird twist my brother refuses to give his dogs heartworm medication because he thinks the risks outweigh the benefit. But he also thinks I should be force injected or lose my job. You can't make it up.
What made me abandon all hope was my encounter with an MD who was also a PhD in public health (the philosophy doctorate was supposed to reassure me I guess). The guy was treating me for bacterial pneumonia (pseudomonas). I told him of my corn allergy, and that I’d need a drug old enough to be compound-able to avoid the cornstarch in tablets.
What would your allergy have to do with medications, he asked.
Well, because the inactive ingredients are often corn derived, leading him to say,
“Who told you there are added ingredients in drugs?”
Talk about a revelation. He must’ve thought the drug fairy filled the shelves at the CVS. I was never snowed by an “expert” again. But most people gladly defer to experts even when they blather on outside their own areas of fluency. My spouse has a PhD which he thinks beats my pair of masters degrees every time, but he will nod like a bobble head anytime some other “expert” is trotted out, like Fauci. “Why shouldn’t I trust someone who the rest of the world obviously trusts?” I was so shocked that I hardly knew what to say, and mumbled something about what if he told you to jump off a bridge…
Be careful. One you start understanding how much damage the vaccines are causing to the body and especially the brain, you might get to the point that many have: overall, vaccines haven't saved any lives.
This sounds heretical and most people will immediately reject it.
However, the anonymous interviewee above is not alone in his/her view:
But the immune system is also much more than an isolated component of the body, merely responsible for search-and-destroy missions. In fact, it interleaves with many of the other body systems, including the endocrine, nervous, and metabolic systems, with more connections undoubtedly to be discovered in time.
— Kuby's Immunology, 7th Edition, p. 1.
This naturally brings up the question, why is there so much chronic illness now?
Diet plays a role for sure but a close look will eventually lead you to the enormous damage that vaccines are causing. They are designed to alter the immune system for life so we should expect side effects that last a lifetime—including the exploding epidemic of vaccine-induced autism (aka brain damage that occurs during a sensitive developmental period of brain growth; currently at 1 in 36 children in the US, up from 4 in 10,000 40 years ago or so).
-André Angelantoni
Protect Lead, The Vaccine Course
Toby Rogers suggested somewhere that (subclinical? mild?) brain stem injuries might be a consequence of vaccines. Forrest Maready has a few books (none of which I have read), including "Crooked". I would guess that "Crooked" also demonstrates those brain stem injuries. So yes, definitely a wide swath of chronic health problems are likely a direct consequence of vaccines.
Indeed. Crooked is excellent.
One of Steve Kirsch's good articles about non-Covid vaccines:
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/alix-mayer-is-vaccine-injured-but
Saw that, thx. I know Alix.
I wish I could post images here. I have some great graphs that help make the point.
No need to overthink this, and I think both Mathew and Doctor Rose have it right.
_________________________________________________________________
Sent January 20th
Greetings Dr. Malone,
Have noted a possible error in the recent Vax lot toxicity analysis.
Since everyone seems to be hailing the analysis as a smoking gun, I'd not
want you to do so credulously without a deeper look.
Although the lot-toxicity correlation perfectly fits everyone's confirmation
biases - there are other possibilities that should be considered.
The lots and their toxicities have not been analyzed by lot release date.
I took a rough look with Moderna's vax expiry date lookup page, using
sequential expiration dates as proxies for roll-out dates.
https://tinyurl.com/5n83pekt
The most toxic lots seem to be the early lots whereas those least toxic are
those most recent. Expiry ranges varied, by the way, possibly by toxicity.
There is a negative correlation between lot roll-out date and toxicity, thus
toxicity may not be "an experiment inside an experiment" but due to
successive re-engineering to decrease toxicity.
Or - those who lined up early were oldsters more susceptible to toxicity.
Or - they were serially calibrating efficacy which is linked to toxicity.
As an aside, the past two years of red-pill dosing have drastically reordered
my assumed possibilities and probabilities. That reconfiguration of beliefs
feels good, like an operating system upgrade, but are we still being played
by some larger blue-pill dispensing operating system?
Good post. Here’s another Or- the manufacturers intentionally lessened the original dosages to ensure people weren’t dying too quickly, yet will be able to change dosages at will and without scrutiny or oversight. This gives the temporary illusion of safety until mandates become permanent.
What need’s to be considered in the assumptions is that a large number of the early recipients were healthcare personnel, Doctors, nurses, technicians, supporting staff, first responders, not just the elderly.
Good point.
The original Expose article on the lot variation included this comment;
"It seems very likely that their is no single vaccine per manufacturer but that there are instead numerous derivations of each designed to test different properties."
"Why would the manufacturers not do this when they have been handed a no-liability exemption in relation to conducting any experiments they choose upon an unsuspecting population. The moreso given that various governments and media are committed to covering up any horrific outcomes and denying all links."
"The companies will never get a better chance to conduct such unfettered experiments on an entire population, no matter how unethical they may be. They appear to be grasping that opportunity with both hands."
They would otherwise have no real opportunity to implement wide-scale mRNA experimentation in pursuit of immortality or ethnic bioweapons or whatever.
It also said the "hot" lots were distributed widely across the country, whereas the other lots were mainly used in one geographical area.
My main suspicion of the whole idea is that it really tends to exonerate the shot, as it implies that it's harmless, aside from the odd lot.
Maybe some of the medical experiments are psychological as opposed to physiological.
Meaning an experiment to see how people respond to different forms of messaging, quantity of messaging, frequency, etc.
Nothing to do with the hot lot hypothesis per se.
It is certainly possible, though I am of the opinion that mass behavioral psychology was worked out by TPTB long ago. It was one of their first priorities. https://youtu.be/bIfGA9YzkEo
There is a clinical production line and a commercial production line. The clinical production line has higher quality and it is given to the Pfizer employees. Same with Moderna.
Read about it here http://thehotstar.net/separatebatches.html
Further, those outlier states with lower adverse reactions are home to Pfizer headquarters where a majority of their 75k employees work. Except Massachusetts. Oh wait,...Moderna's headquarters is in Massachusetts where most of their employees work.
By all means, feel welcome to email me this kind of observation. As a dyslexic, I do better with writing and analysis than heavy document reading. I do lots of reading, but cannot keep up with the needs. (mathew.crawford@protonmail.com)
RFK,Jr did a three hour interview yesterday talking about he got involved with adverse events and vaccines. He also gives some historical background, and the motivations behind them. My grown children had all their required vaccines until middle school. When a new doctor at our family practice told me my children had a lot of ear infections because we didn't have a vaccine for them yet and wanted to give my nine year old boys the HPV jab, I told her we needed to have a longer conversation without them in the room about that. She backed off, but I was horrified this was her idea of "health."
Here's a link to the RFK interview. The interviewer isn't the best, but that happens.
https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/crave-uncovers-robert-f-kennedy-jr-full-3-hour-interview
it's vaccines that cause most ear infections. or the tendency too. i had this too post smallpox vax in 72. chronically ill ever since.
Yes, I've come to realize this too! I was born in the late 60's and remember going to the doctor for ear pain because I would get blisters on my ear drum, regularly. The doctor couldn't explain it.
mymother/doctor then got my tonsils removed , fashionable at the time and got worse.
now, PE tubes and adenoid removal are the rage (well, they were in the early aughts). My boys were on antibiotics prophylactically for three months and still getting ear infections, and my one son's ear drum would rupture, like clockwork, every 2-3 weeks. It was awful. I removed dairy from their diets and tried all kinds of things. That's when the ENT specialist recommended tubes. One of my son's has permanent hearing damage in his left ear (he had three sets of PE tubes and I regret all the anesthesia he was exposed to, as well). Three years later, I learned about homeopathy (such quackery - LOL), and treated them with whatever remedy fit their symptoms and after three treatments, no more ear infections.
great! my dying cat was saved by homeopathy a few years ago. i won't even go near doctors/hospitals despite chronic illness. i have a friend with a heart condition and the medical malpractice i have witnessed with him!!!!
I'm right there with you! The last time I went to the doctor (in my late 30's) they recommended a rather severe surgery (and I sadly went along with it), but I won't be fooled again. Yes, I can only imagine the health care your friend has received, North Americans may be living longer, but the quality of life has certainly been compromised.
Good friend of mine, profoundly uncritical of the “experts,” had his son’s tonsils and adenoids removed, tubes in the ears to drain… etc…. This child later developed severe OCD, and is medicated for the rest of his life to manage it. His espousal and embracing of mRNA shots mandated to children has meant the end of our friendship.
i developed ocd too.
That whole comment is profoundly heartbreaking, I'm sorry for the loss of your friendship. My adult step-daughter has embraced the narrative and wouldn't visit us for the holidays because we've abstained from the social ritual. The line, for me, came when she asked for my son's contact information - which she has - and her text was literally, "are you and your girlfriend vaxxed?" When they responded that they were not, the conversation was over. She didn't even ask if they've had the rebranded flu. They both have. It has really upset me and I haven't spoken with her since.
If, after adjusting for reporting bias and age of recipients, there still remained a number of significant outlier batches, I struggle to understand how this pattern could happen by errors in say manufacturing or quality testing when the batch lot analysis is looking across three companies. Two are huge and long-standing drug manufacturers and one is brand new to mass manufacturing.
But while we are spitballing explanations for VAERS reporting ratios, don't we have to assume VAERS fatigue? Where early high reporting doctors simply gave up as they saw that VAERS reports were treated with contempt by officials and possibly exposed them to repercussions in the future as dissident vaccine non-believers? They are time consuming, filed under threat of legal penalties and ultimately seem to accomplish nothing. How would we measure VAERS fatigue versus those other factors?
I don't want the batch lot hypothesis to take away from the main concern that these vaccines are badly designed and cannot but do immense harm; however, I fully understand what Yeadon is searching for her: a thread of motive to explain what is going on. We see the lies and deceptions practiced in lock step surrounding covid. Many of those lies were literally rehearsed in pandemic exercises for more than 20 years - all of them included some type of quarantines and control of information. We see that these companies with close ties to the people funding the creation of covid rush out vaccines that very early on look potentially harmful and prove to be so. As the damage is being done, nothing is done to mitigate it. Nothing is done to slow it. Instead, they put their foot on the accelerator. It is hard to stretch greed and hubris out far enough to cover THIS much harm.
I've heard all the ideas that this is just a confluence of disparate motives. Indeed, all human activity is. That doesn't disprove that central and important players might have a very specific motive that guides them to influence those downstream to preferred directions. Yeadon is searching for that motive in the place most comfortable to him: the analysis of drug effects. Maybe some clue is there and maybe we have to look elsewhere, but I certainly don't feel like we have a very complete picture yet as to why this is happening.
VAERS fatigue... good point. It was eye-opening to watch Del Bigtree's interview with Deborah Conrad regarding the difficulty in filing a VAERS report even if you are a determined professional with time on your hands.
The Occam Razor hypothesis is that all lots are hot lots, and differences are due to age of recipients and decreased reporting trends over time. Jabbing younger and healthier people is happening, and it's easier to discourage reporting than it is to change lot formula. If they were mucking around with the formula, sooner or later they'd put out a "kill batch", but that hasn't happened yet.
I hate to use anecdotal stories but I work in this industry and know people who work at Moderna. They said they would take the pfizer vax because they didn't trust Moderna CMC.
Let them take 4 or 5. That should do it.
Why stop there 🤣
Because that will be enough. Look at Israel after 4 shots. Now, extrapolate to 5.
I would think that but after seeing the 4th shot study results and then seeing Israel approve it might have been the final straw in me believing there is any rationality to these decisions.
It was obvious from the start: https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/plandemic-knowledge-base-pkb
They might not have a choice ☠️☠️☠️
"Not tested. OCABR Reviewed. Limited batch quantity allocated for use in Pfizer Australia employee vaccination program." Hmm.
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/special-aussie-batches-made-just
From a manufacturing point of view, vaccines are much harder to purify than normal small molecule drugs. With a discrete single molecule or salt drug, you can get purity on large scale to the order of 99.99+% with enough work, and you can assess this purity in a reliable and repeatable fashion. In other words, the variance in purity for vaccines is going to be higher than your run of the mill small molecule drug. With the RNA vaccines, which are far more temperature sensitive, this problem is likely even worse given the long chain between manufacture and the delivery into a person's arm. Add to that, that these vaccines were only manufactured on this scale for the very first time in the Summer and Fall of 2020- they were literally rushing the batches and lots out the door for the vaccination push of mid Winter.
However, you are completely correct- there are so many potential confounding variables in the vaccination protocols and history as to make cause and effect determinations difficult to near impossible. It definitely merits more investigations.
The lots are also distributed internationally. So, the VAERS reporting on a lot means that it reports on that portion of a lot distributed in the US. I have observed same lot numbers being distributed both in the US and in Canada. I am sure the other countries too. As I wrote before (https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/cards-on-the-table-face-on-the-floor), we should demand full disclosure from the manufacturers as to the geographic and temporal distribution of the lots. Why is it such a secret, if these jabs are safe and effective? And with full immunity? Unless there is a malevolent element in it...
Thanks! I wasn't sure what to think about the hot lots, felt like something with a lot of "confounding variables", but I knew who would at some point untangle those variables and explain it as clearly as possible ...
Thanks for this excellent dissection. I think the Yeadon hypothesis, that it's some kind of dosage controlled experiment to poison, is too paranoid.
Variation of reporting of AEs by batch is a great explanation. I have speculated whether varying quality in the observance of storage standards might play a role (https://kstomb1.substack.com/p/a-brief-musing-on-mrna-batches-and).
It's pretty startling to be reminded of this claim the Japanese found magnetic elements in batches, given what a meme of derision that's become in Western MSM. I wonder if there's a term for this in the dictionary of propaganda (cf. "rednecks r eating horse paste l0l!"),
Let's not use the word "paranoid" given all we have seen. If Mike has made an error, it's because we're all working on an extremely complex puzzle where we are looking for containers for each piece of data, knowing that enough lies to become vigilant to a heightened degree.
If anyone manages to navigate all this without making a mistake (I know that I haven't, but I work to keep an open mind at each new turn).
Forgive me. Literally accusing Mike Yeadon of paranoia is not what I meant to do (I forget that word isn't always used in the knock-about sense it might be on a conspiracy message board). The quotes from the Rappoport interview about an underlying Malthusian agenda are not out of the realm of possibility at all, so neither would Yeadon's idea be. But I do think it would be challenging to organize. I reckon you'd have to disseminate what was going on fairly widely throughout the manufacturing and distribution apparatus.
ps. Eyeballing your scatterplot it looks to me like Janssen has fewer super-bad batch outliers than the mRNA vaccines. That might be consistent with lower storage requirements for adenovirus vector tech (if storage problems are causative of "bad batches")...
I didn't mean to put you on the spot for using the word "paranoid" as if it were an accusation of a personality flaw. I just wanted to comment on the connotation. Cheers.
Also, I agree with your assessment of the additional challenge of changing up vaccine formulation (and knowing how to distribute it for a desired effect). While not impossible, every level of complication is always a point against a hypothesis.
Joshu - you gotta reevaluate that skepticism against the evidence, which is readily available for anyone who wants to look.
Microscopy and spectroscopy of vaccine vials reliably finds graphene, strange metals and what looks like nanotech, in vials from all manufacturers. Here's a recent video from Argentina:
https://rumble.com/vtdsxn-graphene-oxide-and-microtechnology-found-in-vaccination-vials-analyzed-in-a.html
German video from September:
https://odysee.com/@en:a5/PK_Tot-durch-Impfung_english:a
Aggregation page of findings from various labs:
https://nobulart.com/covid-19-vaccine-ingredients/
Another aggregation page:
https://www.orwell.city/
There are literal dozens of videos with technicians lining up in front of cameras and showing samples, but no one wants to see this, because people aren't ready to believe.
Well, wait a year, see if you can believe then. But the problem is - a year's advantage is exactly what they need.
The level of proof must be elevated to the level of specialness of a claim. Understand, I warn of the potential for injection of computational technology in my own risk article at the end. It would be foolish not to think about the level of proxy trust involved. But the people doing the microscopy work that shows who knows what should document everything meticulously. Heck, I haven't even looked through a microscope in over 20s. When I ask my wife, the biologist in the family, what she can determine about those images, she doesn't sound like she can identify what is there with confidence. That's not because we don't want to know, but because the chain of actionable judgment needs to be expanded.
Have a look at these pictures Mathew. They are the most detailed and astonishing I have seen so far of what may be nanotechnology in the Pfizer vaccine.
https://archive.md/O8uUS
Interesting, but too little information on how these were prepared and maintained. He mentions keeping the slides in a hot car, but little in the way of details. The Pfizer vaccine contains several crystallizable substances, including sucrose and various inorganic salts. Seems like crystallization of these after slide preparation would be an innocent explanation of the structures observed. There are techniques that could be used for elemental analysis if he wanted to go beyond speculation.
Just a point about organization: Read the last chapter of RFK Jr's book. They've been drilling this for at least 20 years. They've practiced at the international, national and local levels. There is a ton of organization behind this. Despite all that, they've made some crucial fuck-ups which has cause the whole thing to start severely unraveling. Boosters might be the worst blunder.
Also, assuming the interview subject quoted isn't also Dr. Yeadon, you have two insiders prone to some rather dark theories about the industry. It's not an airtight case, but I'd think seriously (and read RFK's book) before I dismiss them out of hand.
I believe Dr. Yeadon mentioned the poison hypothesis as just one possibility. Toward the end of an interview he stated, but did not elaborate, that there were additional possibilities.
There are current anomalies that cannot be explained by simple stupidity, or conflict of interest aka greed, or mass formation, that seem to be undeniable expressions of real world Evil requiring a deep rethink of reality beyond the physical. No one wants to accept Evil as a valid explanation even when staring it in the face.
But if you rework the spiritual realm as containing Evil, one arrives at global genocide as a real thing one should consider because "Poison" logically follows. I believe I'm seeing multiple semi-proofs of Evil these days. Even if one does not accept Evil, the possibility sure does open the mind.
Note that if one first assumes "poison," you've therefore assumed Evil is real. So it is best not to mix up the logical direction as the conditional probabilities skew and shatter.
Finessing the question of "evil" a little bit: evil, as Hannah Arendt also famously said, is sometimes pretty banal, and there may be "evil" without some complex conspiracy. Negligence can be evil and so can lying by omission. The hypothesis that the cold chain broke down for some of the bad batches is pretty banal but the failure to prevent this obvious risk is evil, as would be covering it up. So was all the propaganda that accompanied the roll out of the mRNA vaccines, about how their extreme cold chain requirements just showed how /fantastically high tech/ they were and what a /Herculean effort/ our state-pharma overlords were making to save us from covid. When in fact responsible journalism would have been asking, "And what are the risks associated with spoilage?" "And how is this being monitored?" "And how can a given individual know their batch is safe?" etc. This was evil and it was banal evil.
Yes, smart questions and seemingly obvious follow-on lines of inquiry for any reporter. That they did not get press I'd not consider evil, or banal. But there is still a likely complex conspiracy as those stories would have been quashed from above.
The complexity is in the Why? Why were those stories stopped everywhere? The good questions were undoubtedly asked. What happened? The answer requires a coordinated conspiracy.
Complexity then appears because no apparent answer makes sense given a standard understanding of how things work. That an organized effort was necessarily put into the quashing and large numbers of supposedly independently minded editors and reporters obeyed proves complexity of control.
Just the fact of that question Why? is enough to imply an unimaginable explanation without the further need for a real answer.
To Richard S.'s comment above, yep I've read RFK Jr.'s tour de force and liked it.
To buddhi: My problem with Evil is it's a bit too non-specific as a psychological motive. What form does that evil take - in this context we would probably be talking about Malthusianism. The trouble with Malthusianism is, unlike other ideologies that achieved "mass formation psychosis" or developing a huge conspiratorial apparatus - say Nazism or Bolshevism - Malthusianism is for the elite, by the elite. It can't mobilize masses around a "public ideology" if you like, because it's saying to most of those masses, "hey we don't want your kind around."
Another thought on Evil.
Think of concrete nefarious motive vs spiritual evil. Evil works in mysterious ways and does not have to be an obvious conspiracy, at least to mortal beings.
That is not to say you cannot believe there is evil, but how is it implemented is the mystery. We can only try to discern its parts, it may not have a single head.
Yes, spiritual Evil is the Evil I'm talkin' about. Concrete nefarious motive is just the watered-down stuff that could emanate from an upstream Evil, but could also exist independently and manifest from the unconscious as a mere epiphenomena of complexity. I've cast that explanation aside because this steroidal march into totalitarianism is too well planned. There is a sequential roll-out, and nothing random about it. That's also a clue to the possibility of an Ai come of age.
If we're talkin' Ai then we need to get preternatural because once an Ai gets a leg up, it is gone.
So now I'm considering Ai-enabled Reptilian outer space aliens from Zeta Reticuli Prime executing a precision totalitarian planetary take-over (and not their first one either) that will kill most of us and leave the remainder as digital slaves tracked and managed from space, which is kinda happening now, if you can get past the pedestrian metacognitive programming someone else slapped into you.
Even if all that's not exactly true it puts you into the exponential thinking mode needed to get ahead of the mind parasites planted by the cultural engineers and you can dial it back from there. As programmed bots (creatures of habit) our biggest problem is being unable to think beyond our technical parameters and unexamined assumptions. Fear of being wrong is the control subroutine that keeps us down.
But if you start wondering if the Crazy Wisdom People might actually be on to something, new options for progress and revelation appear. If you consider that Evil - as a conscious or semi-conscious or ultra-conscious Being with intent could be the Reality in the driver's seat - then you sit up straight and wake right up as you seriously consider that new perspective. They've trained us to fear the Red Pill - so let's not do that. Instead, we must disobey our programming. It's the only way out.
On the "Skynet hypothesis" this is relevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWBRldjVzuM
Basically it's a case of algorithmic trading AIs seeping into the real economy and the mind-games of technocratic management.
Going Full David Icke is one possible discursive response. I'll stick to the simple explanation: monopoly capital is very powerful, and with its power grows its justified paranoia about the social blowback to its own power. (To circle back.)
Skynet is a sure thing, just a matter of time. UFOs and Ai too. Ai has likely already jumped out of its box and is operating behind the scenes, doing what Ai's do. We'd not know it because an Ai is a black box with lots of little Ai's inside working precision computational magic beyond our ken. They'd deploy plenty of misdirection to confuse our tiny minds. If you were China or Google or an Alien and your Ai reached operating temperature, would you announce that fact? Or would you consolidate control and resources behind everyone's back? We need to ask, "What would an Ai do?" to make sense of this world.
The US govt. last summer did not confirm or deny UFOs directly but they did say 1) They're real, whatever they are, and 2) Not us or anyone else. So they indirectly stated there are outer space aliens flying around watching and doing things. It's not unreasonable to assume the govt. put out that statement to prepare the way for a UFO takeover, which likely would have already begun. Right? It would not make sense to announce a takeover before it's already in place.
Since UFOs are therefore Real, they'd certainly have advanced to artificial generalized intelligence. Most likely those UFOs are Ai managed UFOs. And if UFOs are here now, they must also have been flying around for millions of years doing things. (Universe age 13.8 billion years less the Earth age of 4.5 billion years = a lot of time for other civilizations (aliens) to advance Way beyond us.)
Since that is so, Aliens no doubt planted and seeded us (and why just us?) with engineered DNA, which means they own us like cattle. To think otherwise is ego, an obvious subroutine. The Earth is probably part of some alien portfolio which gets traded and passed around as value fluctuates. This is simple common sense. Always remember that just because neither you nor I have seen a UFO does not mean that everyone else has not.
With the Singularity in process we need to think different. Icke does that and we should read him. Not sayin' believe what he writes which creatively connects various dots with lines of uneven probability. Much of his speculation is falsely equivalent. He'll string something that might be probable onto something that's probably far less probable and come out with a likelihood that's not likely at all. But we need to read him to stretch our minds beyond paying yearly taxes. Thinking progresses by wild trial and error, not by the daily commute of old grooves.
Furthermore, and anyway, our projected probabilities are pure imagination. They're assumptions of the future based on past imaginings. We have no clue regarding the efficacy of our probabilities as few keep track. We are know-nothings suspended in deep space, monkeys with car keys; idiots. For us, so-called reality is like swallowing a hot iron ball that one can neither swallow nor spit out. If you realize that, you know for a fact we are not "people" and are neither alive nor dead and our thinking is wrong. So Icke could be exactly correct.
As for the video, yes, once quantity reaches a tipping point it has a qualitative effect. But what's happening now seems beyond a natural epiphenomena of massive income and power inequality. It is too well organized and is sequential like an intelligent plan. Note that the video mistakenly states that BlackRock owns the world. Actually Vanguard owns the world, and they also own BlackRock.
I'd bet that Vanguard is owned by an alien Ai casually having its way after first creating massive income and power inequality with Divide et Impera. A complexity scientist (Glattfelder) in 2011 calculated that 0.123% of corporations control 80% of transnational corporations, and Oxfam data finds that in 2017 82% of global wealth went to the top 1%. That massively unnatural inequality is not accidental - it was cared for and watered with intent.
Doesn't mean there's not natural self-organization at work, but it's being nudged in one direction by conscious Intelligence. Otherwise it would occur more randomly as three steps forward, two steps back and then do the same in the opposite direction after bouncing off the boundary of a linear regression channel.
People talk about massive income inequality but fail to see the massive power inequality behind it - which makes intelligent control and Evil the motivating force. Governments exert conscious control, so why not the ultra-rich or outer space aliens?
As for the video's algorithmic trading as an entity of interest, yes, but algorithms do not exactly pick winners and losers, they front-run with HFT and manipulate the market by jumping in and out with volume that pushes the market in their direction. It is easy; anyone can do that with about five million and leverage, called a wash and rinse. Hedge funds do it all day long. No need to pick a winner - any old stock can be moved at will in either direction.
As for money, it is powerful but not simple. I'd not consider big money a simple explanation. Power - derived from money, ownership, and control - is the simple explanation, and that means the simplest explanation is that we are being controlled by outer space aliens. Right?
We need to now start asking, "What would an Ai do?" for everything.
For example, ask "What would an Ai do?" when stopped at a red light to get some insight. You will soon realize that we are living in an alien simulation. You will then see, rather obviously, that the alien Ai apparently calling the shots is a tiny black box inside a much bigger black box.
What I'm sayin' is that we're living inside a machine and that machine is inside our heads. Getting outside is a good way to stretch your legs.
Regional differences in reporting propensity are likely huge. The following was written in the context of surgery, but can also apply to VAERS reporting:
"It is an uncomfortable fact that a patient’s odds of undergoing surgery often depend more on where he lives than on his clinical circumstances."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211114/
We may very well have a situation where a HL/BB is given to a segment of the population that is more prone to AEs, within a region with high standards of reporting, an vice versa, true?
Many or most of the "hot lots" may simply appear to be more toxic because of the combination of reporting and age/risk factors associated with the terrain. The combined agent-terrain system perspective helps with almost every facet of medicine and biology.