WA and VIC lead the pack in data obfuscation and threat inflation (and unfortunately, people are buying it)
When the data don’t support the narrative, some fancy footwork is required.

WA Premier Mark McGowan was caught lying about the number of unvaccinated West Australians in hospital, which I posted about last week. WA Health now confirms that yes, they have been labelling all Unknown cases as Not Vaccinated the whole time. As detailed in my post below, the fine print disclaimer “includes unknown vaccination status” was added to WA Covid update reports in brackets after the Not Vaccinated category label from 10 June 2022 onwards.

The disclaimer was added due to a high volume of phone calls to the department asking whether Unknowns were being buried in the Not Vaccinated group. A good lesson that an old school public pressure campaign can result in government action (even if tiny).

This statement is characteristically unclear, but we can glean that Unknown cases are non-WA residents, and/or people who have not updated their Medicare address, and/or people who have been vaccinated overseas. Most significantly, the Unknown group includes vaccinated hospital admissions. Therefore, the combined Not Vaccinated group in WA Health report clearly includes people with 1 or more doses of vaccination.
If it seems that I’m labouring this, that’s because it’s a big lie with big implications. This tactic artificially inflates the rate of Not Vaccinated cases in Covid hospitalisations and deaths. In NSW last reported week, 0% of hospitalisations were 0 dosed, and, 20.5% were Unknown. Combine them together in a category titled Not Vaccinated and you get the headline:
1 in 5 hospitalisations Not Vaccinated!

Despite there being 0 unvaccinated hospitalisations.
And that’s exactly the kind of headline we’re seeing all over the country, week in, week out. The oligarchal nature of media ownership in Australia means that the key talking points in our major broadsheets and tabloids filter down, often word for word, into our regional publications too. Headlines like the below litter cafe tables from Denmark to Dampier.

These faulty stats are proffered to pressure the under-vaccinated (because the goalposts are shifting from ‘fully vaxxed’ to ‘up to date’) to get ever more doses as they roll out. Booster uptake is lagging Down Under, and one of the most effective ways to push uptake is the threat of hospitalisation or death, as we’ve seen from the pandemic playbook since vaccine roll out in February 2021.
The other very effective way to drive uptake is vaccine mandates, which Australian state and territory leaders wielded with iron fist while the myth of transmission prevention still had legs. Today, that myth hangs by a thread thanks to headlines like this:

Without claim to the prevention of transmission, all our leaders have to fall back on for justification of vaccine mandates is the common good argument: Mandates are justified so as to relieve the strain on our healthcare system.
(Never mind that we’ve had 2 years and 4 months to prepare for this. Never mind that there are willing and able healthcare workers who would love to return to work, but cannot due to mandates, or that billions of dollars were chucked at interventions that don’t work and newly built resilience centres that are sitting empty.)
Those who’ve been able to work over the past 12 months without limitation may not rub up against the effects of mandates in their day-to-day life, and so may not be aware of the full extent of the damage to livelihoods, mental health, healthcare systems and the economy that is still in play. Mandates are in place in many Australian industries and businesses, either by government directive or by discriminatory policies implemented by the businesses themselves.1
For mandates to maintain (and possibly be brought back in full force as new variants ramp up) by edict of corporation or of government, there must be popular support. And in the absence of evidence that mandates are reducing the spread of Covid (they’re clearly not), the only tool left in the kit is a blunt hammer to belt home the necessity of mandates to save our healthcare system. Everyone wants to support our beleaguered healthcare system. Many will even support the stripping of basic civil rights of anyone who might pose a threat to said healthcare system, by dint of getting sick from a virus that everyone is catching.
And so, governments and shilling media outlets must prove to the public, unequivocally, that booster uptake and mandates are necessary and justified.
Unfortunately, they can’t do this with the unadulterated data, so they adulterate it.
Readers of this Substack already know that the data do not support the message that more jabs leads to reduced strain on the healthcare system. NSW is the only state (as far as I’m aware) to publish hospitalisation rates by vaccine dosage from 0 through to 4+ in separate categories, and the data show the anti-narrative. More doses correlates with higher rates of hospitalisation, and those higher rates are increasing in margin week on week. 3 and 4+ dosed are also consistently overrepresented in NSW Covid deaths.

SOURCE
In WA, official reports show that the 64.4% of the population that has received 3 or more doses of Covid vaccine is making up 62-66% of hospital admissions every week. In Tasmania’s last reporting period, the 89.3% of the population that has received 2 or more doses (bizarrely, they don’t break out 2, 3, 4+ in the data) accounted for 76.6% of hospital admissions and 72.5% of ICU admissions due to Covid (as opposed to with Covid. Pretty sure Tasmania is the only state to make this distinction).2 The real story here is the incredibly high numbers of vaccinated and boosted Australians in hospital with Covid.

This trend has similarly been observed in Canada, the USA , Portugal, West Germany, The Netherlands, and various other highly vaccinated European countries.
What do you do when the data don’t support the narrative?

This brings us back to the tactic used by various governments including Western Australia and Victoria, whereby the 0 dose cohort are lumped in with Unknowns (including those vaccinated overseas and anyone who didn’t update Medicare when they moved house) in one big ol’ group called Not Vaccinated. Respective health departments disseminate punchy one-liners such as ‘25% of those in hospital are not vaccinated’, or ‘one in three Covid hospitalisations are not vaccinated’, and on a technicality, they avoid legal entanglement. The category is indeed called Not Vaccinated, despite including a potential multitude of vaccinated cases.
I’ve previously noted that with the use of that other trick of framing hospitalisation rates with eligible population vaccination rates instead of all population vaccination rates, government and media are painting a picture that is, unfortunately for us, fairly divorced from reality.
And then there’s the fact that in most state reports, key information is simply left out. It’s nigh impossible to review a data set that is missing chunks of data. An example of this is WA reports listing vaccination status for hospitalisations but not deaths or ICU, or Tasmanian reports breaking out 0 and 1 dose hospitalisations, but mixing the data for 2+ doses.

It is of concern to me that when trustworthy sources (government, legacy media) report false and misleading statistics, the general reader is inclined to take the misrepresentation as fact, to the point of denying all evidence (or possibility) of the contrary. Take John, who I found lurking in the comments thread under a WA Government post pushing Covid vaccines:

SOURCE
As for 4% figure (eligible unvaccinated population), this is misleading on two counts. First, to frame all population death statistics, we should use all population vaccination statistics. The all population percentage of unvaccinated Victorians is 13.7%. Second, these deaths occurred throughout the first half of the year. The proportion of the Victorian population that is 0 dosed will have changed over the course of this 6 month period. The journalist compared a cumulative 6 month figure against today’s vaccination rates.
I tried to engage John in a discussion of facts, but he proved a closed mind. And this really is the problem. Independent journalists, Substackers and Facebook commenters can pound the keyboard all we like, and it will make a dent. But John is representative of the large majority who still trust government, public health institutions and legacy media to tell the truth. As long as people like John eat up everything they’re fed, false and misleading though it may be, public support will prevail for bad and unjustifiable policies.
The question is, why the obfuscation in government record keeping and news media reporting? Why don’t WA and VIC simply record 0 doses in the manner that NSW and TAS do, and as states do for all other dose rates? Why don’t states make their data open source so that the public and relevant experts can assess their governments’ performance? If government officials are the public servants they purport to be, then they will make no bones about being accountable to the people who voted them into their nice offices and handsome salaries.
It is perhaps encouraging that WA Health and the like are resorting to such underhanded tactics in their handling and presentation of Covid data. It signals that the house of cards may well be about to collapse. And the sooner we get to the truth of things, the sooner we can commando crawl our way out of this hot mess.




1
Only last week, the 4th jab was mandated for employees of the Queensland Police Service aged over 50. A longtime acquaintance of mine who has worked in the WA justice system for more than a decade was served notice of termination last month for the reason of ‘failing to follow an order’, that order being to submit to an unecessary medical procedure. Hero to Zero is a collective of healthcare workers who want to work, but are not allowed to due to mandates. A swathe of big businesses including RAC, Bendigo Bank and BHP have opted to keep vaccination requirements in place even though the government no longer requires them to do so.

2
I have not yet dug into Tasmanian data in detail (due only to time constraints) but I think it’s important to note that while Tasmania does show high rates of hopsitalisation for the 2+ dosed cohort, it also shows disproportionately high rates of hospitalisation for the 0 dosed cohort. I don’t have a working hypothesis for the disparity between TAS and NSW as yet. If anyone has an educated opinion on this, I’d love to hear it in the comments. At the very least, what the Australian data show at this point in time is that the hypothesis that vaccines prevent hospitalisation (and hence, strain on the healthcare system) is not supported by the 2+ dosed hospitalisation data. The 0 dosed data is inconclusive due to obfuscation in state reporting, and due to showing conversely underrepresentation (NSW) and overrepresentation (TAS) in the states that do not obfuscate the data.

3
Though John did not differentiate between Unvaccinated and Unknowns, the journalist notes that, “The department said that people whose vaccination status was categorised as "unknown" until it's established, usually make up about 3 per cent of deaths.” I would like to know how the department knows this, and if they know it, why don’t they report Unvaccinated and Unknown as separate line items.

​BONUS CONTENT

How to Lie with Statistic, NSW edition: NSW might be the most transparent state when it comes to Surveillance Reporting, but they’ve got plenty of other tricks up their sleeve. See the below from Dr Ah Kahn Syed for more lying with statistics (as if we haven’t had enough of it already):

First take: that’s a lot of 4+ dosed people in hospital. And the general trend indicates that the rate of 4+ dosed hospitalisations is increasing.
With the extra data provided in this set, I was able to adjust my graphs from last week to compare hospitalisations against entire population vaccination status, and add a 4+ dose column. Adding in week 26, hospitalisations compared to vaccination status is looking like this:

While the 0 dose group includes all children under 5 and likely a proportion of healthy, younger adults, the 4+ dose group is more likely to comprise of adults over 65 and the immunocompromised, as ATAGI restricted 4th and 5th doses to these groups (until adjusting their advice at the end of last week). This might go some way to explaining why the 0 dose group is so underrepresented in hospitalisations and the 4+ dose overrepresented, but it cannot cover for the fact that the vaccines are supposed to make up the difference.

Since late January 2022, when health bodies and mainstream media started to back away from the notion that the vaccines prevented transmission due to the obvious fact that they don’t, a new catch-cry sounded from ministerial and health body press releases. Reverberating across news sites, social media, and lunch room chat -
The vaccines prevent severe illness and death. It’s important to get vaccinated to ease the burden on the healthcare system.

Earlier this year, while picnicking at the Swan River in Perth, I overheard a group discussing whether unvaccinated people ought to pay their own healthcare costs, or even be denied a hospital bed as penalty for refusing the Covid vaccines. Social media users declared that mandates were necessary and fair, so as to prevent unvaccinated people from, “clogging up the healthcare system.” NSW health minister Brad Hazzard urged the unvaccinated population to, “give a damn about someone other than yourself,” stating that unvaccinated people were, “six times more likely to end up in hospital and 13 times more likely to end up in ICU."

Giving the benefit of the doubt, let’s assume that everyone really believed what they were saying. ATAGI, health ministers, journalists, picnickers. Let us suppose that they were operating according to the best information they had at the time.
But as the information changes, so too should the advice.
Prevailing health advice took a sharp turn away from get vaccinated to prevent infection and transmission and veered hard towards get vaccinated to ease the burden on the healthcare system when, despite the availability of clinical trial evidence to justify the former statement, real world data consistently and unequivocally showed it to be untrue.
​
In 6 weeks of NSW data we cannot claim evidence that the statement get vaccinated to ease the burden on the healthcare system is untrue everywhere and all the time, but it does demonstrate that it is untrue in NSW over the past 6 weeks.
Not only does it appear that the vaccines have failed to prevent severe illness in the NSW population over this time, they are inversely correlated with poor outcomes as the doses increase. NSW hospitals are jammed with 3 and 4+ dose recipients. This should pique the interest of journalists all over the country.

The 3 dose group make up 53.3% of Covid deaths but only 42.9% of the NSW population. The 4+ dose group accounts for 13% of deaths, yet only 9.5% of the NSW population have received 4+ doses. The 0 dose group is also overrepresented by a slim margin: 14% of deaths vs. 13.2% of the total NSW population.
​
Now, deaths is where the data gets tricksy. Two things to cover here:

1. The notes section (p. 4) of the weekly surveillance reports is illuminating. For example, in week 26, we learn that 52 of the total 116 deaths were aged care residents, and that only 8 of the deaths were attributed to people under the age of 65. 7 of these 8 had comorbidities, which leaves 1 person under the age of 65 who died of Covid and Covid only (sadly, an infant). Of the 8 people under 65 who died, 3 were unvaccinated (including the infant), 4 had received 2 doses and 1 had received 3 doses. The fact that the majority of the younger (under 65) people who died were also vaccinated might suggest that the poor vaccine efficacy we see in the (likely) older 4+ dose group is playing out in younger groups also. It at least bears investigating.
2. Dr Ah Khan Syed makes the case that NSW has manipulated their vaccine data to falsely show 0 dose deaths to be higher than they really are.

On its face it sounds like a long shot. Surely not in Australia. The government just wouldn’t do that. But, it seems that maybe they would. Dr Syed tracks some strange and shifty sleights of hand by NSW Health in their data reporting. These tricks include inexplicably conflating the 0 dose and Unknown categories between epidemiological weeks 8-20, thus confusing efforts to track hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status. The aforementioned helpful reader has an FOIR in progress which will hopefully shed light on the decision making process behind this. In week 21 the reports return to the original format of separating out the 0 dose group from the Unknown group.

This is where it gets interesting. Dr Syed notes that, with the reintroduction of the 0 dose / Unknown separation, the 0 dose death rate suddenly spikes in relation to hospitalisation rates. Dr Syed’s graph below illustrates the point.


An anomaly is not proof of data fixing, but taken together with the strange trick of blending 0 dose and Unknown data, and with the NSW government’s apparent disinterest in the fact that their own data do not support their public position at this time, I believe it is within the bounds of reason to be suspicious of NSW Health’s reporting of deaths in the 0 dose group.

Is this science? Or is this politics?

In an opinion piece for the Financial Review, former federal deputy chief medical officer Nick Coatsworth notes that, as the Covid environment has changed, so should government and business response adjust to the new conditions. Coatsworth quotes Australia’s foremost infectious disease bioethicist Zeb Jamrozik:
“There are worrying signs that current vaccine policies, rather than being science-based, are being driven by socio-political attitudes that reinforce segregation, stigmatisation and polarisation …”
​
If our leaders and institutions are committed to following the science, we will see them continue to assess the information as it arises and adjust their policies and rhetoric accordingly. If our leaders are committed to pushing ideological, financial or other agendas, we can expect to see dogma in place of reason, policies based on outdated information, and public health strategies that benefit large corporations at the expense of the people. Play on.

By : Robyn Chuter 
https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/the-adhd-scam
​
Is ADHD a biologically-based neurodevelopmental disorder or the poster-child for psychiatric fraud?
As I’ve mentioned in previous articles, psychiatry has a validity problem. In science, validity refers to the extent to which a concept, conclusion or measurement is well-founded and likely corresponds accurately to the real world. If an experiment is valid, its results really do measure the concept being tested. If a diagnosis is valid, it is grounded in biological reality1.
But as even the former director of the US National Institutes for Mental Health (NIMH), Thomas Insel, admitted back in 2013, psychiatric diagnoses suffer from a “lack of validity”.
Insel set the science cat among the pharmaceutical-medical-industrial complex pigeons by announcing that NIMH – the largest funder of research on “mental illness” in the world – would be “re-orienting its research away from DSM categories” because of this lack of validity.
The DSM, or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, is often described as the Bible of the field of psychiatry. As Insel pointed out, however, “it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each.”
​
The problem Insel identified is that the definitions of all these supposed mental and psychological disorders are based on symptoms, descriptions and markers of conditions – in other words, they’re vague and highly subjective:
“Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever. Indeed, symptom-based diagnosis, once common in other areas of medicine, has been largely replaced in the past half century as we have understood that symptoms alone rarely indicate the best choice of treatment. Patients with mental disorders deserve better.”

Psychiatry in Crisis! Mental Health Director Rejects Psychiatric “Bible” and Replaces With Nothing
Insel announced that NIMH would be replacing the DSM with “Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)”, which define mental disorders not through lists of signs and symptoms but instead using more specific genetic, neural and cognitive data.
However, he then went on to admit that “we cannot design a system based on biomarkers or cognitive performance because we lack the data” [emphasis added].

The significance of Insel’s statements on the lack of objective evidence for so-called mental illnesses and disorders cannot be overstated. It reveals the entire field of psychiatry, and the psychopharmacology that has been its therapeutic mainstay since the 1950s, to be a giant fraud. Insel was essentially admitting not only that psychiatric diagnoses lacked validity, but that, therefore, there was no biologically valid theoretical basis for the use of psychiatric drugs.

So, did the replacement of DSM labels with RDoC generate an explosion of knowledge on the biological basis of “mental illness”, resulting in greatly enhanced diagnostic accuracy and an explosion of evidence-based, rational treatments? Hell, no. Psychiatry today is the same shell game as it ever was.
Let’s take attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as an example.
According to psychiatrists, ADHD is “a neuro-developmental disorder, characterised by developmentally inappropriate levels of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsiveness”. Remarkably, given that children follow the same neurodevelopmental trajectory no matter where they are born, the global prevalence of ADHD varies widely, from 2 per cent to 7 per cent. In the US, roughly 9 per cent of children have been “diagnosed” with ADHD at some point in their lives.
Here are the diagnostic criteria for this supposed condition, according to the DSM-V:
​

1. Inattention: Six or more symptoms of inattention for children up to age 16 years, or five or more for adolescents age 17 years and older and adults; symptoms of inattention have been present for at least 6 months, and they are inappropriate for developmental level:
   • Often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, at work, or with other activities.
   • Often has trouble holding attention on tasks or play activities.
   • Often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly.
   • Often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (e.g., loses focus, side-tracked).
   • Often has trouble organizing tasks and activities.
   • Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to do tasks that require mental effort over a long period of time (such as schoolwork or homework).
   • Often loses things necessary for tasks and activities (e.g. school materials, pencils, books, tools, wallets, keys, paperwork, eyeglasses, mobile telephones).
   • Is often easily distracted
   • Is often forgetful in daily activities.
2. Hyperactivity and Impulsivity: Six or more symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity for children up to age 16 years, or five or more for adolescents age 17 years and older and adults; symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity have been present for at least 6 months to an extent that is disruptive and inappropriate for the person’s developmental level:
   • Often fidgets with or taps hands or feet, or squirms in seat.
   • Often leaves seat in situations when remaining seated is expected.
   • Often runs about or climbs in situations where it is not appropriate (adolescents or adults may be limited to feeling restless).
   • Often unable to play or take part in leisure activities quietly.
   • Is often “on the go” acting as if “driven by a motor”.
   • Often talks excessively.
   • Often blurts out an answer before a question has been completed.
   • Often has trouble waiting their turn.
   • Often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., butts into conversations or games)

Do these sound like symptoms of a “neurodevelopmental disorder” to you, or a litany of parents’ and teachers’ complaints about quintessentially childish characteristics that they find inconvenient, irritating and disruptive?
Well, here’s a clue:

The youngest children in the class are the most likely to be diagnosed with ADHDBuilding on previous studies that found that children who were the youngest in their school year had higher rates of diagnosis with ADHD, researchers analysed data from over a million school children in Scotland and Wales.

These two countries within the UK have different birthday cut-offs for school entry (1st March for Scotland vs 1st September for Wales) and different policies for holding back children whose birthdays fall within the eligibility range for school entry, but are considered too developmentally immature to start school. Scottish children are ten times more likely than Welsh children to be held back for a year if they would otherwise be among the youngest in the year.
Hence, whilst the prevalence of diagnosed ADHD in Welsh schoolchildren was lowest in the children who were the oldest in their school year, and highest in the youngest children, in Scotland, “the prevalence of ADHD increased from the oldest quartile to the second youngest, but then fell in the youngest quartile”:

By - Robyn Chuter 
https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/covid-19-injections-are-messing-with

In Part 1 of this series, I summarised the four major ways in which COVID-19 injections have interfered with the complex interactions between SARS-CoV-2 and the human immune system, then zoomed in on the first problem: the narrow and short-lived immune response that they generate.
In Part 2 I laid out the evidence that the injections are causing people to become susceptible to repeated infection, most likely through the mechanism of ‘original antigenic sin’, otherwise known as the Hoskins effect and immune imprinting.
And in Part 3, I described the consequences to individuals of the inability to clear viral infection that results from a limited and fixated immune response to SARS-CoV-2.
Finally, in Part 4 I will set what has been discussed in the previous posts into the current global context, explaining why we now have a parade of immune escape variants of SARS-CoV-2 that are turning COVID-19 into the endless pandemic.

​Problem #4. COVID-19 injections prevent highly-injected populations from attaining herd immunity and instead select for highly transmissible and (eventually) virulent variants

Let’s start by defining our terms. “Herd immunity” or “community immunity” refers to a state in which a sufficiently large proportion of a population has become immune to a particular infectious disease to prevent widespread transmission of the infectious agent. Herd immunity provides protection against infection to those who have not yet become immune to the disease.

The term “herd immunity” was coined by A. W. Hedrich, after meticulous analysis of the epidemiology of measles in Baltimore from 1900-1931. Hedrich calculated that when more than 55 per cent of children under 15 years of age had become immune to measles via contracting and surviving the infection, measles epidemics ceased. By the end of an epidemic, 30-35 per cent of children under 15 remained susceptible (non-immune).
With only isolated cases of measles occurring, the proportion of non-immune children gradually increased; when it reached 45-50 per cent of children under 15, another measles epidemic was triggered.
​
Hence, natural measles occurs in waves or cycles of epidemics, with the interval between cycles determined by how long it takes for the pool of ‘susceptibles’ to increase to the level required to trigger an epidemic – 2-3 years in large urban centres.
Despite its origins as a description of a phenomenon induced by the development of natural immunity, the term “herd immunity” has been hijacked by the medical-pharmaceutical-industrial complex which promotes vaccination as the sole means of eradicating infectious diseases (despite abundant evidence that old-fashioned public health interventions such as providing clean water and sewage disposal, adequate nutrition and decent housing largely eradicated the scourge of infectious disease from Westernised countries, long before vaccination campaigns began).
This hijacking reached its zenith (or nadir, depending on how you look at it) in December 2020, when the World Health Organisation (WHO) changed the definition of herd immunity on its website, just before the global roll-out of COVID-19 injections began.

Here’s WHO’s definition of herd immunity from its Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Serology, antibodies and immunity page, up until 12 November 2020:

​And here’s the version that appeared on 13 November 2020:

But as WHO knew perfectly well, none of the clinical trials for COVID-19 injections were set up to ascertain whether the experimental substances prevented infection or transmission, and the definition of “COVID-19” used in these trials was incredibly lax: having even one mild symptom – such as a headache or a cough – along with a positive RT-PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2, qualified participants as having the “disease” of COVID-19. Peter Doshi had penned a stinging editorial on the rank inadequacy of these trials in The BMJ on 21 October 2020, more than two months before the WHO’s weasel-worded second update to its definition of herd immunity.
​
So how’s that “vaccine”-induced herd immunity to COVID-19 coming along? Well, the triumphant tone of the vaccine promoters has become somewhat more muted of late.
Just last November, Associate Professor James Trauer, who heads the Epidemiological Modelling Unit for the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at Monash University, gushed that
“New South Wales is probably the best example of a part of Australia that’s close to herd immunity… They’ve made a huge difference to the epidemic through vaccination, clearly, and that’s been the major thing that’s turned it around in that state. Maybe it’s not quite herd immunity, but it’s pretty close… We’re mostly seeing daily death numbers in the single digits across the country, which is so much better than other countries have managed.”
Is the prospect of herd immunity still alive in Australia?
… and then we woke up and smelt the COVID coffee:

It’s not just the failure to prevent infection and transmission that has shaken the vaccine true believers out of their herd immunity fever dream. As mentioned in Part 3, by impeding both the innate and acquired arms of the immune system, COVID-19 injections favour the emergence of versions of SARS-CoV-2 that are highly resistant to the incomplete and inflexible immune response that they generate.

And then, as injected people exhale, infectious aerosols containing these immune escape variants are spewed from deep in their lungs, out into the air. In indoor settings with inadequate ventilation and/or low humidity, these aerosols can remain suspended for hours, causing new infections at both short and long ranges.
As also discussed in Part 3, COVID-19 injections impair the clearance of SARS-CoV-2, setting the scene for extended viral replication and the development of many more mutations in the virus’ genetic code, and increasing the probability of variants with tropism for the lung.

According to Muller’s ratchet, ordinarily, mutations that increase transmission are more favourable to the propagation of respiratory viruses than mutations that increase virulence (disease severity). Simply put, a virus that leaves its host well enough to mix with others has a greater chance of spreading itself around than one that renders its host bed-ridden.
However, a virus that doesn’t trigger a robust immune response but does cause extensive shedding of infectious virus can overcome Muller’s ratchet, becoming both highly infectious and – eventually, as it continuously mutates inside its host’s body – highly virulent.

Belgian vaccinologist, Geert Vanden Bossche has described in detail the dire consequences of repeated booster shots on virus-immune system interaction, which may eventually pressure SARS-CoV-2 to completely break through adaptive immune defence. The likely result is antibody-dependent enhancement, the disastrous amplification of infection by injection-induced non-neutralising antibodies, which plagued earlier attempts to develop vaccines against coronaviruses.
According to Vanden Bossche,

“Asymptomatic vaccinees abundantly spread highly infectious SC-2 [SARS-CoV-2] immune escape variants as well as other highly infectious, immunogenically related viruses to other parts of the population. Consequently, in a highly vaccinated, well-mixed population, vaccinees with a mature and healthy innate immune system are now to be considered an asymptomatic reservoir for transmission of new, highly infectious SC-2 immune escape variants and other highly infectious diseases to the remainder of the population.”
Immuno-epidemiologic ramifications of the C-19 mass vaccination experiment: Individual and global health consequences
Remind we, are we seeing immune escape variants? Yes, we are:
“Importantly, BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 display stronger neutralization evasion than BA.2 against the plasma from 3-dose vaccination and, most strikingly, from post-vaccination BA.1 infections… post-vaccination BA.1 infection mainly recalls wildtype-induced humoral memory. The resulting elicited antibodies could neutralize both wildtype and BA.1 and are enriched on non-ACE2-competing epitopes. However, most of these cross-reactive NAbs are heavily escaped by L452Q, L452R and F486V.”
​
BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 escape antibodies elicited by Omicron infection
Or, in English, the latest Omicron variants have acquired mutations that help them dodge antibodies induced by the injections. And when people get infected with Omicron after they’ve taken their shots, their immune system churns out antibodies that are matched to the original, now long-extinct Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2. These antibodies have some capability of neutralising the original Omicron but not the spin-offs – precisely because the injections are driving the virus to mutate at an ever-faster pace.
“Our data show that BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 substantially escape NAbs [neutralising antibodies] induced by both vaccination and infection. Moreover, BA.4/BA.5 NAb titers, and to lesser extent BA.2.12.1 NAb titers, were lower than BA.1 and BA.2 NAb titers, suggesting that the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has continued to evolve with increasing neutralization escape.”
Neutralization Escape by the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variants BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5
Oh yeah, and variant-specific boosters won’t help (and will probably make the situation worse):
“Together, our results indicate that Omicron may evolve mutations to evade the humoral immunity elicited by BA.1 infection, suggesting that BA.1-derived vaccine boosters may not achieve broad-spectrum protection against new Omicron variants.”
BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 escape antibodies elicited by Omicron infection

​OK, so if Vanden Bossche is correct, we should expect greater spread of the most highly transmissible immune escape variants in populations with higher rates of injection. Like this, perhaps?

The green lines were drawn in by the German academic who goes by the nom de plume Eugyppius; they mark the boundaries of the old German Democratic Republic – that is, communist East Germany – which was still a thing when I studied German in high school (the Berlin wall fell in my final year). Oddly enough, people who’ve lived under Communism are a tad suspicious of authority, as Eugyppius indicates:

“East Germans have direct experience with government propaganda, and have proven more resistent (sic) to the vaccination campaign than Westerners. Their reward, after being much maligned by state media, is now higher levels of natural immunity and lower rates of BA.5 infection, which appears to prefer vaccinated populations.”
Omicron BA.5 Prefers Hypervaccinated Masking West Germans, Avoids the Former DDR
You can also read Eugyppius’ explication of the progression of both the pandemic and the injection campaigns in the former West and East Germany here, and his pungent response to the lamestream media sock puppets’ (yep, they have them in Germany too) attempt to “debunk” him here.

Back to Vanden Bossche:
“The resulting enhanced viral transmission rate is likely to ignite new pandemics, not only of new, highly infectious, and antigenically shifted SC-2 variants (typically labeled as ‘variants of concern’) but also of avian influenza virus and monkeypox virus.”
Immuno-epidemiologic ramifications of the C-19 mass vaccination experiment: Individual and global health consequences
Hmmm, so maybe, perhaps, just possibly we might see something kinda, sorta, just vaguely like Australia’s current horror flu season?
According to The Guardian,
“Australia has had its worst May on record when it comes to flu cases… The national disease surveillance system reported about 65,770 confirmed influenza cases in May – more than double the month’s previous record, which was set in 2019.
As of 5 June, the national surveillance system had this year received nearly 88,000 reports of flu cases – more than 47,800 of them, diagnosed in the previous fortnight.
The system was notified of 27 flu-related deaths in the year to date, and more than 730 people were reported as admitted to hospital because of influenza since April. Of those hospital admissions, about 6% went directly to intensive care.”
Australia’s monthly flu cases more than doubled previous record in May
(Side note: Of course, the Bill Gates-funded Guardian pushes influenza vaccination as the solution to this unfolding disaster, despite the Cochrane review concluding that it reduces the absolute risk of influenza in healthy adults by 1 per cent and likely has “little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations”.

In addition, a study examining the shedding of infectious influenza virus in the exhaled breath of flu patients found that “fine-aerosol viral RNA was also positively associated with having influenza vaccination for both the current and prior season.” That is, people who had taken both last season’s and the current season’s flu jab shed more highly infectious virus particles in their breath than those who had not been vaccinated. The real superspreaders are those who obediently line up for their flu shot every year.)

Vanden Bossche goes on to propose that
“As currently circulating Omicron (sub)variants become more and more resistant to potentially virulence-neutralizing vaccinal Abs… infection by these variants will rapidly become highly virulent in vaccinees, but not in the unvaccinated.”  
Immuno-epidemiologic ramifications of the C-19 mass vaccination experiment: Individual and global health consequences
If Vanden Bossche’s hypothesis is correct, here’s what we can expect to see:
“As the second viral immune escape event (enabling ADED [antibody-dependent enhanced disease]) does not affect the unvaccinated, the proportion between vaccinated and unvaccinated people needing hospitalization because of severe C-19 disease is expected to rise rapidly in the age group between 10 and 60 years… This will be the most sensitive, and hence, first measurable signal of the evolution of SC-2 toward an infectious behavior that will be responsible for initiating a massive ADED-mediated incidence of severe disease and hospitalization in the overall vaccinated part of the population.”
Immuno-epidemiologic ramifications of the C-19 mass vaccination experiment: Individual and global health consequences
And then:
​
“The case fatality rate in the vaccinated population will rapidly and dramatically increase, first in the vaccinated elderly (+ the vulnerable) and soon thereafter also in the rest of the vaccinated population.”
Immuno-epidemiologic ramifications of the C-19 mass vaccination experiment: Individual and global health consequences
Hmmm, rising hospitalisation and death rates in highly injected populations – you mean as highly injected as this?

Let’s recap. To fulfil Geert Vanden Bossche’s prophecy of COVIDoom, we would have to be observing immune escape variants of SARS-CoV-2 proliferating and concentrating in highly-injected populations, developing mutations that facilitate greater and greater capacity to evade injection-induced antibodies, until they eventually break Muller’s ratchet and become both infectious and virulent. At this point we would see not only rising hospitalisation and death rates from COVID-19, but from other infectious diseases such as influenza.

What can be done to avert this impending catastrophe?

• Stop jabbing now. If you’ve already had one, or two, or three or (god forbid) four, stop. If you haven’t had any yet, don’t even think about it (and if you’re tempted by Novavax because “it’s not like the others”, read this first). As for jabbing your kids, I don’t mean to be rude, but you’d have to be out of your freakin’ mind.
  
• If you have already had a COVID-19 injection, familiarise yourself with evidence-based prevention and early treatment protocols (these are the ones I recommend) and make sure you have everything you need on hand. Ditto if you’re unjabbed but have loved ones who are – they may think you’re a tinfoil hat-wearing antivaxxer conspiracy theorist now, but they might just thank you later.
  

• Support your immune system’s ability to defend you against infectious disease by taking responsibility for your own health. It’s not your doctor’s job to keep you healthy, it’s yours. Delegating the responsibilities of adulthood to ‘authorities’ is how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place. If we’re ever going to extricate ourselves from it, we all have to grow up and stop making excuses for why we eat crap, sit on our butts all day staring at our devices, and let our kids be propagandised by ideologically possessed muppets (no offence meant to the original Muppets, whom I dearly love). I have a library of fully-referenced articles on cultivating healthy immune function here; you might like to start with Nutrition and your immune system. Oh, and get outside too.
• ​
  

Summing upThe COVID-19 injection program has been an unmitigated disaster. It has interfered with the development of robust, broad and durable immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in individuals and sabotaged the development of herd immunity. It has thrown a giant monkey wrench into the complex interrelationship between virus and host, sparking an evolutionary arms race in which what should have been a low-consequence flu-like respiratory virus is now poised to break Muller’s ratchet and become both highly transmissible and highly virulent.
There are many things we need to learn from this dark episode in human history, but the most important of them can be summed up in this classic number from one of my favourite bands:

​https://odysee.com/@devilsnight:6/The-Who-Won't-Get-Fooled-Again:6

And now the outcome data: